Conference yukon::christian_v7

Hoo, boy, we just went through a long discussion on this.  Does anyone
remember where?  Was it in Jill's note 795?  Could someone help find that
discussion?

In this case, as in many cases, it doesn't have to be either/or.  Most people
who believe in free will and full ability to choose, believe that God knows
beforehand what those choices will be.  So Judas could have the free will to
choose, and Jesus could have chosen Judas specifically because He knew what
choice Judas would make.

Paul

      My psoture is that the answer hinges on a very fundamental 
      understanding of the nature of God's love.
    
      Does it draw or force?
    
      Is it limited in any way in its scope?  (i.e. does it love
      all or just some?)
    
    						Tony

    Judas like all of us have/had the free will to serve God or not.
    If Judas didn't betray Jesus then someone else would have but one thing
    is for sure God's will, will be done, the prophesy would have been
    fulfilled.
    Judas, like Satan were good but turned to evil because they abused
    their free will.
    
    Bob

    From John 17:12, Jesus' prayer to the Father for His disciples:
    
        While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by the
        name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to
        destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
        
    In fact, the entirety of John 17 gives some excellent insight into the
    sovereignty of God and Jesus' acknowledgment and thankfulness of it.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

Re: .0  (Shean)

>    Was a God's plan for Judas to betray Jesus? Or did Judas have a choice for
>    not betray Jesus? (Then prophysy would not be fullfilled)
    
An even more loaded question:

Pilate said to Jesus, "Don't you realize that I have power to either free you
or crucify you?" (John 19:10)  What would you have done?

(This is a hit-and-run reply.  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

    And an even more loaded question:
    
    Could Jesus have chosen to not go to the cross?

    ...He could've called 10,000 angels...

    RE: .7
    
    To do what?  Die in His place? :-)

Well, as the song goes....


...to destroy the world, and set Him free.
He could have called 10,000 angels, but He died alone, for you and me.

    Okay, back to Garth's hit-and-run:  Could Pilate have set Jesus free?
    
    Is that what you were asking, Garth?

    Yes he, Pilat could have set him free but it was the religious leaders
    of the day that wanted him dead because he threatened their authority.
    the charge was plasphemy.  Jesus also had a choice to die for us or not
    but he chose to do the will of his father who had such great a love for
    mankind that he offered to sacrifice his only begotten son so that we
    may be saved. May we never forget that.
    Bob

    From man's perspective, each of the people mentioned in this topic
    could have chosen differently; they were free to do so. However, from
    God's perspective, each of the peoples' choices was destined from the
    Beginning. We are never able to surprise God; nothing in all of
    Creation is left to chance. There are no such things as "coincidence"
    (except in the root meaning of the word, where two events coincide),
    chance, or luck from God's perspective. Everything is ultimately from
    God so that His perfect will is accomplished.
    
    So the truth is that while each of the people mentioned in this topic
    was free to choose differently from their perspective, in reality none
    of them could have done so, because if they had done so, then they
    would not have been who they were at the precise instant in time that
    they made their choices. And so it is with each of us and the myriad of
    choices we face throughout life. When we come to a fork in the road, we
    can only take one of the branches. Which branch we take is entirely
    dependent on who we are at that moment, which is exactly where God has
    us in our lives at that time.
    
    And so these three things remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And of these,
    the greatest is Love.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    So where does that leave us? Are we destined for destruction or can we
    change our lives to do Gods will. Has God already planned our
    destiny? Does God already know if we will be saved or destroyed? How
    then do we have free will?
    Questions questions questions, but I do agree most of 883.12 nothing
    surprises or Creator after all he made us and knows us better than we
    know ourselfes. Halelujah.
    Bob
    

re .12

;    From man's perspective, each of the people mentioned in this topic
;    could have chosen differently; they were free to do so. However, from
;    God's perspective, each of the peoples' choices was destined from the
;    Beginning. We are never able to surprise God; nothing in all of
;    Creation is left to chance. There are no such things as "coincidence"
;    (except in the root meaning of the word, where two events coincide),
;    chance, or luck from God's perspective. Everything is ultimately from
;    God so that His perfect will is accomplished.

	Daryl,

	To foreknow doesn't necessarily mean to foreordain. God is not the
	author of wickedness. This thought is brought out in the account
	of Cain, before he murdered his brother. "At this Jehovah said to
	Cain:' .... If you turn to doing good, will there not be an 
	exultation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin
	crouching at the entrance, and will you for your part get mastery 
	over it?" Genesis 4:6,7 NWT God knew what was in Cain's heart and
	warned him of the consequence if he continued to dwell on his evil 
	thoughts (compare James 1:14,15). His admonishion was to "turn to
	doing good", so God was encouraging a different outcome.

	Jesus gave signs of the last days, increase of wickedness due to
	peoples hearts growing colder. Not because Jesus wants peoples 
	hearts to grow colder, but he foreknew that this would be the 
	result of mankinds continued rebellion and the influence of Satan 
	(compare Revelation 12:9).

	In places where fate is a common belief, many take unnessary risks 
	in things such as driving. The thought being, that if there is going
	to be an accident then it's all part of God's plan. Obviously such
	ones don't feel accountable for their actions. 

	To conclude wickedness is no part of God's perfect will.

	Phil.

      Hi Daryl,
    
        I am eager for you to offer a hypothetical conversation.
    
        Explain to a person who is 'willed' to be lost how it is
        that God personally loves him.
    
    						Thanks!,
    
    						Tony

    Hi Bob,
    
    Those are valid questions, and I will do my best to address them. Most
    if not all of the Scriptural support can be found in my notes in topic
    795, however, I can duplicate them here if need be.

>Are we destined for destruction or can we change our lives to do Gods
>will. 
    
