Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering together. Rejecting God is covered by the blood of Christ.
Here we go!
Btw Taxidev, thanks for posting here. Im at a point where i am saying Dan is wrong, but Im learning much from the topic. Thanks!
I’m disqualifying myself from contributing to this thread on 2 counts: I’ve never really looked into this and also not sure if I am even saved...but in keen interest I do look forward to the input of others.
For the benefit of everyone that wasn't in the original discussion but wants to join this one, I will mention here the basic idea that brought this about.
Someone wrote a paper, 114 pages worth, with the premise that "once saved always saved" isn't correct.
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.
Rocky responded with this:
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.
To which I replied:
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.
Now you are all pretty much caught up.
If you want to see more details, it is posted in "Another STFI split...an offshoot of an offshoot." I think it begins on page 2.
For the benefit of everyone that wasn't in the original discussion but wants to join this one, I will mention here the basic idea that brought this about.
Someone wrote a paper, 114 pages worth, with the premise that "once saved always saved" isn't correct.
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.
Rocky responded with this:
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.
To which I replied:
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.
Now you are all pretty much caught up.
If you want to see more details, it is posted in "Another STFI split...an offshoot of an offshoot." I think it begins on page 2.
Just making the statement (that I highlighted in bold) does not constitute even an acknowledgment that you understand my point.
OTOH, I have asked you pertinent questions and posed hypothetical situations that directly go to the heart of your point.
As I said in the STFI forum, that while you are not allegedly "100% convinced" on Dan's claims, you have ONLY commented in such a way that you are, in fact, 100% convinced.
If you were not, you would at least be open to discussion on the issues I presented to you.
I said more in the other forum.
I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest over convoluted meanings of scripture verses listed in whatever order and comparing the meanings of Greek or Hebrew words.
I have presented feedback based on real life experiences that demonstrate the sociological and "organized religion" ramifications of the claims at issue. Take them or leave them. I have no need to have the last word on the subject.
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.
So salvation is conditional. My works, or rejection of this special sin cannot be undone. If i continue in salvatiion then im saved. Ok but Romans makes the condition that all ( both Jew and GENTILE) are under sin.
Just making the statement (that I highlighted in bold) does not constitute even an acknowledgment that you understand my point.
Yes, your point is in regards to a ministry setting, a social setting, an environment that will enable someone to manipulate others, the social dynamics. You may very well be correct about that, but that is speculation. My point is that this paper from Dan has nothing in it regarding any of that, but you keep trying to make it so. His paper is solely an analysis of "once saved always saved" as compared with "continuance in faith". And Dan is of the opinion that the latter is the correct one.
So the reason I haven't asked you any questions regarding your point is that it isn't what Dan's paper is about.
Now, from the other thread, you make this statement: First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical.
How is that OBVIOUSLY? I don't see any allegory or metaphor. On the contrary, it seems pretty straight forward to me.
Then you ask: Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean?
Are you referring to me stating that continuing in God's goodness is walking in Love? If that's not what it is, then what is?
And if it is works, as you seem to agree, it is after the fact of being saved. So it isn't a condition of being saved, only a condition of remaining saved.
"Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation." This statement I just don't understand in the context of the discussion. Where did free will come into this? Besides, we have the free will to build our lives up or tear our lives down. All through the bible we see action/consequence, sometimes on the positive side and sometimes on the negative side.
"But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living."
Rocky, I don't doubt you have some great understanding of the Word, and are probably much more experienced than I with how easy it is to manipulate people in a religious setting. But Dan's paper and my own research have nothing to do with functioning in a church. Why you insist on making it about that is beyond me, and is the reason I asked if you would like to read the paper yourself. You are criticizing a document that you haven't even looked at, and I find that pretty arrogant.
"It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so."
I have tried to discuss the issue, but you keep making it about something else. And I can only guess that it's because of some terrible ordeal you experienced. But Dan's paper has nothing to do with that, and that's why my responses to you aren't satisfying you. I have been trying to discuss his findings, and that's it. But you keep inferring some form of manipulation and social injustice.
So, please, let me know what I am not seeing clearly, or even completely missing.
If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering together.
OldSkool, thanks for the compliment.
I have read the bible from cover to cover only once. Since that time, I have read sections and, I'm sorry to say, haven't read the entire thing again. So, it's very possible the "loss of reward at the gathering together" is in there, but I don't know where. Do you?
