Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Jay, you're a trouble-maker ;-)

I don't have time for a full reply, but an off-the-cuff response:

While the Bible certainly is vague on some issues we might wish it was more
clear on, the Bible isn't vague at all about the things that really matter,
the things that are essential to salvation.

Paul

    No. seriously. this has *nothing* to do with 'Is the bible infallable'
    or any specific doctrinal position stated by anyone here or anyone
    getting into a rathole proving their position against everyone, It's
    more of how do you know you are right? I do not mean to question your
    belief in Christ as your saviour. Lets keep it off that subject. This 
    pertains (i hope) more to practices or secondary things in the church
    like charismatic vs. not, women in authority, drinking or not, meeting
    on sunday or not ect. On things like this, the bible is not always
    clear (or i am thick). God wrote it that way for a reason. And somehow
    I know it is in his plan.
    
    (well, yes I guess I am a trouble-maker. :-) but it is NOT my intent
    here.)

>    pertains (i hope) more to practices or secondary things in the church
>    like charismatic vs. not, women in authority, drinking or not, meeting
>    on sunday or not ect. On things like this, the bible is not always
>    clear (or i am thick). God wrote it that way for a reason. And somehow
    
    I don't believe the Bible is vague on any of these things.
    
    Mike

Hi, Jay.

You said you were interested in hearing positions on why the Bible seems vague
sometimes.  Since you asked, I'll state my opinion.  But only after setting the
context with some Scripture. :-)

Jesus said "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,
that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world
cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him;
for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless:
I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye
see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of
my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Judas asked "How is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the
world?"

Jesus answered "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love
him, and we will comeunto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me
not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the
Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present
with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Jn 14:16-26, KJV)

Jesus also said "The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth: for He shall
not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He
will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for He shall receive of mine,
and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore
said I, that He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (Jn 16:13-15,
KJV)

The apostle John said "But ye have an unction from the Holy ONe, and ye know
all things...But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and
ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth your of
all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye
shall abide in Him." (1Jn 2:20&27, KJV)

The apostle Peter said "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the
knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as His divine power hath
given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the
knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto
us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of
the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through 
lust. And besie this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to
virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and
to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly
kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that
ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus
Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and
hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." (2Pe 1:2-9, KJV)

So, what's my point/position?  The written Word of God cannot be understood
apart from the indwelling Spirit of God.  The Word and the Spirit together
reveal Truth to our hearts.  All that we need to know in order to love God, to
become like Jesus, and to keep His commandments are (being made) known to us.
In other words, we will NEVER lack what we individually need for God to
accomplish His work in us.  As concerning what I NEED TO KNOW, the Word of God
will NEVER be vague.  However, problems arise whenever I by faith do not do what
I know to be true.  If I seek to know in order to obey, then the Holy Spirit
will commend the truth of God's Word to my heart.  If I seek only academic
knowledge, or knowledge for the sake of knowing and not necessarily doing, then
my understanding will be "vague" at best, perhaps even void.

So, if the Word of God seems vague to me, then I first check my motives in
coming to Scripture, i.e., am I desiring to know what God says in order to
establish, or perhaps change, my faith and conduct, or am I rather seeking to
support apriori thoughts and actions with Scripture?  God wants our lives to
fit His Word, and will resist all efforts to make His Word fit our lives.

Who *really* knows if something should be taken literally or not?  The Holy
Spirit who inspired the Word and who indwells the believer.

Why do people who pray for truth on a doctrinal position come up with different
views?  To that I would answer only God sees the heart.  By the way, giving
your life for your position is MUCH different than taking another life for your
position: "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for
us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren...let us not love in
word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." (1Jn 3:16&18, KJV)

Bottom-line: If the Word of God seems vague, then we should be sure we're doing
what God already has made clear and ask ourselves if we really NEED TO KNOW
what's now unclear, or if something seems unclear because the Holy Spirit is
commending truth against our selfishness.

/Wayne

    I have taken it upon myself to read through the Bible in a year for the
    past three years and it is only starting to become more familiar. 
    There are many rich truths to be uncovered in the Bible and there are
    some things that seem to be mentioned in one or two places and other
    things that are drilled into several places and even requoted.  If you
    want the Bible to become more clear then read the whole thing through a
    few times and get a personal relationship with the Author by doing so.

    Jay's question is an excellent one and one that has not been adequately
    addressed by the answers.
    
    Taking the one point about Baptism alone.  Some people believe that you
    have to be baptised as an adult to be saved.  Some people believe that
    infant baptism is enough.
    
    The are learned scholars, holy women and men that take each side of the
    argument.  This is not a peripheral issue.  It is about how salvation
    is obtained.
    
    Why is the Bible not more clear?
    
                                       Patricia

    Wayne thanks for a great reply to this question!
    
    Re: baptism
    
    The problem again is placing tradition over God's Word.  The Greek word
    for baptism is for immersion and is only done for adults.  Jews didn't
    baptize children.  Children weren't accountable for their sin until their 
    bar/bat mitsvah(sp?).  Jews baptized by immersion.
    
    The history of the sprinkling tradition was born out of trying to
    baptize death-bed converts who were too ill to be immersed.  God's Word
    doesn't support this.
    
    As Wayne said, first you need an intimate relationship with God, you
    have to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and if things are still vague,
    you have to pray for spiritual wisdom.  Study alone doesn't do it (but
    it's good too).
    
    Mike

>    Jay's question is an excellent one and one that has not been adequately
>    addressed by the answers.
 

     Have you read .6?  I don't think it could be any clearer than that.

   
>    Taking the one point about Baptism alone.  Some people believe that you
>    have to be baptised as an adult to be saved.  Some people believe that
>    infant baptism is enough.
    
     Please provide chapter and verse that demonstrates infant baptism. 




    
>    Why is the Bible not more clear?
    
 
    see .6




 Jim

    RE: .7
    
    You ask why is the Bible not more clear?  For whatever reason you did
    not hear the answers in .5 and .6, in particular.  If the Bible really
    is God's Word, and is accepted as such, then what we need to know in
    order for God to accomplish His work in us is clear.  If the Bible is
    not God's Word, then not only will things be vague, but also will truth
    never be CERTAINLY known!
    
    There are various outward manifestations of heart-felt obedience.  Man
    looks on outward appearance, but God sees the heart.  Only God can
    ultimately and appropriately account faith and subsequent action for
    righteousness.
    
    /Wayne

>    
>     Please provide chapter and verse that demonstrates infant baptism. 
>

We have, but you won't believe that "whole household" includes children.

/john

    Correct, especially without the bar/bat mitzvah.

    Jim,
    
    Re .10 re .6
    
    Yes I did read .6 throughout.
    
    From my experience of reading and studying the Bible over the last four
    years, I find that the ambiguities to be more clearly ambiguities the
    more I read and study.
    
    I liked Andrews reply, that it was more than just reading and studying,
    but a walk with God.   Why is it that some people in there walk with
    God come up with answers that are so different than other peoples?
    
    If two people pray for wisdom and guidance, does God only answer the
    one?  Or does God lead each one in the direction that God leads each
    one?

    re: last few.
    
    Exactly what I am talking about. Two competent people, two different
    beliefs. 
    Is it as Paul says, that we all 'see through a glass darkly' and have
    partial understanding? And how much does our background and environment
    cloud our understanding? 
    
    Note: I am *not* implying that the Word of God is not the absolute truth
          nor am I trying to hint that deconstructionism (people choose
    their own meaning) is valid. My questions are about human understanding
    of the Divine.
    
                                                                           

    Its an interesting puzzle, isn't it? I think there are several factors
    that contribute to the multitude of interepretations on and shadings 
    people give to the Scriptures. 

    Perhaps God wants to us to learn and grow in ways that we would not if 
    everything was defined very tightly and precisely. We have to use our 
    minds and spirits, and struggle and wrestle a bit with Scripture and 
    with the way we think and live our lives.

    Secondly, God has given us humans room to make our decisions, our own
    choices. As we are all individuals with different life experiences, we
    tend to look at things differently. I think we've talked before about the 
    differences that we have based on our various perspectives. Furthermore,
    although I do think the Holy Spirit will give us wisdom and insight when 
    we seek it, I do not think God runs roughshod over our own will, spirit, 
    and mind.