    We cannot even change the color of a single hair on our head. It is He
    Who draws us to Him. No man (or woman) can come to Jesus unless the
    Father draws him (or her). All of our days were numbered before one of
    them came to pass. Our destiny is known by God, but not necessarily by
    us.
    
>Has God already planned our destiny? 
    
    Yes, absolutely.
    
>Does God already know if we will be saved or destroyed? 
    
    Most assuredly. He will have mercy on whom He wishes to have mercy, and
    He will harden whom He wishes to harden.
    
>How then do we have free will?
    
    We have free will only from our perspective in that from that
    perspective we are not bound in the choices we make. However, from
    God's perspective, each of our choices was predetermined from the
    Beginning.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Hi Phil,
    
    I hope that you will forgive me for saying this, but at this time I
    will not debate Christian doctrine with you unless we can agree upon
    what John 1:1 says. So I ask you, is the Word God, or is the Word a
    god?
    
    -- Daryl

    Hi Tony,
    
    It is not given for me to know the ultimate disposition of a person in
    God's eyes, so therefore I can never make the assumption that God has
    willed someone to be lost -- or saved, for that matter. I can only be
    concerned with my own walk with the Lord, that I do and say what I hear
    my Father doing and saying. If He offers mercy, then I offer mercy. If
    He offers a rebuke, then I offer a rebuke.
    
    I am not perfect and will make mistakes from time to time. But in my
    heart, I am more interested in knowing the Truth than I am in being
    right. He has given me such a heart, and my greatest desire is that any
    who wish to do so should know His love, even as I know it.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    re: .15, 18
    
    Come on Daryl, I wanted to hear the answer too.
    
    How can God love someone who is going to stay lost?  I ask because
    I believe that He does love them.  I'm interested in hearing your
    explaination.
    
    Jill
    

    I have to admit, I wanna know too. :-) Sorry.

      re: .15
      
      Hi Daryl,
    
      Let's be hypothetical.  Say you know a person will be lost.
      Lets further say that person knows he is lost and knows
      (I am presuming your sovereignty position) knows he can't
      do a thing about it.
    
      Now share with that person how it is God loves him.
    
    						Tony

re .14

	Hi Daryl,

	No problem, if that's how you feel. Mind you I do find it strange
	not to discuss your faith, because another person holds to a different
	interpretation/translation of the original Greek text for John 1:1.
	
	By now it should be apparent that neither of us are likely to change
	our views on John 1:1. To be honest I don't want to go down that 
	discussion in this Notes conference.

	Phil.

>Lets further say that person knows he is lost and knows
>      (I am presuming your sovereignty position) knows he can't
>      do a thing about it.

is that no one can know this except God.

The question cannot be answered.

ace

    Yea Tony, thats not a fair question.  The original one was though.
    I'd still like to see an answer to .19
    
    
    Jill
    

      re: .23,.24
    
      It is a problem on one condition.  That Daryl's sovereignty
      position is correct.
    
      It is NO problem if it is not necessarily correct and this
      forum welcomes ALL Bible-believers - even those who understand
      sovereignty differently.  I would hope we can embrace Christians
      of other persuasions here and I personally feel that such
      embracement allows for some elasticity, i.e. the question posed
      is then fair.
    
      I'll give my answer and its easy...
    
      The lost state of the lost is not fastened by God.  God enabled
      the lost to choose to serve Him.  The question is voided in
      that it speaks of a God who does not exist; it speaks of One
      who falls short of the sublime scripture that says, "God IS love."
                   
    						Tony

I think I know what Tony's trying to ask.  Let me rephrase his question, and if
I've not captured his intent, then Tony can say so.

      Let's be hypothetical.  Say a person will be lost.  Lets further say
      that you know (according to your sovereignty position) that some
      people will be lost and can do nothing about it.
    
      Now share with that person how God loves him.

I think the question CAN be answered because Jesus loved Judas.  Struggling with
some questions is vain, but seeking to understand God's love is not!

Hi Tony,

I don't know Daryl's position on sovereignty. Excluding anyone from the 
conference never entered my mind. 

The lost can never know they are lost until it's too late.

Even so, For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son that
whosoever believes into him shall not perish.

Herein is the unconditional love of God to a lost and dying world. 

regards,
ace

      Hi Ace,
    
        Daryl can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of
        his sovereignty position is that a lost person is lost
        because God wants him to be lost (He WILLED for that person
        to be lost).  In other words, the lost person had no choice
        in the matter.
    
        It is to this view of sovereignty that I pose this question.
    
    						Tony

  Hi,

    The following is part of some mail I sent to Wayne.  I edited some
    of it.

    I have been meaning to enter Romans 1 into the discussion.  It so
    clearly says that the lost are without excuse on the basis of
    God having sufficiently revealed Himself to them.  Clearly, then,
    they COULD HAVE chosen to serve Him.

    As we know, "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
    (Rom. 10)

    Romans 1 says that the lost have all HEARD THE WORD OF GOD (which is
    what faith comes by).

    His sovereignty position (Daryl's) says that the lost are lost 
    because God wills it and the saved are saved because God wills it.
    I believe the saved are saved because they chose to respond to the
    hearing of the word (which choice was enabled and willed by God).

    We all recognize some point of *unfathomability* somewhere (I believe).

    This is key:

    Where Daryl has articulated his reasons for the weakness of the camp
    that says God does not will the lost state of the lost is the 
    following...

    The saved cannot even make the choice to serve God as we can attain
    nothing.

    SOLID POINT.

    But, made voided by Romans 1 which I believe says...

    God has ENABLED every person to choose to serve Him.  IT IS HIS WORK
    (not ours).  (Even the work of cultivating in a person the ability 
    to decide to serve Him.)

    Thus my point of unfathomability no longer lies in the uncomfortable
    realm of what seems like a subtle salvation partially by works
    theology, i.e. "I was able to make that first initial choice for God."