And Dan might be wrong, but I just don't know for sure at the moment. I'm currently leaning in his direction based on things I had been seeing for the past few years, most of which I posted above.
Yes, your point is in regards to a ministry setting, a social setting, an environment that will enable someone to manipulate others, the social dynamics. You may very well be correct about that, but that is speculation. My point is that this paper from Dan has nothing in it regarding any of that, but you keep trying to make it so. His paper is solely an analysis of "once saved always saved" as compared with "continuance in faith". And Dan is of the opinion that the latter is the correct one.
So the reason I haven't asked you any questions regarding your point is that it isn't what Dan's paper is about.
Now, from the other thread, you make this statement: First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical.
How is that OBVIOUSLY? I don't see any allegory or metaphor. On the contrary, it seems pretty straight forward to me.
Then you ask: Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean?
Are you referring to me stating that continuing in God's goodness is walking in Love? If that's not what it is, then what is?
And if it is works, as you seem to agree, it is after the fact of being saved. So it isn't a condition of being saved, only a condition of remaining saved.
"Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation." This statement I just don't understand in the context of the discussion. Where did free will come into this? Besides, we have the free will to build our lives up or tear our lives down. All through the bible we see action/consequence, sometimes on the positive side and sometimes on the negative side.
"But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living."
Rocky, I don't doubt you have some great understanding of the Word, and are probably much more experienced than I with how easy it is to manipulate people in a religious setting. But Dan's paper and my own research have nothing to do with functioning in a church. Why you insist on making it about that is beyond me, and is the reason I asked if you would like to read the paper yourself. You are criticizing a document that you haven't even looked at, and I find that pretty arrogant.
"It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so."
I have tried to discuss the issue, but you keep making it about something else. And I can only guess that it's because of some terrible ordeal you experienced. But Dan's paper has nothing to do with that, and that's why my responses to you aren't satisfying you. I have been trying to discuss his findings, and that's it. But you keep inferring some form of manipulation and social injustice.
So, please, let me know what I am not seeing clearly, or even completely missing.
You're not seeing the underlying issue that is an unavoidable ramification of the doctrine you propose.
I am not criticizing Dan's paper, or rather the minutia he obviously spent untold hours figuring out.
I am criticizing the concept of whether or not it is possible to determine God's will by convoluting scriptures and conflating behavioral concepts.
I will not engage on the minutia of Dan's paper. I think the entire notion is rubbish and not worth the effort.
Decades ago, well after I left the alleged "household of God" as Wierwille and Martindale loved to call their ministry, I started examining the concept of critical thinking.
Among the things I learned was that it's all bull$hit if you're not addressing the underlying issues. From the linked article in the Harvard Business Review,
"The example is like many we’ve seen: Someone in the bowels of the organization is assigned to fix a very specific, near-term problem. But because the firm doesn’t employ a rigorous process for understanding the dimensions of the problem, leaders miss an opportunity to address underlying strategic issues.
I appreciate the effort you made to communicate whether or not you understood my point.
Here's what I understand you to have meant: you think that my effort to get at the underlying, fundamental issues is irrelevant.
By all means, if I didn't get the gist correctly, please clarify.
This is not a matter of whether I "know the Word" better than you or anyone else.
You're not seeing the underlying issue that is an unavoidable ramification of the doctrine you propose.
An underlying issue can't be a ramification, but it could be the cause. So, no, I guess I really don't understand what you are trying to say.
Now, whether the underlying issue is relevant or not, is there any way of actually knowing what that issue is, when all we have is a long-winded document on the two sides of thought regarding salvation? We could speculate, but what good is that, really?
1 hour ago, Rocky said:
I am criticizing the concept of whether or not it is possible to determine God's will by convoluting scriptures and conflating behavioral concepts.
So, then, on what are you basing your stance on salvation?
An underlying issue can't be a ramification, but it could be the cause. So, no, I guess I really don't understand what you are trying to say.
Now, whether the underlying issue is relevant or not, is there any way of actually knowing what that issue is, when all we have is a long-winded document on the two sides of thought regarding salvation? We could speculate, but what good is that, really?
So, then, on what are you basing your stance on salvation?
I failed to correct you when you said earlier that I was only speculating. I was not and am not. For that failure, I apologize.
The argument on "once saved, always saved" was long ago settled.
If you're asking how or why I believe Dan's paper is nonsense, it's because I believe in a just, merciful God who, if He's interested in having believers fellowship together in groups at all, precludes social structures that can only lead to oppressive authoritarian cults.