    I also think we have lost, at least in part, the historical/cultural 
    context in which the Scriptures were written. This does not make it 
    impossible for us to understand them, but it does make room for error on
    our parts. As I have learned more about the backdrop of the times in 
    which these things were written, I have made some changes in my thinking.
    However, the basics have remained fairly stable. Despite that the basics
    have stayed the same, the impact on how I shape my life has been 
    significant.

    Finally, more recently, I have come to think that there is room for 
    nuance in our understanding of God and what Scripture says. I do not think
    it is all black and white, but there are colors and shades. I don't really
    know how to put this, because I do believe that there is truth and 
    falsehood, that everything is not relative, and that there is an under-
    lying concreteness and objectiveness to creation. But its bigger than we
    comprehend.

    Leslie

 There is much in the Bible that I sometimes wonder about.  I do not wonder
 about the following:


 1.  Am I a sinner?

 2.  Do I need a savior

 3.  Without that saviour where will I spend eternity?

 4.  Is Jesus Christ the propitiation for my sins?

 5.  If I believe the above will I spend eternity in Heaven?

 6.  Is Jesus Christ coming again?

 7.  Are we nearing the time when #6 will be fulfilled.

 8.  Did my Saviour command me to share the gospel with others?


 9.  Does God really love *me*?



 Jim

    Hi, Jay.                                                  
    
    Two competent people, two different beliefs.  To whom are you
    referring?  Mike Heiser and John Covert around baptism, or Patricia
    Flanagan and Paul Weiss around inerrancy and infallibility of the
    Bible?
    
    Two people looking at God's Word, one accepting the Bible as God
    breathed and without error, and the other regarding Scripture only as
    noble but fallible human chronicling, will likely differ on many key
    issues of the Christian faith.  Reconciling two views deriving from
    these two regards for Scripture is probably futile.  However, even
    skeptics have personally encountered the God of His Word when reading
    the Bible for purposes of criticism.  God's Word will not return void.
    
    Two believers both holding the Bible as God's inerrant and infallible
    Word to us and both sharing the Holy Spirit may differ on issues of the
    faith, but reconciling their differing views is fruitful, often leading
    to a fuller understanding of God, depending on the purity of their
    hearts in dialog and debate.
    
    Yes, we do see through a glass darkly, but incomplete understanding
    does NOT compromise the reliability of God's Word.  Nor does our
    present incomprehension imply that we cannot know later.  Nor does our
    incomplete understanding negate God's faithfulness to do what He says.
    
    /Wayne

    re: last
        >Yes, we do see through a glass darkly, but incomplete understanding
        >does NOT compromise the reliability of God's Word.  Nor does our
        >present incomprehension imply that we cannot know later.  Nor does
    our >incomplete understanding negate God's faithfulness to do what He
    >says.
    
    I believe this 100%. also, I am not refering to any of the things in
    .17. There is no doubt in my mind there.
    
     When I said two  [beyond] competent people I mean John and Mike. In
     my mind if you doubt the virgin birth and use the historical-critical
     method to write off any supernatural aspect of Christ or any event
     in the bible, you are not biblically correct. And if your Jesus is
    only a man who was a great teacher of universal truths and not God,
    then your Jesus is a different Jesus and your Gospel is a different
    Gospel. You are on your way to hell. Repent and believe the real
    Gospel. Sorry if I offend anyone. I don't want to see anyone go to
    hell.

It's got a lot to do with who we are as people.

If you read history, you'll know that it's easy to find a 
historian who has written history that will back one's 
opinion on a subject.   Given a finite series of events,
and original documents, historians come up with 
markedly different stories as to what really happened,
based on their bias or starting point.  

Now, if this happens with events that are recent, it 
makes sense that it will happen with the Bible.  I'd 
submit that we see through our own cultural, emotional, 
historical, etc. glasses when we look at the Bible, and 
that's the reason for much of the disagreements.

There's no disagreement on the basic doctrines of the church
among mainstream Christians.  The disagreements fall
on the "disputable" issues.

   > It's got a lot to do with who we are as people.
   
    Thats what I'm starting to think. I think I also see this in different
    worship styles and stuff. I wonder how much a factor it really is that 
    who we are as people that really determines the church we wind up in also. 
    
    

    There is somebody that does not want us to know the Bible clearly and
    if Christians do not spend the time getting to know God in a personal
    way through his word then Satan will sprinkle his own ideas into an
    interpretation of an individual.  Satan loves it when we can argue over
    the minute points and distract us from the will of God!

	Then I guess Satan has influenced every single Christian on this
planet, including the Pope. Why do I say that? Because it is doubtful that any
two people have a 100% agreement on every piece of Scripture. There is only One
who can ever have it down pat....and that isn't any human being. 

	I believe one reason God gave us free will was so that we could keep
Him out in the open. Think of all the discussions that happen about Him in this
world. If everything was just the same, wouldn't it feel more like going
through the motions, and not feeling Him, like we do now? We all believe in
Him. And we all fight for what we believe are the correct interpretations,
descriptions, etc. For ourselves? I would hope not. I would hope it is for Him
that we share. 



Glen

      Hi Jay,
    
        There is no doubt that God *purposely* veiled His word.
    
        I think Joseph is a type of this.  When he is in Egypt
        and he meets his brothers, it is said that he appeared
        strange and spoke roughly unto them.  But, then he leaves
        their presence and weeps.
    
        Near the end of the story, it is said that they recognized
        him and he spoke *kindly* unto them.
    
        I can offer a reason or two why, but I just wanted to quickly
        agree with you that yes, God indeed purposely veiled His word.
    
    		       				Tony

>	Then I guess Satan has influenced every single Christian on this
>planet, including the Pope. Why do I say that? Because it is doubtful that any
>two people have a 100% agreement on every piece of Scripture. There is only One
>who can ever have it down pat....and that isn't any human being. 


  The Bible is quite clear on the concept of sin, salvation and how one
 is to be saved.  God did not leave us here to guess about how one can
 enter Heaven.  God did not leave us here to guess what is and what is
 not sinful.  God did not leave us here to guess as to how we can live
 a life that is pleasing to him.





>	I believe one reason God gave us free will was so that we could keep
>Him out in the open. Think of all the discussions that happen about Him in this



 God gave us free will to choose or reject the salvation through Christ.  He
 gave us free will to choose a life of sin, or a life of Godliness.


 "Choose this day whom ye will serve"
 "I would that you choose life"
 "There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is
  destruction".


 Whom do you choose to serve?



 Jim

>There's no disagreement on the basic doctrines of the church
>among mainstream Christians.  The disagreements fall
>on the "disputable" issues.
    
    
    How about as basic doctrine of the Church the question of whether Jesus
    becomes physically present in the Host and wine that is ingested or
    whether Jesus' physical presence is with the participants in this act
    of rememberance.     Does that not count as a basic doctrine in which
    mainstream Christians disagree?

I think by 'basic' what is meant is "doctrines essential to salvation."  What
you believe happens to the bread and wine is not going to effect that.

Basic doctrines are Jesus as the unique and complete incarnation of God,
salvation by grace alone, etc.

Paul

| <<< Note 836.25 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Praise His name I am free" >>>

| The Bible is quite clear on the concept of sin, salvation and how one is to be
| saved. God did not leave us here to guess about how one can enter Heaven.  

	We're talking about two different things. My response was to the note
before mine. 

| God gave us free will to choose or reject the salvation through Christ.  He
| gave us free will to choose a life of sin, or a life of Godliness.

	Jim, I said one reason, not THE reason. Big difference there.

| Whom do you choose to serve?

	The same God as you.

Jay,

Good question and my 2 cents worth, some of which has already been said in some-
what different words, so pardon my "repetition."


     "The word of God is living and active.  
      Sharper than any double-edged sword, 
      it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,
      joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts 
      and attitudes of the heart."

      				Hebrews 4:12

You're right in that God had a reason for writing the Bible in the way He wrote
it; it was so the Word WOULD be CAPABLE of judging the thoughts and attitudes 
of our hearts. 


     "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
      teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
      righteousness, so that the man of God may be
      thoroughly equipped for every good work."