    My point of unfathomability now lies in this realm...

    Even though God ENABLED (and thus willed) the lost to serve Him, 
    they were still able to nullify that enabling.  I admit to not being
    able to fully fathom this, but at least it steers the locus of 
    unfathomability AWAY from a theology that suggests salvation is 
    by faith + our own work of being able to make that right initial 
    choice for Him!

    With the backdrop that the important thing is that it is according to
    the Word, Daryl's point of unfathomability is at a highly unattractive
    place - how to reconcile God's love.  If we are judged by our works
    for our works indicate who we are, it has to follow that, with Daryl's
    position, God's 'works' are inclusive of He fastening the lost state
    of the lost.  Thus, God does not love the lost.  Thus, Daryl's point
    of unfathomability is squarely directed at the most crucial location
    which is the most sublime scripture of them all: "God is love!"

    Not a place I would ever want to be!  The gospel is a message whose
    central theme any Christian desires to bring to any person's awareness
    is that God loves him.

    God is love is the kernal of the gospel.  All else flows from this.
    Daryl's sovereignty position, I believe, is effectively partial
    removal of that kernal.

							God Bless,

							Tony

re.28
> (He WILLED for that person to be lost)

If Daryl believes that then Daryl might just be wrong about that point.  8*)
However, Daryl is not at all wrong about God's foreknowledge of our destiny.

God's love is unconditional towards mankind in general. His salvation is
conditional and specific. He loves all mankind yet only those who believe Him
recieve Him and His salvation. His love is far greater than our unwillingness
to worship Him. He loves us even in our lost and death condition. Nevertheless
He is righteous and judges us righteously. His love is not greater than His
righteousness, that is, He would and could never be unrighteous for the
sake of His love toward us. For instance, He couldn't save us apart from His
Son who paid the price of our redemption with His own blood.

Jill, that is how God loves us even though, according to His foreknowledge, He
knows that some of us will not believe into Him. 

This is difficult to understand because we are creatures of time and God is
not limited by time or space. In His foreknowledge He knew who would receive
Him and who would not. He then marks out and sets apart those whom He has
forseen will receive Him (a.k.a. predestination). No one can know whether they
are lost for the opporunity for receiving Him is open even at one's last dying
breath. However, I don't recommend anyone depend on that.  8*)

Our mission is to preach the gospel. In Mark 4 (I think) the Sower went out to
sow. This Sower broadcast His seed. That is He scattered it over the earth
indiscriminately. Some seed took root others did not. The earth represents the
human heart. The preparation of the earth (the human heart) is God's
responsibility. Ours is to scatter the gospel seed broadly. 

regards,
Ace

      Hi Hermano Ace,
    
        Righteousness and love are the same thing.  Jesus said that
        the commandments are fulfilled by loving God with all your
        heart and your neighbor as yourself.
    
        Isaiah 51:7 says (paraphrase), "Listen to Me you who know
        righteousness.  You people in whose heart is My law."
    
        From the 1st par.,
    
    		commandments (law) = love             a = b
    
        From the 2nd par.,
    		law		   = righteousness    a = c
    
        If a=b and a=c, it follows that b=c.
    
        Maybe the blood was required in a way that is consistent with
        the above.  (I could explain my posture on how that may be.)
    
    						Tony

re.-1

I'll pass.

8*)

    Hi Jill and Nancy,

    In response to your questions, I must first clarify something.

    Tony asked me how I might explain to someone destined to be lost that
    God loves them. You, on the other hand, asked me to explain how God can
    love someone who is destined to be lost. These are two entirely
    different questions! The former is a matter of interpersonal
    relationships -- mine to the person in question, but the latter is a
    matter of God's relationship to that person. Do you see the difference?

    I hope that my answer to Tony's original question is not obscured by
    what follows, because I said some very important things in it.  There
    is no point in discussing a hypothesis based upon a premise that is
    itself contrary to Scripture, namely, that I, or anyone else, would be
    in a position of "knowing" whether or not a person was to be saved
    and then taking action based on that knowledge. To be honest, I find
    the whole idea extremely painful. Please, if you feel that this subject
    is worthy of discussion, I would encourage you to re-read my note and
    hear what I said. I cannot in good conscience participate in
    speculation of that nature. It is harmful, and it distracts us from the
    main issue, which should be our individual walks with God.

    Now, as to the question of, "How can God love someone who is going to
    stay lost?" In all honesty, I am not qualified to answer that question,
    because I don't have the complete revelation of God's heart. What I can
    do is to say some of what I have seen from the Bible, but that will be
    inconclusive at best. While it might give us some insight into God's
    character, which is always helpful, I must maintain that each person
    should be concerned with his or her own walk with the Lord and not with
    anyone else's. 

    If we are to minister to others, it must be from a point of obedience
    to what we see our Father doing, not because we seek to change or help
    them. I draw the distinction because while many times the two goals are
    compatible, there are times when they are not, and following the
    Father's leading is always more important than following our desires
    for others; it is all a matter of on whom (or on Whom) our eyes are
    fixed.

    Now, having said all of that, here are a few of the things I see in the
    Bible:

    For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son. And yet
    none can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. Judas was doomed
    from the Beginning, yet Jesus forgave Peter for denying Him. God killed
    Ananias and Sapphira, but Saul, who was extremely zealous in killing
    and persecuting Christians, He made an apostle. God loved Jacob, but
    Esau He hated, and that before either of them was born. God chose the
    Hebrew to be His people, and yet He called King Cyrus His anointed. God
    caused Job to suffer terribly, and He put his children to death, yet
    Job was more righteous than anyone. God calls us to choose this day
    whom we will serve, and yet a man's life is not his own, and all his
    days are numbered before one of them comes to pass; apart from Him, we
    can do nothing. Many are called, but few are chosen. God is love, and
    yet His wrath has been terrible and shall be even moreso. God created
    us all and is responsible for all life and death in all Creation. Some
    of us He has chosen, others He sends to Hell.