That's not speculation.
IF I were to engage in debate over a convoluted list of bible verses and comparison of the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words, THAT would be speculation because I'm not qualified to speak on that subject. And frankly, based on the inferences (some worded as conclusions) that you made about the subject of Dan's paper and the scriptures you cited, I think you probably overestimated your capacity to speak authoritatively on the subject also.
I have read the bible from cover to cover only once. Since that time, I have read sections and, I'm sorry to say, haven't read the entire thing again. So, it's very possible the "loss of reward at the gathering together" is in there, but I don't know where. Do you?
1 corinthinans 311-15
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
If you're asking how or why I believe Dan's paper is nonsense, it's because I believe in a just, merciful God who, if He's interested in having believers fellowship together in groups at all, precludes social structures that can only lead to oppressive authoritarian cults.
This is a very interesting point, though disjointed.
I agree that our fellowship with others mustn't be oppressive nor authoritarian. We have one authority, God, and one head of the body to which we all - presumably - belong, Jesus Christ. No other authority is needed. I see that in the first Christian church in Acts, which had apostles, prophets, evengelists, pastors and teachers. That list very plainly doesn't include rulers.
But I don't see what that has to do with Dan's paper. Can you explain that connection?
His paper is solely an analysis of "once saved always saved" as compared with "continuance in faith". And Dan is of the opinion that the latter is the correct one.
VPW's PFAL class also did not agree with "once saved always saved". He mentioned that specifically in the class. Then he covered the verse I Peter 1:23
Dan's paper fails to handle the basic verses in PFAL on the topic. And he started up his own 501c with a donation page on the internet for people who are impressed with someone going on and on for over a hundred pages while not being thorough. I'm not impressed.
Here's an interesting write-up of commentary on I Peter 1:23 which really digs down into the core of this issue. Also, it doesn't re-invent the wheel and incorporates feedback from other vital members of the body of Christ, none of which who have ever heard of Victor Paul Wierwille.
VPW's PFAL class also did not agree with "once saved always saved". He mentioned that specifically in the class.
Actually, it did, by way if implication. VPW led the students into drawing an unspoken conclusion and then said, "I didn't say it, you did.". It's a backhanded way of making a statement... the "nudge, nudge- wink, wink" approach.
This tied in nicely with the appeal of speaking in tongues. "It's proof in the senses realm, etc."
Actually, it did, by way if implication. VPW led the students into drawing an unspoken conclusion and then said, "I didn't say it, you did.". It's a backhanded way of making a statement... the "nudge, nudge- wink, wink" approach.
This tied in nicely with the appeal of speaking in tongues. "It's proof in the senses realm, etc."
Interesting article, but it doesn't actually address what's in Dan's paper, at least not from what I have seen of it already.
Which is exactly what I was pointing out - the exegetical commentary I shared in the above link expands upon the major idea discussed in this thread, but it is notably absent as a major idea in Dan's paper. That of incorruptible seed. What does that phrase mean? What do those terms mean? Why doesn't he address it? Does he consider it "to Israel" or something? Also, to those who have ears, it is an exhortation to consider scholastic work in Biblical research NOT from a Way background because after a thorough examination of the Way's actual execution of Biblical research it is about as credible as Victor Paul Wierwille's mail-in box-top doctorate degree.
Here's the idea. Dan's paper is not the standard on which to base Biblical research. The Bible is. This is not an "interesting article". It is an exegetical commentary on the verses in the Bible that Dan glossed over in his paper covering the idea of "once saved always saved" how it's wrong and how that means you should send him donations on his 501c site..
No, in my opinion Dan is wrong on both fronts. On leaving out that verse where we are born again of incorruptible seed, and on the donation front.
Your response here is somewhat passive aggressive. I shared a Bible study tool, a thorough work on the topic of the thread, which to remind you by the way is not "Dan's Paper", but "Can salvation be lost?" and your response is "interesting but it doesn't match Dan's paper?" Who the f cares and what does that have to do with whether or not salvation can be lost or not?
Born again of incorruptible seed.
What does it mean? Why would God choose to draw that analogy throughout that section of scripture?
This is a very interesting point, though disjointed.
I agree that our fellowship with others mustn't be oppressive nor authoritarian. We have one authority, God, and one head of the body to which we all - presumably - belong, Jesus Christ. No other authority is needed. I see that in the first Christian church in Acts, which had apostles, prophets, evengelists, pastors and teachers. That list very plainly doesn't include rulers.