      				2 Timothy 3:16,17

Secondly, the reason two people may have disagreements on what is a "Biblical 
Truth" is that they don't take into account ALL OF SCRIPTURE.  We look at our
favorite passages and turn a blind eye to the others.  Even when we do this the
Word is judging the attitudes of our heart.  All of the subjects you brought up 
in your base note and those added to this note in subsequent replies can be 
reconciled IF the entire Bible is studied to come to a conclusion.

THis is additional to what some other replies stated in that a personal
relationship with God and obedience to the Word is essential to understanding 
Scripture as given by: 

      "I pray you may be active in sharing your faith, 
       *SO THAT* you will have a full understanding of 
       every good thing we have in Christ."

      				Philemon 6
      		

      "To the Jews who believed him, Jesus said, "*IF* you 
       hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
       *THEN* you will know the truth, and the truth will
       set you free." 
      	
      				John 8:31,32

Emphasis added to the above two Scriptures, but you get the point.

Hope everyone has a safe and wonderful Holiday Season.  See you next year.

Love in Him,

Peter			

    re: last
    excellent note. thanks for writing it. I think an excellent example of
    what you are saying is an intrepretation of Mark 16:16 "He who believes
    and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be 
    condemned". Some churches believe baptism is required for salvation.
    Some churches don't. Some could say this implies works and would
    contradict with the gospel (my opinion). Some would say if you read the
    verse close, that the key is in the second part of the verse:(s)He who does
    not BELIEVE is condemned...it does not say "he(she) who is not BAPTIZED". 
    Not comparing scripture with scripture and not really reading what it
    is REALLY saying could cause a problem and a  different belief system in 
    this specific case.
    
    Merry Christmas to all of you.
    jay   
    
    

	Re: .27

		"What you believe happens to the bread and wine is not
	  	 going to effect that" - namely salvation.

	I must disagree with you Paul. Is Truth not essential for salvation?
	The Truths revealed in the Bible, the Word, are those truths
	revealed to us by Jesus Christ our Lord and God. What you are saying,
	is that if I believe in the Holy Eucharist as Christ's Body and
	Blood (because He said it is) it doesn't matter that it is or isn't
	true, because it is NOT essential to my salvation. Yet Christ solemnly
	said if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you do not have life
 	in you, I think that quite important do you not (depending on your
	interpretation)?

	In addition, if I refuse to believe this revealed truth, I might as
	well refuse to believe anything Christ taught. To reject one Truth is
	to reject the whole Truth, because you make God out to be deceitful,
	which He is not. 

	Therefore understanding WHAT is Truth is VERY important to your
	salvation in my opinion. 
	
		Getting back to the base note then, what one person perceives
	as being true, another rejects, but in your eyes it doesn't really
	matter as long as you agree on the "basics", then who determines what
	those basics are? My set of basics might probably differ from yours, 
	yet I will not change (nor will you) because I (you) are defending the
	Truth, how can I(you) reject that which has been given to us by Christ?
	I believe in something that has been given to us by Christ, yet many
	Christians take an alternative interpretation of Scripture and hence
	believe differently, there are others - will that affect their 
	salvation? Only Christ can answer that, but if you knowingly reject a
	truth that has been revealed by Christ then you are in effect rejecting
	Him, therefore knowing what is Truth in my mind is extremely important,
	an obvious example would be to reject the Incarnation.
	
	
	Peace,

		Tom

    If -1 is true, then transubstantiation also occurs during the Passover
    ceremony, which is where the Lord's Supper comes from.  God is the same
    yesterday, today, and forever so nothing new was introduced at the
    Lord's Supper.  And since Passover has been celebrated for 1000s of years 
    as well, it contradicts the commandments against cannibalism in Leviticus.

    Mike

re .32

Oh, no.  The Passover Supper is a type of the Holy Eucharist, but not
the same thing.  The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Jesus on the
night in which he was betrayed.  It is a new rite.

/john

    Not true.  The Lord's Supper was performed by Jesus with the Afikomen 
    (matzah that is hidden and brought back - a type of Himself) and the 3rd 
    cup during Passover.  Research it for yourself if you don't believe me.
    Every Messianic Haggadah mentions this fact.  The whole holiday was a
    foreshadowing of Messiah, His Atonement, and His Holy Communion.
    
    Mike

Read http://www.electriciti.com:80/~edit/euch.html.

And read "The Shape of the Liturgy" by Dom Gregory Dix.

And read everything written up until the last few centuries.

The idea that the Holy Eucharist is *not* a new rite instituted by
Jesus is a modern innovation, not based in scripture.

/john

 Gentlemen, may I request that before this discussion escalates, it be
 taken offline?



 Thank you


 Jim Co-Mod

    John, this will be my last word on this as I don't want to test the
    moderators.  
    
    >Read http://www.electriciti.com:80/~edit/euch.html.
    
    I read it and don't agree with it.  You can't pick and choose metaphors
    as it suits Karl Keating's theology.  As Keating said, Christ also
    called Himself the Door, Vine, Bread, Light, Rock, Root, and the Bright
    & Morning Star.  If I showed you a picture of my son and said, "This is
    my son!" you obviously wouldn't literally consider the photo to be my
    son.
    
>The idea that the Holy Eucharist is *not* a new rite instituted by
>Jesus is a modern innovation, not based in scripture.
    
    The Book of Exodus is not modern and is very prominent in scripture. 
    In Levitical law, not only was blood never eaten, neither was the sin
    offering to be eaten.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the RCC
    views the Eucharist as a sin offering.  This violates the law that
    Christ said He came to fulfill.
    
    To take this literally, you also have to literally adopt the entire
    context of John 6 in that whoever receives communion will be saved. 
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the RCC believes communion
    saves you.  
    
    In Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus says, "This is my body... this is my blood." 
    The Greek phrase used by Jesus is "touto esti" which means "this
    signifies" or "this represents." If Christ wanted us to adopt
    transubstantiation, He would've used "touto gignetai" which means 
    "this has become or is turned into."  In addition, another passage has
    Christ saying "this cup is the new testament."  
    
    Mike

This, too, will be my last response:

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the RCC views the Eucharist as a
>sin offering.

You are both right and wrong.  Christ is the sin offering; the Eucharist
is Christ.

>    The Greek phrase used by Jesus is "touto esti"

No, "esti" means "_is_" not signifies or represents.

/john

    
    
    	Why did you pick up on the Eucharist, and neglect the main point? 
    My point is that Truth is important, therefore it is essential that we 
    understand what is Truth - not just the "basics". You can't choose some
    points to believe in and ignore others - if you know that they are
    present in Scripture.
    
    Peace,
    
    		Tom      

RE: 15,19 & 30

Jay,

A couple of questions with regards to a few of your replies: 

1) RE: .19 - You said you were talking about John and Mike surrounding the
question of baptism of infants, ie how two competent people could get two
different beliefs (re: .15).  My question is: If they both believe that baptism
isn't essential for salvation, then what does it matter if you baptize a baby, 
an adult or don't get baptised at all for that matter?  

2)RE: .30 -  With regards to Mark 16:16, you believe "the key is in the second 
part of the verse," while according to others' beliefs the key is in the first 
part of the verse.  My question is, if the God who inspired the frist part of 
the verse is the same God who inspired the second of the verse, then why 
wouldn't the key be in the ENTIRE verse, not just the first part or second part?

And to answer your question, Yes, I've had a little extra time on my hands, 
with the Christmas shutdown and all.  I came in just to pick up my paycheck as 
I still haven't figured out how to get it directly deposited into my DCU 
checking account. If there is anybody out there who can give me a clue to the 
"veiled mystery" of direct deposit, please do.  What I was getting at is, I 
came in just to cash my check and add this reply.  I won't be back until 
Thursday 1/4/96.  Happy New Years everyone!!

In His Love,

Peter

>My question is: If they both believe that baptism isn't essential for
>salvation, then what does it matter if you baptize a baby, an adult or
>don't get baptised at all for that matter?  

What a strange question, considering that both John and Mike do (as far
as I know) believe that baptism is generally necessary for salvation.

/john

>What a strange question, considering that both John and Mike do (as far
>as I know) believe that baptism is generally necessary for salvation.
    