    Who am I to say how God feels toward those He has not chosen -- or
    toward anyone, for that matter? Even when He specifically reveals His
    feelings for someone to me, it is only for that particular moment in
    time, that I might do as I see Him doing. His ways are not my ways; His
    are much higher than mine. Should I not rather be concerned with my own
    walk with Him? 
    
    It is an awesome thing to fall into the hands of the Lord God Almighty.
    Let us not worry so about the salvation, actions, or words of others,
    but rather let us work our own salvation with fear and trembling.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Hi Phil,
    
    Thanks for not being offended; I was hoping that you wouldn't be.
    
    I am as willing to discuss my faith as anyone, but in this particular
    case, my leading is that to do so would be fruitless, because (and
    again, I hope you'll forgive me...) the foundation of your faith is
    built upon a different cornerstone than mine. It is not my desire to
    change you or criticize you; I am simply stating the truth.
    
    -- Daryl

    By the way, Wayne's question in .26 is yet another new one, and it's a
    a very good one as well. I can address it if there is a desire for me
    to do so.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Tony, I have one question for you:
    
    What is love?
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Daryl,
    
    Why should we pray?

    Nancy, where did that question come from?  One of the notes?  I'm
    confused.

    If all is planned and willed by God, why pray?  Why do I ask for
    comfort for the grieving and for healing of the sick, why do I ask for
    my children's hearts to be knitted to the Lord's?
    
    Why pray?  Quite honestly, if what Daryl proposes is true, then I'm
    stopping praying because all of the Bible is in total chaos to me.  
    
    Nancy
    
    And I've gotta see Daryl tonight after having said this! 

    re: 33
    
    Nancy, I don't think Daryl ever answered our question!  :-)
    
    Does God love the lost?
    
    
    Jill

    re:  39  praying
    
    Good question Nancy.
    
    Daryl, I'm looking forward to hearing this answer.  :-)
    
    Jill

  Re: .36
    
  Hi Daryl,

    What is love?

    1 Corin 13 describes agape by telling us about things it is
    not.  It does not envy, does not boast, keeps no account,
    thinks no evil, seeks not its own.

    My present understanding is such that I would summarize
    the principle of sinlessness (agape/love) and its contrast
    (sinfulness) in the following way:

    sinfulness is a principle of heart that characterizes one
    as esteeming oneself above all others.

    Love (agape) is a principle of heart that characterizes
    one as esteeming all others as more important than one-
    self.

    I believe the Son is the express image of the Father.  I also
    believe that there was a time as Jesus hung on the cross that
    He could not see His own eternal security, that it seemed as
    though He might be losing His own 'salvation' as it were.

    In the midst of this uncertainty, I believe the heart of Jesus
    preferred to give up eternal life (if that were possible) for
    virtually anyone so evil as to prefer Him eternally gone
    (cursed of God).  

    Paul (Rom. 9:3) and Moses (Exodus 32:32) indicated a willingness
    to relinquish eternal salvation and each by the way for a group
    of people I believe a subset of which will end up lost (all of 
    physical Israel).

    So when I go all the way with my view of love, it is that love
    would be willing to relinquish one's own salvation for one who
    wants you eternally lost - all in the hope that that revelation
    of love might warm the person's heart (convert the person).

    I believe God's love (as described above) is extended to Satan,
    all lost angels, and every man.  However, the lost have tied God's
    hands, i.e. His revelation of His love can't draw them from the
    hardness of their hearts anymore.  They are no longer savable;
    by their choice and not God's.  (And not choices God created them
    to have to make.)

						Take Care,

						Tony

      re: .39
    
      Don't worry Nancy.  What Daryl proposes is most assuredly
      NOT TRUE!!
    
      Love draws.  It does not force.
    
      Drawing implies, among other things, the choosers to truly
      have volition.
    
    						Tony

    RE: .35
    
    If my rephrasing of Tony's question did not really capture what he
    wanted to get at, then Daryl need not answer for my sake.
    
    If, on the other hand, the rephrased question is one that resonates
    with another reader and that reader desires to hear Daryl's answer,
    then please speak up.
    
    Otherwise, the answer is entirely at Daryl's discretion/discernment,
    i.e., if God indicates to him that he should answer.
    
    /Wayne

    re: .39 praying
    
    Ok, ok, I'll at a stab at this one.  I'm not totally clear on this yet 
    but right now I see it this way.
    
    Pastor says praying opens up a connection to God.  This is most
    important.  To stay connected with Him.  
    
    Pray in God's will, as lead by the Spirit.  This goes along with God's
    soverneigty.  If you pray for His will it makes sense.
    
    Except why should we have to pray for His will?  He is God.  Why does
    He need our help?  
    
    The verse that came to mind was Matthew 18:18.
    "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in
    heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
    
    Tied in with Ephesians 6:12:
    For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the
    rulers, against the authorities,against the powers of this dark world and 
    against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
    
    The battle is on two realms, the physical and the spiritual and we are 
    given the authority in His name to battle on earth.  This is done 
    through prayer, through being in contact with Him.  For from him
    and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! 
    Amen (Romans 11:36).
    
    How'd I do?
    
    Jill
    

re.42

Hermano,

>I believe God's love (as described above) is extended to Satan,
>    all lost angels, and every man.

The Bible is clear on God's love for man. But I don't recall any scriptural
basis for God loving Satan and the fallen angels. What do you base this on?

Now the quickest way to get me to go away and leave you alone is to claim a=b
and b=c therefore a=c.  8*)  8*)

ace

re.45

Hey Jill, I liked it!

ace

    RE: .39
    
    Hope I'm not sounding like a broken record, but...
    