But I don't see what that has to do with Dan's paper. Can you explain that connection?
Does the expression "can't see the forest for (because of) the trees" mean anything to you?
Again, you're not looking in the correct place to identify the problem.
An underlying issue can't be a ramification, but it could be the cause. So, no, I guess I really don't understand what you are trying to say.
Now, whether the underlying issue is relevant or not, is there any way of actually knowing what that issue is, when all we have is a long-winded document on the two sides of thought regarding salvation? We could speculate, but what good is that, really?
So, then, on what are you basing your stance on salvation?
The underlying issue IS that the doctrine you claim you're not yet convinced of can ONLY cause leaders in church/ministry settings to teach and model and gradually develop unwritten rules that can ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults.
The underlying issue IS that the doctrine you claim you're not yet convinced of can ONLY cause leaders in church/ministry settings to teach and model and gradually develop unwritten rules that can ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults.
Sorry, that's NOT an underlying issue, it's a potential ramification.
But can't anything be twisted to ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults? I don't think there's a way to prevent that from happening.
Again, you're not looking in the correct place to identify the problem.
Actually, I'm not looking for a problem. I am only looking to understand more fully about the possibility that salvation, as a permanent thing, isn't actually guaranteed. This isn't because I live, or want to live, like some lost soul, rejecting God and Christ. I just want to understand it, completely.
Your response here is somewhat passive aggressive. I shared a Bible study tool, a thorough work on the topic of the thread, which to remind you by the way is not "Dan's Paper", but "Can salvation be lost?" and your response is "interesting but it doesn't match Dan's paper?" Who the f cares and what does that have to do with whether or not salvation can be lost or not?
This thread was spawned from another based on a discussion of Dan's paper, which brings up his point that salvation isn't an absolute guarantee. So, that's really what this topic is about.
3 hours ago, chockfull said:
Here's the idea. Dan's paper is not the standard on which to base Biblical research. The Bible is. This is not an "interesting article". It is an exegetical commentary on the verses in the Bible that Dan glossed over in his paper covering the idea of "once saved always saved" how it's wrong and how that means you should send him donations on his 501c site..
No one has called Dan's paper a standard of anything.
Actually, I find this "exegetical commentary" very interesting, and obviously you have high regard for it. But for me it didn't clarify anything.
And I'm guessing by the highlighted words from you that you have not actually read Dan's paper.
3 hours ago, chockfull said:
Born again of incorruptible seed.
What does it mean? Why would God choose to draw that analogy throughout that section of scripture?
Ask Dan if you need help answering.
You don't have to yell.
To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure. And I have no idea why God would choose that analogy. Do you?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 2
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 2 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering together. Rejecting God is covered by the blood of Christ.
Here we go!
Btw Taxidev, thanks for posting here. Im at a point where i am saying Dan is wrong, but Im learning much from the topic. Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m disqualifying myself from contributing to this thread on 2 counts: I’ve never really looked into this and also not sure if I am even saved...but in keen interest I do look forward to the input of others.
(- click - ) my seat belt is now fastened
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
For the benefit of everyone that wasn't in the original discussion but wants to join this one, I will mention here the basic idea that brought this about.
Someone wrote a paper, 114 pages worth, with the premise that "once saved always saved" isn't correct.
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.
Rocky responded with this:
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.
To which I replied:
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.
Now you are all pretty much caught up.
If you want to see more details, it is posted in "Another STFI split...an offshoot of an offshoot." I think it begins on page 2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Just making the statement (that I highlighted in bold) does not constitute even an acknowledgment that you understand my point.
OTOH, I have asked you pertinent questions and posed hypothetical situations that directly go to the heart of your point.
As I said in the STFI forum, that while you are not allegedly "100% convinced" on Dan's claims, you have ONLY commented in such a way that you are, in fact, 100% convinced.
If you were not, you would at least be open to discussion on the issues I presented to you.
I said more in the other forum.
I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest over convoluted meanings of scripture verses listed in whatever order and comparing the meanings of Greek or Hebrew words.