    I do not believe this to be true as presented in the Bible.
    
    Re: Direct deposit
    
    Contact the Payroll department.
    
    Mike

Re: .37  (Mike Heiser)

>    In Matthew 26:26-28, Jesus says, "This is my body... this is my blood." 
>    The Greek phrase used by Jesus is "touto esti" which means "this
>    signifies" or "this represents." If Christ wanted us to adopt
>    transubstantiation, He would've used "touto gignetai" which means 
>    "this has become or is turned into."  In addition, another passage has
>    Christ saying "this cup is the new testament."  
    
Re: .38  (John Covert)

>No, "esti" means "_is_" not signifies or represents.

The correct inflection in Matthew 26:26-28 is "estin".  It almost always means
"is", reveals my BibleSoft for Windows.  Occasionally, however, it can mean
"signify" or "represent":

    "One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves:
     This is Hagar.  Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia" (Gal 4:24-25)
          ^^                   ^^^^^^^^^^

    "(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)" (Rev 19:8)
                 ^^^^^^^^^

    "This is the meaning of the parable:  The seed is the word..." (Luke 8:11)
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

    "They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what 'rising from the
    dead' meant."  (Mark 9:10)
          ^^^^^

I found the following occurrances of the phrase "touto estin":

    "'With man this is impossible, but with God all thing...'"  (Matt 19:26)

    "'Take and eat; this is my body.'" (Matt 26:26)

    "'This is my blood of the covenant...'"  (Matt 26:28)

    "'Take it; this is my body.'"  (Mark 14:22)

    "'This is my blood of the covenant...'"  (Mark 14:24)

    "'This is my body given for you;'"  (Luke 22:19)

    "'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'" (John 6:29)

    "'This is the will of him who sent me...'"  (John 6:39)

    "'No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel...'"  (Acts 2:16)

    "if anyone says to you, 'this has been offered in sacrifice...'" (1Co10:28)

    "'This is my body, which is for you'"  (1 Cor 11:24)

    "'This cup is the new covenant in my blood'"  (1 Cor 11:25)

    "This is a profound mystery..."  (Eph 5:32)

    "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." (Eph 6:1)

    "It is God's will that you should..."  (1 Thess 4:3)

    "for this is pleasing to God."  (1 Tim 5:4)

    "And this is the word that was preached to you..."  (1 Pet 1:25)

    "This is the spirit of the antichrist..."  (1 John 4:3)

    Re: Note 836.43 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
>                         -< "estin", "touto estin" >-
    
    Yes, my study of greek says "estin" means a sort-of "is", and "touto
    estin" means a definite "is".  
    
    James

      re: .40
    
      Hi Peter,
    
        You asked Jay what it mattered how (or if) one is baptized if
        it is not necessary for our salvation.
    
        Maybe it would be better to do things for other reasons then
        "Well, will I lose my salvation if I don't do this thing?" or
        "If I do this thing, will I be saved?"
    
        Motivation is important.  A better motivation is "The love of
        Christ constrains me."  Do things because you love God, not
        so that you can acquire a piece of heavenly real estate.
    
    
        About the body and blood of Christ.
    
        My summary thoughts are that God's word is spirit and not flesh
        and blood.  The Jews were absolutely buried by not seeing the
        spirit behind the words.  Jesus said 'temple' and they saw a
        literal bulding while He referred to His physical body and (more
        important) His heart.  (I believe three days to be largely symbolic
        where in a sense His heart was 'destroyed' by feeling the weight
        of sin and 'risen up' by overcoming the temptation to despair
        by faith.)
    
        In John 6:53, Jesus said His flesh and blood give life.  Ten verses
        later, He says spirit and word give life.  
    
        If a = c and b = c, it follows that a = b.
    
        WHAT GIVES LIFE IS REVELATION.
    
        We receive life by partaking of revelation of the love of Christ.
        The High Priest, after the sacrifice, sprinkled blood on the 
        sanctuary.  Jesus sheds abroad in our hearts revelations of His
        love which when received by faith, perform the work of justifica-
        tion.
    
        When I see allusions to body and blood as ultimately physical 
        realities, I see Israel rehearsed over again and that is absolute
        suicide.
    
        There is no life in the physical flesh and blood of Christ.  There
        is life in word and spirit (that which the flesh and blood
        represent).
    
    	      						Tony

Re: .44 (James Cameron)

>>                         -< "estin", "touto estin" >-
>    
>    Yes, my study of greek says "estin" means a sort-of "is", and "touto
>    estin" means a definite "is".  
    
At a minimum, my study (836.43) shows both Mike Heiser and John Covert to
be in error in their respective posts.  "Touto estin" ("this is") does
not categorically mean "signifies" or "represents," as Mike Heiser says, and
"estin" does not categorically mean "is", in such a definite sense as John
Covert says. 

I am curious as to your post, however.  Do you have any basis for your
categorical claim that "estin" means "sort-of" "is" and "touto estin" means
a definite "is"?  I admit that my study is based only on computer-generated
concordance searches and context.

Just curious.

    re .45
    
    Tony -
    
    I think I see where we are losing each other!
    
    >Jesus says flesh and blood give life.  Ten verses later He says
    >spirit and word give life.
                                           
    So flesh and blood equate to spirit and word.  I follow so far.
    
    But then you equate spirit and word to revelation.  This I don't
    follow.  
    
    It seems to me that the spirit and word bring revelation, but
    by saying that they *are* revelation, you lose the concreteness of
    the spirit and the word.  These are concrete real things, even
    if only truly visible in the spiritual realm.  By ignoring their
    realness, you lose a lot of their power and truth.  
    
    
    Jill2

      Hi Jill,                                                      
    
        Oh, thanks for the correction!
      
        I do believe that there is a Holy Spirit and that Jesus is
        the word, but I also believe that 'word' and 'spirit' also
        can refer to the revelation that is provided by God to the
        heart of man.
    
        BUT, I do happen to believe that the 'thing' that actually
        transforms the heart is revelation.  The love of Christ
        constrains us.  The message (revelation) of the cross is the
        power of God unto salvation.
    
        The Holy Spirit transforms hearts by revealing the character
        of God.  That revelation itself, if received by faith, is what
        actually changes the heart.  
    
        In the parable of the sower, it is the seed (word) itself which
        produces heart-change.  Jesus clearly stated that the seed is
        the word.  He did not say the seed was Himself or the Holy Spirit.
        It comes by the Spirit, yes.  But, the word itself is the reve-
        lation itself.
    
    							Tony

    Jay
    
    I think the reason the Bible has some areas that are seemingly "Open to
    interpretation" is because it means that we have to rely on seeking God
    for some of the answers not by simply following a religeous set of
    rules and regulations that tell us what to think. The essentials are
    obvious and cannot be argued about (i.e. salvation by faith in the
    finished work of Christ on the cross) but if everything was totally
    black and white we would no longer have a relationship with God, we'd
    just be rule-followers.
    
    God gave us a wonderful gift in that we have been given a free choice
    (we are not robots that are programmed to think and act only in one
    way). The problem with the pharisees is that they built their whole
    lives around following rules and regulations to the letter, losing all
    understanding of the desire of God to have a relationship with them on
    a personal basis. David was a man after own heart but in human terms he
    probably didn't live as 'perfect' a life as the pharisees did - but the
    fact was that God had his heart.
    
    Some people today still have this attitude of following doctrines and
    creeds to the letter and they lose the reality of having a daily
    relationship with God because they are not following Jesus, just a set
    of rules.
    
    Love
    Ben

    Tony said in .24 that "God *purposely* veiled His word."  For/to whom
    specifically was/is God's Word veiled?
    