    A clue:  According to John 17:21, Jesus prayed, "That they all may be
    one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, they they also may be
    one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
    
    Examine Jesus' prayers.  The unity of the Godhead is very apparent as
    the Son talked with our Father.
    
    Why pray?  That we might be one with Him.
    
    I believe this reason stands independent of our particular view of
    sovereignty.
    
    "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in
    the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made
    Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and
    was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man,
    He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of
    the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a
    name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee
    should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under
    the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
    Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Ph.2:5-11, KJV)
    
    I've come to understand Jesus praying to fellowship as God with God. 
    If that be true, then how might we be made like Him?
    
    /Wayne

    re .39
    
    Hi Wayne,
    
    Well I did say that prayer opens up a connection to God.
    
    I guess I also left out the streams of living water that come only from
    being one with Him. 
    
    
    Thanks
    Jill
    

    re .39
    
    Actually Wayne, last couple of lines of my original posting ending in 
    Romans 11:36 said both of these things to me.  The vine and the water.
    Do you see it?  
    
    
    Jill  

    RE: .49 & .50
    
    Hi, Jill.
    
    Your response sounded like you thought mine was meant in some way to
    correct or complete yours.
    
    I liked your original "stab," too!  I should have said that before
    jumping in with my thoughts on why pray.
    
    Let's see:  Thirst, come to Him, and drink.  Then out flow rivers of
    living water (Jn.7:37-39).  From or of Him, through Him and to Him.
    
    Vine, branch and fruit.  We in Him, and He in us.  Bearing much fruit
    to the Father's glory (Jn.15:3-9).  From or of Him, through Him and to
    Him.
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .37
    
    Actually, Nancy asked Daryl.
    
    Jill, I guess we have to wait for the right answer from Daryl. :-)

    Hi, Daryl.
    
    How would you differentiate your view of God's sovereignty from
    stoicism or fatalism in the limit?
    
    /Wayne

Actually, Jill, that Mt 18:18 verse more closely supports Daryl's position
than the position that our prayer changes things.  If you look at the verb
tenses, a more accurate rendering could be:

 Whatever you may bind at a point in time on earth shall have already had its
 binding completed in heaven...

Hmm.......

Truth is, I don't really know exactly what is happening in prayer.  But I do
agree with Wayne on this one, that whatever else is happening, our connection
with God is being strengthened by prayer.

Paul

    Hi all,
    
    I would never claim to have the full "right" answer on any subject,
    because I too see through a glass darkly! :-) And I certainly do not
    have the entire revelation of God's wisdom, understanding, and
    knowledge; I am not God! I can only give to you what God has given me
    at this given moment in my life, and what I give, I give with the
    knowledge that I too am growing, and that what I have to give is
    incomplete at best.
    
    Tony, I say this with great gentleness and compassion: There are many
    beliefs that you hold which go beyond what the Bible states, including
    what you believe Jesus felt and experienced on the cross. I cannot
    discuss with you beliefs based upon assumptions you have made or
    conclusions you have drawn which are not directly supported by
    Scripture, however attached you may be to them or however correct you
    may feel that they are. I would very much like to connect with you, but
    it will have to be on the foundation of the Word itself, with no
    extrapolations or beliefs that go beyond what is written. Would you be
    willing to communicate on this basis only? You began to answer my
    question to you in this way, but then you diverged from what the Bible
    says to your own beliefs. We need to stick to the Truth and not involve
    our interpretations of that Truth.
    
    Jill and Nancy, you asked me how God feels about the lost. My answer is
    that I don't know. If He has destined some to be lost and some to be
    saved, which is what I believe the Bible says, then in all honesty, it
    is not relevant to me how He feels about the lost, or about anyone
    else, for that matter; all that is relevant is my own personal walk
    with Him. This is the point that I was trying to make. As Jesus said to
    Peter in John 21:22, "If I want him (John) to remain alive until I
    return, what is that to you? You must follow me." It is not for us to
    be concerned about what God is doing in someone else's life. We must
    keep our eyes only on Jesus. He will reveal to us individually all that
    He wishes to reveal. If we have questions of this nature, He is the
    best person to ask, providing that you are willing to hear what He has
    to say even if you don't like the answer. His answer to me on this
    question at this present time is, "What is that to you? Follow me." So
    I give you the same answer and encourage you to ask Him directly if
    that is unsatisfying.
    
    Now, on the subject of prayer, Nancy, I am glad you asked. Prayer is
    much more than an avenue for us to ask God for things, thank Him for
    things, or ask Him about things. It is a literal, living communion with
    Him, and it can be so powerful and so beautiful as to be an entire way
    of life. It is entirely possible to "pray without ceasing", where every
    thought, feeling, and even the most intimate parts of ourselves remain
    naked before God all of the time. Obviously, this requires a great deal
    of trust, that God will not hurt us, punish us, or abandon us, and it
    can only be achieved after He has healed us to the point where we no
    longer fear Him, that is, where His perfect love has driven out our
    fear of Him, at least in some key areas. He is working this in you even
    now.
    
    Through such a lifestyle of prayer, we come to know Him as our constant
    Comforter, Provider, and Healer, and even as the very desire of our
    hearts; nothing we desire can compare with Him! When our needs and
    desires have been met in this way, we have very little left to ask for,
    and when we do ask, it is according to His will, as He lays the desires
    on our hearts, because our desire is only for His will. We can then be
    assured that we will have whatever we ask for in prayer.
    
    When Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, He said to the Father,
    among other things, "Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as
    it is in heaven." This was not a request for God to do Jesus' will!
    Rather, it was an example to us of how Jesus surrendered His will to
    that of His Father and rejoiced in that surrendering! And such are our
    prayers when we have that kind of communion with the Father that He had
    through the Holy Spirit.
    