I have presented feedback based on real life experiences that demonstrate the sociological and "organized religion" ramifications of the claims at issue. Take them or leave them. I have no need to have the last word on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
So salvation is conditional. My works, or rejection of this special sin cannot be undone. If i continue in salvatiion then im saved. Ok but Romans makes the condition that all ( both Jew and GENTILE) are under sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, your point is in regards to a ministry setting, a social setting, an environment that will enable someone to manipulate others, the social dynamics. You may very well be correct about that, but that is speculation. My point is that this paper from Dan has nothing in it regarding any of that, but you keep trying to make it so. His paper is solely an analysis of "once saved always saved" as compared with "continuance in faith". And Dan is of the opinion that the latter is the correct one.
So the reason I haven't asked you any questions regarding your point is that it isn't what Dan's paper is about.
Now, from the other thread, you make this statement: First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical.
How is that OBVIOUSLY? I don't see any allegory or metaphor. On the contrary, it seems pretty straight forward to me.
Then you ask: Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean?
Are you referring to me stating that continuing in God's goodness is walking in Love? If that's not what it is, then what is?
And if it is works, as you seem to agree, it is after the fact of being saved. So it isn't a condition of being saved, only a condition of remaining saved.
"Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation." This statement I just don't understand in the context of the discussion. Where did free will come into this? Besides, we have the free will to build our lives up or tear our lives down. All through the bible we see action/consequence, sometimes on the positive side and sometimes on the negative side.
"But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living."
Rocky, I don't doubt you have some great understanding of the Word, and are probably much more experienced than I with how easy it is to manipulate people in a religious setting. But Dan's paper and my own research have nothing to do with functioning in a church. Why you insist on making it about that is beyond me, and is the reason I asked if you would like to read the paper yourself. You are criticizing a document that you haven't even looked at, and I find that pretty arrogant.
"It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so."
I have tried to discuss the issue, but you keep making it about something else. And I can only guess that it's because of some terrible ordeal you experienced. But Dan's paper has nothing to do with that, and that's why my responses to you aren't satisfying you. I have been trying to discuss his findings, and that's it. But you keep inferring some form of manipulation and social injustice.
So, please, let me know what I am not seeing clearly, or even completely missing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
OldSkool, thanks for the compliment.
I have read the bible from cover to cover only once. Since that time, I have read sections and, I'm sorry to say, haven't read the entire thing again. So, it's very possible the "loss of reward at the gathering together" is in there, but I don't know where. Do you?
And Dan might be wrong, but I just don't know for sure at the moment. I'm currently leaning in his direction based on things I had been seeing for the past few years, most of which I posted above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, and these are those that haven't been saved yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You're not seeing the underlying issue that is an unavoidable ramification of the doctrine you propose.
I am not criticizing Dan's paper, or rather the minutia he obviously spent untold hours figuring out.
I am criticizing the concept of whether or not it is possible to determine God's will by convoluting scriptures and conflating behavioral concepts.
I will not engage on the minutia of Dan's paper. I think the entire notion is rubbish and not worth the effort.
Decades ago, well after I left the alleged "household of God" as Wierwille and Martindale loved to call their ministry, I started examining the concept of critical thinking.
Among the things I learned was that it's all bull$hit if you're not addressing the underlying issues. From the linked article in the Harvard Business Review,
"The example is like many we’ve seen: Someone in the bowels of the organization is assigned to fix a very specific, near-term problem. But because the firm doesn’t employ a rigorous process for understanding the dimensions of the problem, leaders miss an opportunity to address underlying strategic issues.
Edited by RockyI appreciate the effort you made to communicate whether or not you understood my point.
Here's what I understand you to have meant: you think that my effort to get at the underlying, fundamental issues is irrelevant.
By all means, if I didn't get the gist correctly, please clarify.
This is not a matter of whether I "know the Word" better than you or anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
An underlying issue can't be a ramification, but it could be the cause. So, no, I guess I really don't understand what you are trying to say.
Now, whether the underlying issue is relevant or not, is there any way of actually knowing what that issue is, when all we have is a long-winded document on the two sides of thought regarding salvation? We could speculate, but what good is that, really?
So, then, on what are you basing your stance on salvation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I failed to correct you when you said earlier that I was only speculating. I was not and am not. For that failure, I apologize.
The argument on "once saved, always saved" was long ago settled.
If you're asking how or why I believe Dan's paper is nonsense, it's because I believe in a just, merciful God who, if He's interested in having believers fellowship together in groups at all, precludes social structures that can only lead to oppressive authoritarian cults.
That's not speculation.