    I very much appreciated Peter's comments in .29, i.e., God is eager to
    reveal Himself to the believing and obedient heart.  The crux of the
    matter is that "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
    humble." (James 4:6b, KJV)
    
    The disciples asked Jesus "Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" 
    Jesus answered "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of
    the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath,
    to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
    hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore
    speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing
    they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the
    prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear and shall not
    understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this
    people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and
    their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with
    their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their
    heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are
    your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say
    unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see
    those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those
    things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Matthew 13:10-17, KJV)
    
    The apostle Paul said "But it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear
    heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
    hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto
    us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
    things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
    spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no
    man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the
    world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things
    that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in
    the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
    teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural
    man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
    foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
    spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual discerneth all things,
    yet he himself is discerned of no man. For who hath known the mind of
    the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."
    (1 Corinthians 2:9-16, KJV)
    
    Differing interpretation/application of God's Word must derive from the
    heart of man because God desires that we know the unchanging and
    eternal Truth.  We look on the outward appearance while God looks on the
    heart.  Jesus said "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see
    God." (Matthew 5:8, KJV)
    
    I feel that we will argue in vain about why even apparently righteous
    and humble people see and hear God's Word differently until the
    thoughts and intents of their hearts are made clear.  The bottom-line
    is that a difference between godly people is NOT a reason to discredit
    God's Word, nor can it be an excuse to not seek the Truth in God's Word
    for ourselves, personally and individually.
    
    I confidently hold that to the degree we serve masters other than Jesus
    Christ we are unable to see and hear God's Word.  Thank God that He
    counts my faith in Jesus Christ as righteousness, rather than requiring
    pure and perfect motives, thoughts and actions from me.  We must NEVER
    take our eyes off Jesus to get caught up in the differing views of men!
    
    A great dilemma is presented to those who will not see and hear the Bible
    as God's inspired, inerrant and infallible Word.  Seeking God in other
    places is a subjective venture at best, most likely leading only to
    "natural" understanding.
    
    /Wayne
          

    During the prayer meeting last night I had a further thought about this
    question about Gods word:
    
    If we view prayer as simply "Getting the formula right then God has to
    answer" then the Bible would be just a book of spells - "Say ther right
    words and your wish will come true" - a bit like a Disney film. This
    would take away our dependance on God, it would also nullify Gods
    Sovereignty and the fact that He holds everyrthing together. If every
    prayer prayed that appeared to be according to Gods word was answred
    then there would be a big mess.
    
    I hope this makes sense - I'm not sure I'm saying what I'm thinking!!!
    
    Basically, we follow God not a set of rules, nor a book of magic spells
    that, if we say them, automatically get answered.
    
    Love
    Ben

      Hi Ben,
    
        I guess the essentials may not be obvious to me although I am
        not sure what you mean by the finished work of Christ on the
        cross.  I don't have faith in a work, I have faith in Christ.
        And while I believe Christ's sacrificial work is finished, I
        also believe He is *still* working for our salvation for Jesus
        "ever lives to make intercession for us."  It is the High Priest
        who supplies spiritual bread for His people and without that
        we are lost.
    
      Hi Wayne,
    
        How would you accomadate Jesus words, "I have many things to tell
        you, but you can't bear them now"?
    
        I believe that the Bible, rightly understood, contains all the
        truth any group will ever know pre-second coming.  I also believe
        that we cannot presently bear all things.  Thus, those things we
        cannot bear are veiled by God.  He loves us enough to veil His
        full glory for no one can look into the Most Holy place and live 
        if he is not sinless.
    
        We go from glory to glory and what we see is in proportion to 
        our willingness and our ability to bear.  Thus God has veiled 
        His word so that which we cannot bear is not seen until we can
        bear it - all the while it has been in His word the whole time.
    
    						Tony
        

    RE: .52
    
    Hi, Tony.
    
    Jesus said (to his disciples in the days of His flesh) "I have yet many
    things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12, KJV)
    
    He went on to say "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He
    will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but
    whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you
    things to come." (John 16:13, KJV)  What do you make of that?
    
    I understand/appreciate what you're saying, and I'm convinced that no
    truth is veiled from a believing and obedient heart.  All will be
    accomplished in the fulness of time, i.e., according to God's plan. 
    There certainly is much I yet do not know, but not because it cannot be
    known.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I just believe that its (seeing more and more glory) is
        progressive and that "God calls those things that be not
        as though they exist."  An example of this being where 
        one of your recent replies stated that we have [present
        tense] the mind of Christ.
    
        God could have shown us all of His glory at once, but He
        didn't.  In that sense, I believe the word is veiled.  All
        the glory is there, but it is veiled so that we do not see
        it until we are ready to.
    
        Joseph is a type of Christ in this sense.  He appears strange
        and sounds rough to his brothers when they see him in Egypt.
        He then leaves and weeps (*but* not in front of them) and they
        do not recognize him.  Later they recognized him and he spoke
        *kindly* unto them.
    
    						Tony

    Hi Wayne,
    
      Just to elaborate...  
    
      You said:
    
      "I'm convinced that no truth is veiled from a believing and
       obedient heart."
    
      Was not Moses believing and obedient?  Yet, when Moses asked to
      see God, did not God prevent him from seeing his face?  Why?
    
      I believe that God's face is no more glorious than His back-
      side.  "Face" is simply a euphemism for seeing "behind the veil."
    
      In love, God veils a full revelation of who He is if we are
      not ready to see it.  Thus, I am convinced that some truth is
      veiled from a believing and obedient heart.  But, really, if the
      heart believes perfectly and obeys perfectly, it is then not
      veiled from any truth for it is able to see it and live.
    
    						Tony

    RE: .54
    
    Tony, I agree with progressive revelation, i.e., the process of being
    made perfect.  What I'm not clear on is why you feel the Holy Spirit
    was sent from God after the days of Christ's flesh and what His work
    now is in the believer's heart.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        The psalmist said "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Ps. 51:11).
    
        Clearly anyone who has faith has allowed God to indwell him with
        His Spirit (pre or post cross).
    
        So how to harmonize?
    
        I believe the harmony can be found by realizing that the Spirit's
        work is to reveal and that almost anyone of faith, in OT times, 
        would have been unable to 'see' that God would actually be the 
        sacrifice for them.  In that sense, the Holy Spirit was vacant 
        to an enormous degree.  The Holy Spirit came to reveal, but there 
        was such a huge portion of truth they simply could not come to see.
    
        After the cross, it is a lot easier to see that God indeed hung
        for us.  A huge stumbling block of blindness is lifted from our
        eyes.  A blindness so huge that God can say, "Now I can give you
        the Holy Spirit" or to put another way, now He can really begin
        to fill us with revelation because we are a people blessed with
        some awareness that God Himself hung for us.
                               
    							Tony

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I see that I only answered one thing...
    
        "What is His work now in the believer's heart?"
    
        It is the same thing that it has always been.  His work is to
        reveal the dimensions of God's agape.  We can limit His work
        (see as one of many examples Ps. 78:41 "Yes again and again 
        they tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel") and thus
        delay His return for He must get a corporate body to come to 
        see very image.
    
        From Adam to the present time, His corporate body has seen
        'partial image.'  Revelation of God yes, but insufficient to
        do what Hebrews 10:1-4 speaks of - perfect the conscience.
    
        The Holy Spirit is working to bring man and God together.  To
        get His people to see very image and thus be one with Him for
        "when we see Him as He is, we shall be like Him."
    
        In a sense, the Old Covenant has gone on from Adam to now and
        onward.  The New Covenant is that time a group sees very image.
        Only very image can fully perfect the conscience.
    
    							Tony

    RE: .58
    
    Hi, Tony.
    
    Your reply seems to suggest that you believe you're under the Old
    Covenant and that the New Covenant is in effect only when a sinlessly
    perfect corporate body appears.
    
    Have I understood you correctly?
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Anyone whose faith is not perfect, I believe, is (to that extent)
        under the Old Covenant.  Abraham went in unto Hagar though he was
        a man of faith, but his faith was not perfect.  Galatians says that
        Hagar is the Old covenant.
    
        Unbelief is the essence of the Old covenant.  Belief is the essence
        of the New Covenant.  "Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief"
        characterizes my present experience and thus it is an amalgama-
        tion of faith and doubt and thus of New and Old Covenant.
    
        Because I try to be real cautious, I would say that my faith is 
        far from perfect and so would say that my experience is much more
        Old Covenant than New.  We have no idea how deep our unbelief 
        runs.  If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet
        as he ought to know it.
    
        If you are reading the way I am intending it (!!), I hope you see
        that my view is that God has always tried to produce a 100% New
        Covenant experience which is the one described by Jeremiah and
        Hebrews, i.e. the law (Christ's righteousness) is perfectly written
        in the heart.
    