    Does this help?
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Hi Wayne,
    
    Could you define stoicism and fatalism for me? I have a general
    understanding of what they mean, but I want to make sure that we're
    using the same definitions in case there might be subtleties of which
    I'm not aware. And thanks for asking!
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Hi, Daryl.
    
    STOICISM is a philosophical system characterized by indifference to
    joy, grief, pleasure or pain, all regarded as ultimately the same.
    
    A stoical person is calm and unflinching under suffering, bad fortune,
    etc.  The underlying basis is that there is no real difference between
    good and bad, that all things are governed by unvarying natural laws,
    and that the wise man should follow "virtue" alone, obtained through
    reason, remaining indifferent to the external world and to passion or
    emotion.
    
    As I understand your view, we cannot really differentiate good from
    evil because we are unable, i.e., we can do or know nothing of
    ourselves.
    
    FATALISM is the belief that all events are determined by "fate" and are
    therefore inevitable or unavoidable.  Fatalists accept every event as
    inevitable and see nothing as ultimately within their control.
    
    As I understand your view, you could replace "fate" by God in the above
    definition to conclude that we should accept even sin as inevitable and
    outside our control because we really have no choice or responsibility.
    
    Of course, stoicism and fatalism are secular, pagan notions.  So, I was
    interested in how you view Christianity differently.  Stoics basically
    deny themselves, and fatalists basically say nothing matters, in terms
    of tangible things and events and final results.
    
    Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
         
    /Wayne 

    What do yall think of the possibility that there could be
    predestination and free will equally coexisting - I don't see any
    reason to think why both doctrines could be true at the same time -
    depending on how the doctrines are defined....  
    
    But how can anybody have any desire unless God has placed it there?
    
    Rick 

    Works for me, Rick.

      Hi Ace,
    
        I believe God loves Satan and the angels on the basis that
        God *IS* love and on the basis of 1 Corin 13.  Love keeps
        no record of wrongs, etc.  
    
        It is based on my personal understaning of agape which is
        scripturally based, i.e. agape is without condition.
    
      Hi Daryl,
    
        I kind of perceived that you did not care to embrace all of
        scripture on the basis that in your reply to me, you made
        absolutely no explanation for the verse I brought to the
        table, Romans 1 and 10.
    
        In lieu of the above (that the foundation is the entirety of
        the word and not merely a subset of it), I eagerly embrace 
        the idea that we really cannot proceed in a meaningful manner!
                                                           
        So, I'll see ya.
    
    						Take Care and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

Concerning "free will".

There is a misunderstanding and confusion around the term "free will".
Man has a will that is free.  This means that man is not forced by some
external force greater than himself to do something he does not want to
do.  Man is free to do what he wants within the limits of his ability.
What else can "freedom" or "liberty" be than to do as we please?

What must be carefully noted is that liberty is not identical with
ability. Confusion of these distinct things accounts for much of the
false thinking on the subject of free will.

Many people really mean "ability" when they say liberty. They speak of
man being free to do good or evil when they really mean to say that
men are able to do good or evil.  This is a serious error.

The Bible clearly and consistently teaches that man is free to do good
or evil (i.e. there is no external force greater than him forcing him to do
contrary to what he wants to do), that he is at liberty to do either, but
that he is able to do only evil because of his fallen condition.

jeff

re.61

Hi Andrew!

Well that was my concern also and you always say it much better than I
ever could. The Bible can be made to support any belief. Then, the
Bible you have is determined by the kind of person you are.

Not picking on you Tony as most of us fall into that behavior more
frequently than not. 

Regards,
ace

>      Hi Daryl,
    
>        I am eager for you to offer a hypothetical conversation.
    
>        Explain to a person who is 'willed' to be lost how it is
>        that God personally loves him.
    
>    						Thanks!,
    
>    						Tony

Hi Tony,

I'm not Daryl, of course, and I haven't read any further yet but I
have to correct your assumptions here and ask you to permanently
discard them.

First of all, those who are not saved are condemned and under the wrath
of God.  

Secondly, all those who are lost eternally are lost because of their own
sin.  God "wills" eternal punishment only in the sense that He passes
over some leaving them in their sins.  God "wills" eternal life to those
who, for His own purposes and without any condition in them, He 
brings to repentance and faith in Christ thus saving them from their sins.

No properly taught and obedient disciple of Christ would presume to know
who God has elected and whom He has not and therefore will present the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the wicked conversation you suggest above.

jeff

    RE: .62
    
    Hi, Jeff.
    
    Maybe it's me, but both your tone and content in the referenced note
    spoke to me.  I've always felt we weren't as far apart as you thought,
    and your most recent contribution "feels" like common ground.
    
    I really appreciate what you said!  Thanks.
    
    Now, we can get into discussing questions like:
    
     - How are liberty and ability related, i.e., can a person really have
       liberty without ability?
     - From whence comes ability?
    
    Again, thanks for helping cut to the chase.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Andrew!,
    
        I guess whether or not the text (1 Corin 13) is considered to
        apply universally as a principle or 'temporally' may be a
        *matter of interpretation*.
    
        I appreciate the need to harmonize with the admonition to not
        love the world or the things of the world.  I seek to harmonize
        it with "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
        (Rom. 5:8/see also verse 10), i.e. He loved us when we were of
        the world.
    
        The interpretation I have come up with is that "God so loved
        the world" or we are called to not love sin, but to love the
        sinner.   And it is a faulty interpretation to extend the
        'not loving' to the worldling instead of just to his world-
        liness.
    
        As far as Satan and the holy angels are concerned...
    