IF I were to engage in debate over a convoluted list of bible verses and comparison of the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words, THAT would be speculation because I'm not qualified to speak on that subject. And frankly, based on the inferences (some worded as conclusions) that you made about the subject of Dan's paper and the scriptures you cited, I think you probably overestimated your capacity to speak authoritatively on the subject also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
1 corinthinans 311-15
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I didn't, and that's why I am still looking at this topic, why it is still a question in my mind.
It may have been settled for you, but it isn't settled for me.
Edited by TaxidevAdditional information
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
This is a very interesting point, though disjointed.
I agree that our fellowship with others mustn't be oppressive nor authoritarian. We have one authority, God, and one head of the body to which we all - presumably - belong, Jesus Christ. No other authority is needed. I see that in the first Christian church in Acts, which had apostles, prophets, evengelists, pastors and teachers. That list very plainly doesn't include rulers.
But I don't see what that has to do with Dan's paper. Can you explain that connection?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
VPW's PFAL class also did not agree with "once saved always saved". He mentioned that specifically in the class. Then he covered the verse I Peter 1:23
Dan's paper fails to handle the basic verses in PFAL on the topic. And he started up his own 501c with a donation page on the internet for people who are impressed with someone going on and on for over a hundred pages while not being thorough. I'm not impressed.
Here's an interesting write-up of commentary on I Peter 1:23 which really digs down into the core of this issue. Also, it doesn't re-invent the wheel and incorporates feedback from other vital members of the body of Christ, none of which who have ever heard of Victor Paul Wierwille.
Happy reading:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-peter-1-23.html
Here's another link on who John Gill the commentary writer is:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Actually, it did, by way if implication. VPW led the students into drawing an unspoken conclusion and then said, "I didn't say it, you did.". It's a backhanded way of making a statement... the "nudge, nudge- wink, wink" approach.
This tied in nicely with the appeal of speaking in tongues. "It's proof in the senses realm, etc."
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Interesting article, but it doesn't actually address what's in Dan's paper, at least not from what I have seen of it already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Which is exactly what I was pointing out - the exegetical commentary I shared in the above link expands upon the major idea discussed in this thread, but it is notably absent as a major idea in Dan's paper. That of incorruptible seed. What does that phrase mean? What do those terms mean? Why doesn't he address it? Does he consider it "to Israel" or something? Also, to those who have ears, it is an exhortation to consider scholastic work in Biblical research NOT from a Way background because after a thorough examination of the Way's actual execution of Biblical research it is about as credible as Victor Paul Wierwille's mail-in box-top doctorate degree.
Here's the idea. Dan's paper is not the standard on which to base Biblical research. The Bible is. This is not an "interesting article". It is an exegetical commentary on the verses in the Bible that Dan glossed over in his paper covering the idea of "once saved always saved" how it's wrong and how that means you should send him donations on his 501c site..
No, in my opinion Dan is wrong on both fronts. On leaving out that verse where we are born again of incorruptible seed, and on the donation front.
Your response here is somewhat passive aggressive. I shared a Bible study tool, a thorough work on the topic of the thread, which to remind you by the way is not "Dan's Paper", but "Can salvation be lost?" and your response is "interesting but it doesn't match Dan's paper?" Who the f cares and what does that have to do with whether or not salvation can be lost or not?
Born again of incorruptible seed.
What does it mean? Why would God choose to draw that analogy throughout that section of scripture?
Ask Dan if you need help answering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Does the expression "can't see the forest for (because of) the trees" mean anything to you?
Again, you're not looking in the correct place to identify the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The underlying issue IS that the doctrine you claim you're not yet convinced of can ONLY cause leaders in church/ministry settings to teach and model and gradually develop unwritten rules that can ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Sorry, that's NOT an underlying issue, it's a potential ramification.
But can't anything be twisted to ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults? I don't think there's a way to prevent that from happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Actually, I'm not looking for a problem. I am only looking to understand more fully about the possibility that salvation, as a permanent thing, isn't actually guaranteed. This isn't because I live, or want to live, like some lost soul, rejecting God and Christ. I just want to understand it, completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
This thread was spawned from another based on a discussion of Dan's paper, which brings up his point that salvation isn't an absolute guarantee. So, that's really what this topic is about.
No one has called Dan's paper a standard of anything.
Actually, I find this "exegetical commentary" very interesting, and obviously you have high regard for it. But for me it didn't clarify anything.
And I'm guessing by the highlighted words from you that you have not actually read Dan's paper.
You don't have to yell.
To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure. And I have no idea why God would choose that analogy. Do you?
And I don't appreciate your sarcasm.
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.