        We tend to insist on the Old Covenant.  God woos us to the New.
    
        Anyone who still sins has, in part, an Old Covenant mindset.
    
    							Tony

Hi, Tony.

Given that you regard yourself as being (partially) under the Old Covenant, I
finally understand how you can say that (some of) God's Word is veiled and why
you believe the bulk of the revelation of Jesus Christ is yet to come.

As for me, the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a son of God
under the New Covenant, my faith in Jesus Christ NOW being accounted as
righteousness.  I do not see myself as perfect--I agree that I am a sinner--but
I know that when Jesus Christ appears I will be like Him for I will see Him as
He is.

Yes, the Holy Spirit reveals truth.  And God "hath sealed me, and given the
earnest of the Spirit in my heart." (2Co 1:22, KJV)

I rest in Christ knowing that He lived, died, was raised from the dead, and now
lives so that I NOW have eternal life.

May God bless and keep us, Tony, as the Holy Spirit reveals the Word of God to
our hearts.

/Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I think perhaps much of our disagreement is the meanings we
        attribute to the terms.
    
        I believe my faith is also NOW accounted to me for righteousness
        and I believe the basis for this is precisely the basis as
        enunciated in Romans 4.
    
        Abraham's imperfect faith was NOW accounted to him for righteous-
        ness because of what his faith BECAME.  God could cultivate that
        faith to the point where Abraham became fully convinced that what
        God said, He could perform, "therefore it [faith] was accounted 
        to him for righteousness."  (Rom. 4:22).  This (of course) was not 
        the status of Abraham's faith when righteousness was first accounted 
        to him for after this he demonstrated several times that he was 
        not fully convinced that what God said He could perform.
    
        Likewise, God accounts my faith as righteousness for the very 
        same reason.                                
    
        Just as Abe was not the father of many nations though God said
        that he was and just as God saw Abraham as perfectly righteous
        though he was not, we can understand and see exampels of the 
        description given to God within this context. i.e. God calls 
        things which do not exist as though they did (Rom. 4:17).
    
        Do you incorporate this into your understandings Wayne (the truth
        that God sees things that do not exist as though they do)?
    
        It would seem to fit beautifully that when God bears witness to
        you that you are presently in a new covenant exp., He is "calling
        those things that do not exist as though they did" for the
        characteristic of a full New Covenant experience is exactly the
        characteristic of one who is fully convinced that what God said
        He can perform - complete sinlessness, i.e. the law perfectly
        written in the heart.
    
        When our heavenly High Priest cultivates faith to perfection
        (Heb. 12:1-2), our faith then lays hold of the New Covenant,
        "Walk before Me [behold My agape], and be thou perfect" and allows
        the seed to perfectly accomplish exactly what it says.
    
    						Tony
    
    							Tony

      Wayne,
    
        Just a quick addendum...
    
        If the old covenant was completely done away with at the cross,
        why would the author of Hebrews state (several years *after*
        the cross)...
    
        Hebrews 8:13
        In that He says, "A new covenant", He has made the first obsolete.
        Now what IS BECOMING [not *is*, but *is becoming*] obsolete and
        growing old is ready to vanish away.
    
        My understanding is that the cross event made provision for the
        corporate body to see very image.  It finally happened.  The
        very image of the behind the veil exp. took place and is at our
        'perceptive disposal.'
    
        *However*, the New is not fulfilled when the revelation is	
        demonstrated, it is fulfilled WHEN THAT REVELATION IS PERCEIVED.
        Remember, the blood is the word (John 6:53,63).  AFTER the sacri-
        fice the blood (word, revelation) is applied by the High Priest
        to the sanctuary (hearts of the believers).
    
        The time comes when all the blood represented by all the revelation
        represented by the cross is sprinkled on the sanctuary.
                                                                  
        That would equate to a cup's worth.
    
        The drinking of the cup.  The baptism of fire.
    
        That is when the New is fulfilled.
    
    							Tony

    RE: .62
    
    Tony, you asked if I incorporate Ro 4:17 into my understandings.  What
    did I say in note 795.544?
    
    RE: .63
    
    Ah, your last sentence "...New is fulfilled."
    
    I see Old established, fulfilled by Christ.  I see New established by
    Christ, (remnants of) Old vanishing and (results of) New appearing
    (from glory to glory) until God reconciles ALL to Himself by Christ.
    The beauty is that the New Covenant will be fulfilled by Christ IN US!
    
    God promised that we who believe will be made like Christ.  God said
    it, I believe it, and that settles it!  I reckon it to be as God said.
    Take it to the bank!  Done!!  And nothing can stand against what God
    has predestined!
    
    Tony, my comfort comes from knowing that I do NOT have to see myself
    without sin in order to stand righteous before God SHOULD I DIE EVEN AS
    WE SPEAK!  Furthermore, I need not see anyone else other than Jesus
    Christ without sin before I can see Jesus as He is.
    
    I regret that I cannot fully impart to you all that the Holy Spirit now
    commends to my heart.  I can say, though, that I'm convinced that when
    I see Jesus as He is you'll be standing there with me. :-)
    
    Peace, brother.  I think we've digressed from the topic, but I trust
    that someone else might see Jesus more clearly as a result of our
    dialog.
    
    /Wayne

    Hebrews 8:13
    In that He says, "A new covenant", He has made the first obsolete.
    Now what IS BECOMING [not *is*, but *is becoming*] obsolete and
    growing old is ready to vanish away.
    
    My understanding of this verse is that "becoming" is refering to
    the Jews who haven't yet accepted Christ - not to the Christians.
    
    Jill2

    
>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      

>>My question is: If they both believe that baptism isn't essential for
>>salvation, then what does it matter if you baptize a baby, an adult or
>>don't get baptised at all for that matter?

>What a strange question, considering that both John and Mike do (as far
>as I know) believe that baptism is generally necessary for salvation.

>/john

    John,  
    Please forgive any presumption on my part to express your beliefs.  I
    didn't know where you stood on the question, hence my "IF they both
    believe."
    
>UTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"                10 lines  29-DEC-1995 11:22

>    I do not believe this to be true as presented in the Bible.

>    Mike

    Mike,
    I now know how you believe, but why does it matter when one is baptised?
    
    Mike and John,
    
    How do each one of you look at Mark 16:16?  
    
    In His Love
    
    Peter
    

re Mark 16:16:

	"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who
	 does not believe will be condemned."

From the Faculty of Theology at the University of Navarre:

  This verse teaches that, as a consequence of the proclamation of the Good
  News, faith and Baptism are indispensable pre-requisites for attaining
  salvation. Conversion to the faith of Jesus Christ should lead directly to
  Baptism, which confers on us the first sanctifying grace, by which
  original sin is forgiven, and which also forgives any actual sins there may
  be; it remits all punishment due for these sins; it impresses on the soul
  the mark of the Christian; it makes us children of God, members of the
  Church and heirs to heaven, and enables us to receive the other sacraments.

  Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, as we can see from these
  words of the Lord. But physical impossibility of receiving the rite of
  Baptism can be replaced either by martyrdom (called, therefore, "baptism of
  blood") or by a perfect act of love of God and of contrition, together with
  an at least implicit desire to be baptized: this is called "baptism of
  desire."

I prefer to say "generally necessary" rather than "absolutely necessary"
because of the listed exceptions, as well as the possibility (which we may
not teach as a certainty, but must pray and hope for, and can believe that
God is merciful enough to grant the request) that those who, through no
fault of their own (like maybe because _we_ do a poor job of evangelizing)
do not receive the Gospel, may still through some means not revealed to us,
come to love and follow and believe in Jesus Christ.

/john

    Re: progressive revelation
    
    The Mormons use this buzzword to justify their doctrines too.
    
    Re: Mark 16:16
    
    I use the Bible to interpret itself.  Every other verse in the Bible
    stresses repentance, salvation, then baptism out of obedience.  This 
    verse is an anomaly that is only reconciled with the context of the 
    entire Bible by analyzing the original Greek.  It is there that it fits 
    100% with the Biblical model of repentance, salvation, and then baptism.
    