        They will be destroyed, but I see that God is love.  In other
        words, their rebellion is so steadfast and so final that His
        love cannot draw them anymore.  He is still love, but He cannot
        save them.  Thus He will someday allow sin to destroy them by
        showing them fully how much He does love them, i.e. "the 
        commandment came [revelation of God's love], sin revived, and
        I died."  (Rom. 7:9)
    
        The underlying motive though is not that the heart of God needs
        to punish for punishment's sake.  The Father committed all 
        judgment to the Son, the Son stated explicitly that "in that
        day" He will not judge, but the word will judge.  In other
        words, a process will take place that will cause sin to destroy.
        Which process is a conscious act on the part of God to unveil
        His full glory.  (Not because He needs to punish from the stand-
        point that there is this condemning characteristic in the heart
        of God, but because He needs to reveal to the universe that
        sin is death and righteousness is life.)
    
        Anyway, I think our differences lie in the realm of interpre-
        tation.
    
    						Tony
    
    

      Hi Daryl,
    
        Could you cite me a single example where I extended above 
        the foundation of scripture.
    
        I would like the oppurtunity to defend such a strong obser-
        vation.
    
    						Tony

      Hi Jeff,
    
        I really don't mind my question as it stems from the perspective
        of my belief system which is inclusive of the truth that the
        character of God is inconsistent with any doctrine that says
        he "passes over" some people.
    
        First and foremost, my present understanding is that my view
        that the lost have the oppurtunity to be saved is scriptural.
        With the above in mind, a view which teaches that God willed the
        existence of the lost (without their having a say in the matter),
        willed the continuance of their lost state (without their having a 
        say in the matter), willed (I am assuming you believe the following
        also) their eternal consciousness rather than eventual destruction
        (without their having a say in the matter), and willed the eternal
        existence of sin...
    
        ...is entirely of Satanic origin.  It much better describes his
        character and not God's.
    
    							Tony
                      

    In my opinion, Tony's question is a good one, and the answer is
    important to why the Gospel is preached.
    
    Attempts to not deal with the question because "the question should not
    be asked" is inappropriate.
    
    Saying that you cannot answer the question is okay, saying that you
    don't want to answer the question is okay, but saying that the question
    cannot be asked is NOT okay!
    
    You can answer that God, in fact, does not love the lost.  Then you
    have other serious issues to address.
    
    Trying to invalidate Tony's question seems incredible to me.
    
    Was the Word given to expose sin or rather to reveal the elect?  Has
    the Holy Spirit been sent to convince the world of sin, of
    righteousness, and of judgment, or rather to convince only the elect
    that they belong to God?
    
    /Wayne 

re.66

> "the commandment came [revelation of God's love],

Tony, now there you go again!

8*)

Hi Tony,

    
>        I really don't mind my question as it stems from the perspective
>        of my belief system which is inclusive of the truth that the
>        character of God is inconsistent with any doctrine that says
>        he "passes over" some people.

I think you may have misunderstood me and I obviously was not clear in my
note.  First, your question, in itself, is okay.  What I meant to communicate
was that by posing the question you demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of 
God's sovereignty as defined in the Scriptures.
    
>        First and foremost, my present understanding is that my view
>        that the lost have the oppurtunity to be saved is scriptural.
>        With the above in mind, a view which teaches that God willed the
>        existence of the lost (without their having a say in the matter),

Well, if the lost have/had no opportunity to be saved, where would the
"Christian" be?  Of course the lost do have an opportunity to be saved.
And as I said earlier, we certainly have a say in the matter.  We are
guilty of sin, each and every one of us.  We like it.  We desire to do it.
Not one seeks after God.  All those who are lost are lost judiciously. Do
you have trouble with this?

>        willed the continuance of their lost state (without their having a 
>        say in the matter), willed (I am assuming you believe the following
>        also) their eternal consciousness rather than eventual destruction
>        (without their having a say in the matter), and willed the eternal
>        existence of sin...

I'm beginning to believe you have no conscience of sin or conviction of its
justifiable damnation.  Again, all those who are lost are lost as a result
of their sin - their punishment is totally justifiable and they have a say
in the matter.
    
>        ...is entirely of Satanic origin.  It much better describes his
>        character and not God's.
    
>    							Tony

Since you are perverting the doctrine in your characterisation above then, 
yes, it might seem Satanic.  You are at odds with straight teaching, Tony, 
    whether Calvinistic or Arminian.

jeff

                      

>      Hi Ace,
    
>        Daryl can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of
>        his sovereignty position is that a lost person is lost
>        because God wants him to be lost (He WILLED for that person
>        to be lost).  In other words, the lost person had no choice
>        in the matter.
    
>        It is to this view of sovereignty that I pose this question.
    
>    						Tony

I'm not going to speak for Daryl and I hope Daryl has refuted such an
idea already.  But Tony, this is where you are creating a "view of
sovereignty" to which you object but which is not being propounded here as
far as I can tell.  Also, the continual emphasis on "the lost person
had no choice in the matter." continually implies a question for you
and others who might share your view - is sin bad or not?  Is there
such a thing as sin?  Did Christ die for your sins or not?  Was His
death not an indication of how bad humanities sins are to God?  What
is the Gospel anyway?! Do your sins deserve damnation?

jeff

Hi Wayne,
    
>      - How are liberty and ability related, i.e., can a person really have
>       liberty without ability?

Yes a person can have liberty without ability.  The whole Bible makes this
point as it reveals in history God's plan of salvation, all looking forward
or backward to Christ's atonement.  Adam had liberty and ability to do good or 
evil.  Fallen man has liberty and no ability to do good.  Regenerated man has 
liberty and ability to do good and evil, though his ability to do good is not 
the same as Adam's prior to his fall.  In glory the regenerated will have 
liberty and ability to do only good.

>     - From whence comes ability?