    Mike

Of course, what you (Mike Heiser) call "salvation", I call "justification".

/john

>there is no division at the confessional level between the Protestant and
>Catholic doctrines of justification if both are rightly understood.
    
    I sense that the writer of that article is basically stating that there
    is no difference between Catholicism and Evangelicals on the doctrine
    of justification.  I may be missing something, but I don't agree that
    is true at all.
    
    Mike

>I may be missing something,

That's the point.

/john

      re: progressive revelation
    
      Mike,
    
        What's your point?  I didn't even know it was a buzzword, however
        it is entirely scriptural for "the path of the just is like a 
        light that shines brighter and brighter unto the perfect day."
    
        That is progressive revelation.
    
        Its just the idea that God's people are eventually going to see
        more about God's love than any previous people.  That is
        progressive and that is revelation.
    
        The term is so generic that to take it as it may apply in one 
        case (Mormonism apparently) and then to (on that basis) apply it
        to another case (with the same negative connotations attached) 
        is not very credible.
    
        Because of how generic the term is and also because of how it 
        certainly has a truthful application, the correlation you make,
        without any further support, is rotten.
    
    							Tony
    

      re: .65
    
      Hi Jill,
    
        How can you substantiate your position if the context of the
        book of Hebrews clearly references believers, i.e. "you have
        come to need milk and not solid food" (in addition to several
        other scriptures)???
    
        Can you find a single scripture in the book of Hebrews that
        suggests that the hearers of the letter are "Jews who haven't
        yet accepted Christ"?
    
        If not, what is the basis for your conclusion about how the
        context of the letter implies a readership that is faithless???
                            
    						Tony

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I reread 795.544 (I think that was it).  I see it the exact
        same way!
    
        I guess I include the New Covenant as one of several things
        that God sees as being though it is not yet.
    
        I see the New Covenant's fulfillment as the righteousness of
        God perfectly manifested in the hearts of the priesthood of all
        believers.  I see God looking at the New Covenant as a 'done
        deal' NOT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FULFILLED, but because He sees
        things which do not exist as though they did.  I see Him as 
        especially seeing it this way at Calvary because Christ's triumph
        at Calvary IS THE GUARANTEE.  The revelation which will perfect
        us is in the bank so to speak.  It truly is a done deal.
    
        You mentioned our discussion straying off course from the topic
        so I'll attempt to put it back on course!  ;-)
    
        One point I seem to mainly disagree with the brethren (and
        sistren!!) in this Conference is the saving nature of the cross.
        I believe we are saved by the message of the cross for "the
        message of the cross is the power of God unto salvation" and the
        "love of Christ [revealed] constraineth us" and "If I am lifted
        up [revealed], I will draw all men unto me."
    
        If the cross event took place, but its revelation was witheld
        from every man, who would be saved?  NO ONE.
    
        Thus, I look also to its revelation being PERCEIVED.  Salvation
        includes revelation perceived by the only channel through which
        it is perceived - faith.
    
        So I look to when the message of the cross is received by the
        faithful to a certain fulness, the kind of fulness that produces
        the New Covenant.
    
        The cross, outside revelation, does not write one stitch of the 
        law in the heart.  The cross, with complete revelation perceived
        by faith, writes ALL of the law in the heart.
    
        The above is a HUGE point for me!
    
        So why is the Bible vague?  Because God knows we cannot behold
        all of the glory of the cross at once.  The Bible is vague exactly
        in proportion to the degree to which we need it to be vague.  We
        see what we can bear to see and as we are able to see more, the
        Bible will show us more.
    
        To summarize, ultimately God has to shed all of the revelation
        packed in the cross to the corporate body of God's faithful pre-
        2nd coming.  Reality is, this must be a progressive work.  The
        High Priest SPRINKLES [administers it progressively] the blood 
        [revelation] in the sanctuary [hearts].  He does not pour
        [administer it all at once] the full cup on the sanctuary.
    
        Before one can bear to be baptized with a flood of revelation, he 
        must first have been exposed to the dew, sprinkles, and showers.
    
        We simply can't see it all at once and live.
                                                            
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony 

    RE: .68 & .73
    
    Hi, Mike.
    
    I know the term "progressive revelation" is loaded and has been misused
    in ways other than what I believe Tony understands.
    
    Tony can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand his
    position to be that as we "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our
    Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" we come to see Him more clearly, i.e.,
    God is revealing His Word to our hearts from glory to glory.
    
    Tony and I may differ on our description of the process taking place,
    but after actually meeting Tony and getting to know him a bit, I'm
    convinced we confess the same Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus
    Christ.  Right now, I feel difference around our understanding of
    "positional sanctification", i.e., that in Christ I now stand righteous
    before God, even though I am a sinner.  In other words, I stand perfect
    (complete) in Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit, until the day God's
    work is perfect (complete) in me.  Then I will have been made like
    Christ and will stand without sin to the glory of God.
    
    I don't have a particular problem with Tony's belief that there will be
    a group of people whom God has actually perfected as new creatures
    without sin before Christ appears again.  I do not agree, however, that
    Christ cannot appear until that "holy nation" is actually seen in this
    earthly life.  That in no way diminishes my desire to be like Christ in
    this earthly life.  I just know that my seeing Christ as He is when He
    soon appears does NOT depend on my seeing myself or anyone else other
    than Christ as perfect (without sin).
    
    Furthermore, I see no need to convince Tony that Christ can appear
    before a corporate group is made sinlessly perfect in this earthly life
    because his belief will NOT prevent Christ from appearing. :-)
    
    /Wayne

    Hi Tony -
    
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4
    And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are
    perishing.  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
    so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of
    Christ, who is the image of God.
    
    
    Galatians 2:15-21
    15"We who are Jews by birth and not `Gentile sinners' 
    16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith
    in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that
    we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law,
    because by observing the law no one will be justified.
    
    Remember this is a letter to real people who were alive at the time
    it was written concerning their faith.  Its not addressed to endtime
    people.
    
    17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident
    that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes
    sin? Absolutely not!
    
    See these people still sinned.
    
    18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 
    
    Paul says not to rebuild the law, not to partially live the old
    convenent and the new one.
    
    19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 
    20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ
    lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son
    of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
    
    Paul says that after giving your life to Christ you are dead to the
    law - the old testament.  You live totally by the new testament, 
    by faith.  Even if you can't do it perfectly.
    
    21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be
    gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
    
    Even if you still sin, this is what the grace of God is for.  And
    God's grace is yours through believing in Christ.
    
    2 Cor 12:9 
    And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength
    is made perfect in weakness.  Most gladly therefore will I rather
    glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
    
    
    Jill2
    

"Progressive revelation" seems to be a rather problematic term.

Certainly "revelation" ended with the death of the last apostle.

However, the _understanding_ of that revelation, completed in Jesus Christ
and delivered by his Apostles is progressive.

But "progressive" does not allow anything new to ever contradict that which
was revealed in the past.

/john

    Yeah, like John said. :-)
    
    I just hate it when we can no longer use words without something being
    read into them not necessarily consistent with commonly understood
    definitions from a dictionary.
    
    From the AHD:
    
    PROGRESSIVE - 1. Moving forward; advancing.
                  2. Proceeding in steps or by stages.
    
    REVELATION  - 1. Something that is revealed, esp. something surprising.
                  2. An act of revealing.
    
    REVEAL      - 1. To make known.
                  2. To display or show clearly.
    
    There is no truth yet to be revealed which would contradict the Word of
    God revealed in Jesus Christ.
    
    I believe TonyB desires/expects NOTHING outside a full _understanding_
    of Jesus Christ.
    
    Practically speaking, when is something known by an observer/hearer? 
    When it is presented, or when it is perceived and understood?  One test
    of whether Jesus is known or not is if we who claim to see/hear Him
    "look" (act and talk) like Him.  Exchanging my perspective for God's is
    what this is all about "that we put off...the old man...and be renewed
    in the spirit of our mind; and that we put on the new man, which after
    God is created in righteousness and holiness of truth." (Ep 4:22-24,
    KJV)
    
    We do not yet see/know all that God sees/knows, including what we shall
    be.  When we who believe see Jesus as He is, the Word of God written in
    our hearts will perfectly describe Him, and, to the degree that our eyes
    were fixed on Jesus and our hearts tuned to His Spirit, all different
    understandings will have been reconciled in Christ, whose mind by faith
    we have!
    
    /Wayne

RE.45
>        Maybe it would be better to do things for other reasons then
>        "Well, will I lose my salvation if I don't do this thing?" or
>        "If I do this thing, will I be saved?"
>
>        Motivation is important.  A better motivation is "The love of
>        Christ constrains me."  Do things because you love God, not
>        so that you can acquire a piece of heavenly real estate.

********

Tony,

1) With respect to motivation, according to the following verses, what's wrong 
with doing something in order to be saved?  As it's God's will that ALL be saved
what's wrong with having a Salvation Motovation?  That's exactly what God wants
isn't it?
     
     1 Timothy 2:3,4 

      		"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants
      		 all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the
      		 truth."


     2 Peter 3:9

      		"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some 
      		 understand slowness.  He is patient with you, not wanting
      		 anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

2) God also uses other forms of motivation himself, the most prominent one 
being fear, as the following point out.

     Proverbs 1:7  

      		"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
      		 and fools despise wisdom and discipline."

     2 Thessalonians 1:8,9

      		"He will punish those who do not know God and who do not
      		 obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.  They will be
      		 punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
      		 from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of
      		 his power."

     1 Peter 4:17,18

      		"For it is time for judgement to begin with the family of
      		 God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be
      		 for those who do not obey the gospel of God?  And,

      			"If it is hard for the righteous to be
      				saved,
      			  what will become of the ungodly 
      				and the sinner?""

Even Jesus in Luke 14:25-33 exhorts us to count the cost of FOLLOWING him, ie
hating father, mother, etc and using the tower-builder as an analogy, but he
also uses the fear motivation to get us to understand the cost of NOT FOLLOWING
him in the 2-kings-going-to-war analogy.

So while the love of Christ constrains me, God is well aware of other 
motivational techniques and does hesitate to use them, ESPECIALLY when it comes 
our salvation.

Love in Him,

Peter
      

    RE-last
    
    God is aware of other motivation's and DOES NOT hesitate to use them
    especially when it comes to our salvation.
    
    Sorry for not proof reading my previous message.
    
    In Him,
    
    Peter

Finally...

    >21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be
    >gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
    
    Yes.  We are not made righteous by trying to be righteous, we are made
    righteous by beholding the cross of Christ.

    >Even if you still sin, this is what the grace of God is for.  And
    >God's grace is yours through believing in Christ.

    The grace of God is for making us righteous, however I agree that one
    stands positionally perfectly righteous when one first has faith.

    Jill, in terms of salvation, what else does God's grace do besides make 
    us righteous?    

    >2 Cor 12:9 
    >And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength
    >is made perfect in weakness.  Most gladly therefore will I rather
    >glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
    
    What is the sufficiency of that grace?  The context is of what it can
    do even in weakness.  It can transform *character*.  It can perfect
    the conscience.
    
						Tony

      Wayne, I also wanted to reply to you (you too Peter!), but time
      does not presently permit.
    
      Wayne, I appreciate your good words spoken in my behalf and your
      coming to my defense regarding the possibility that I might have
      meant 'progressive revelation' in an 'OK' way!
    
      (I did mean it in terms of what we 'see' of course and I think you
      saw that.)                                    
    
    						Thanks Again,
    
    						Tony

    Re: Note 836.46 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
>I am curious as to your post, however.  Do you have any basis for your
>categorical claim that "estin" means "sort-of" "is" and "touto estin" means
>a definite "is"?  
    
    No categorical claim, it was made based on memory at the time.  I'd
    have to do further research to back my claim.  "toutous" or "touto" I
    have seen as used as a definite-prefix.
    
    James

    Tony
    
    I'm reading these notes at an horrendously early time in the morning,
    so please forgive me if I've totally misread what you've said.
    
    I think you said that:
    
    1 - We are made righteous by obeying the law
    
    2 - Some people will be perfect before Christ appears
    
    If I've misread your comments and the above statements aren't what you
    said then don't bother reading the rest 'cos it will be a waste of
    time.
    
    
    I believe that when Jesus preached the Sermon on the mount (Matthew
    5-7) He was making it obvious to everybody that there was no chance
    whatsoever of anybody ever fulfilling the law because even our thoughts
    break the law. He made it clear that those who obeyed the law still
    missed the mark (mainly because of their religeous pride and dependancy
    on tradition and not on loving God and their neighbour). We cannot put
    any confidence in our flesh, it is corrupt and worn-out and shabby and
    will be shed when we see Jesus face to face. Therefore both the above
    statements are inaccurate - nobody will be perfect until Jesus appears
    - then we will be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye -
    hallelujah.
    
    love
    Ben

      Hi Ben,
    
        I never said we are made righteous by obeying the law.  I said
        our hearts are made righteous by Jesus Christ.  Acts says we
        are sanctified by faith.
    
        I did say that there will be a perfected last generation.
    
        Interesting, Ben, that you referred to the Sermon On The Mount.
    
        I agree with you that the context is BEHAVIOR.  Interesting then,
        that within this context, Jesus says "Be ye therefore PERFECT
        even as your Father in heaven is perfect."
    
        In Corintians, Paul says that the love of Christ constrains
        (motivates) us.  He then goes on to say that a purpose of the
        cross is that it causes people who used to live for themselves
        to no longer live for themselves, but to live "for He who died 
        for them and rose again."
    
        I have a very important and frank question for you...
    
        How can I understand that your position does not limit the power
        of the cross to perform everything it sets out to accomplish???
    
        If its the power of the cross that changes the heart and if you
        insist that the cross cannot do a perfect work of doing so, are
        you not limiting the power of the cross???
    
    							Tony

    < How can I understand that your position does not limit the power
    < of the cross to perform everything it sets out to accomplish???
    
    Tony
    
    I totally agree with you that the cross has acomplished all it was
    designed to do - I know that I have been washed clean by the blood of
    Jesus and that I am now the righteousness of God. Maybe our phraseology
    is different (or maybe I was just too tired yesterday to take in what
    you had said and to answer coherantly (sp) ).
    
    However, I know that I still sin, to deny it would be sin!!! But I also
    know that when I do sin if I confess it to God He is faithful and will
    forgive me and the blood of Jesus will cleanse me. I also know that the
    person I am now is nothing compared to the man I shall be when I see
    Jesus face to face - my fallen flesh will be removed and replaced by a
    heavenly body.
    
    Is this what you have been saying???
    
    
    Love
    Ben

      re: .91
    
      Hi Ben,
    
        No, that is not at all what I have been saying!
    
        Romans 4 tells us ON WHAT BASIS Abraham was accounted (declared
        and considered) righteous when he first had faith.  The reason
        is that Abraham got to the point of being fully convinced that
        what God said, He could perform.
    
        When one has this kind of faith, one has allowed the word to
        fully perform that which it says.  The word that says, "You are
        righteous" makes the person righteous as surely as the word that
        said, "Thats a star over there" created a star out of nothing.
    
        I take strong issue with your position (not with you of course!).
    
        You have effectively removed the entirety of the motivating power
        of the cross, even when it refers to how we live our lives, to
        how we live our lives.  You have completely removed the heart-
        change from the gospel (from the purpose of the cross).
    
        When Paul talks about the love of Christ motivating us and goes
        on to say that Jesus was lifted up so that people who lived
        selfish lives underwent a change such that they no longer lived
        selfish lives, but rather lived unselfish lives for Him, he was
        not referring to something declarative only (which had no relevence
        to actual heart-change).
    
        He was referring to actual change of character.
    
        You have taken a position that removes character change from the
        gospel where my position retains character change in the gospel.
    
        God only calls us as righteous as He can make us.
    
        He looks at the beginning of our faith on the basis of the truth
        that He can finish (perfect) that same faith.  Yes, it may end
        short of that with many, but He must (and will) take a last 
        generation all the way for this very reason - His underlying
        basis.
    
        This is not a crossless gospel for it is the merits of the cross
        that produces this - a revelation of that love produces the 
        heart-change for "the message of the cross is the power of God
        unto salvation."       
    
    							Tony