Ability to do good comes from God only and that through Jesus Christ only.
    
jeff

      Hi Jeff,
    
        Yes, I believe sin is entirely deserving of damnation.
    
        I took it that your view (as well as Daryl's) is that
        partial reason the lost are lost is that God did not
        desire to save them.
    
        Is the above a true or a false statement?
    
    						Tony

      Hi Ace,
    
        Yes, light exposes darkness.
    
        Isaiah endured a tremendous amount of guilt as recorded in
        ch. 6.  What facilitated this experience was a deeper 
        revelation of God's love.  There is no more effective way
    	to see your sin then to see, in deeper lines, God's love.
    
        The mirror in James is the perfect law of liberty.  This
    	is what exposes sin.
    
    	When darkness is revealed, pain results for it is painful
    	to see one's sin.  The lost will not be able to bear this
        experience for they will respond with despair.
    
        I take it you disagree with the idea that the commandment
        = righteousness = the law = God's love?
    
        Is not perfect obedience to God's law equivalent to the 
        keeping of His commandments?  Is it not equivalent to
        living a righteous life?  Is that not equivalent to loving
        even as He loves?
    
        Where (how) do you conclude that they are different things???
    
    						Tony

    
        >Yes, I believe sin is entirely deserving of damnation.
    
    Good!  So you won't be saying "they (the lost) had no say in the matter"
    anymore, will you?
    
        >I took it that your view (as well as Daryl's) is that
        >partial reason the lost are lost is that God did not
        >desire to save them.
    
        >Is the above a true or a false statement?
    
    	>					Tony
    
    The only reason the lost are lost is because of their own guilt. 
    The only reason the saved are saved in spite of their guilt is because 
    of God's choosing to save them for His own purposes and for His pleasure 
    and by the council of His own will (Eph 1:11).
    
    jeff

>    The only reason the lost are lost is because of their own guilt. 

>    The only reason the saved are saved in spite of their guilt is because 
>    of God's choosing to save them for His own purposes and for His pleasure 
>    and by the council of His own will (Eph 1:11).

Under your view of pure soverignty, the first statement isn't really true,
Jeff.  

The second is certainly true.  Those who are saved are saved only because God
chose to save them.  Absolutely.

But given that we all share equally in guilt, then that guilt can't be the
*only* reason that the lost are lost.  If the guilt were the *only* reason
that the lost are lost, then all would be lost, because all are guilty.

There are two reasons that the lost are lost.  One, because of guilt.  It is
for that reason that they deserve to be lost, but it is not the only reason
the *are* lost, since the saved share that reason.  They are lost (as
distinguished from those who are saved) because God did not choose to save
them, for His own purposes and for His pleasure and by the council of His own
will.

Which means that God simply made them as beings doomed to damnation.  Beings
who He could have saved if He so chose, but who He simply chose not to.

I'm not commenting at this point about the rightness of your position on
sovereignty.  I'm just pointing out that your assertion that the *only*
reason the lost are lost is because of their own sin is not true.

I mean, think of it.  If your position is of God's complete sovereignty in
all things, then how could anything that happens to anyone - including being
lost - have anything to do with their own choices or actions - such as their
own guilt and sin?  If you claim that the lost can be lost by something that
THEY do, rather than by God's choice, then your position is not really one of
complete sovereignty, but is just Arminianism in reverse - people can be lost
by their own actions, but can be saved only by God.

If, as you claim, EVERYTHING is determined by God, then accept it fully: the
lost are lost because God decided that they would be lost, and for no other
reason whatever.  

Paul

      Hi,
    
        Thanks Wayne for coming to my defense a little bit!
    
        Paul, you expressed it better than I could have.  Jeff's
     	position has got to (correct me if I am wrong Jeff) include
    	the idea that God desires the lost to be lost for if He
        desired them to be saved (assuming his sovereignty position),
    	then they would be saved.                           
    
    	If God could have saved them, but chose not to, God is accountable
    	for their wretchedness.  He is the Author of it.  He is the Author
      	of sin because He willed their wretchedness from the beginning
        because had He willed otherwise, they wouldn't be wretched (again
        assuming Jeff's sovereignty position).
    
    							Tony

re.75

Tony, 

In Romans 7:9 Paul is referring to the Old Testament law and the demands it
places upon a person. 

regards,
ace 

    Paul,
    
    The only comment I will make concerning your entry and as a
    clarification is that we are all righteously condemned and justifiably
    punished with eternal separation from God.  The fact that God chooses
    to save some and lets others perish in their sins cannot be denied if
    the Bible is authoritative.  But this is certain, those who God
    lets perish in their sins are justifiably condemned. This truth is
    glossed over and ignored when people start talking about "free will"
    and the like.
    
    jeff

      re: .79
    
      Hi Ace,
    
        I thought the commandment Paul explicitly referred to was
        covetousness.   That is in the realm of moral law.  To
        covet is to walk according to the principle of selfishness
    	which is the principle of darkness.
    
        In an eternal sense, covetousness is wrong, it is not
        delineated in O.T./N.T. covenant-like ways.
    
        It will always be sin to covet.  It will always be a mani-
        estation of righteousness to be content with what God has
        given us (and no more than what He has given us).
    
    						Tony

      Hi Jeff,
    
        I take it that I expressed your view accurately in my
        recent reply?  And Paul as well?
    
        Please understand that I and others believe differently
        all the while we may also believe our beliefs are according
        to the word.
    
        If the above is the case, saying we are not believing 
        according to the word, is probably not going to be very
        effectual.
    
    						Tony

Hi, Jeff.

| Yes a person can have liberty without ability.

** If a person is unable to do anything, then what exactly does liberty mean?
   Would you affirm a new age person who says, "I'm free to be me", or a person
   who leaves a spouse saying, "I'm free and need to find out who I am?"

|                                                 The whole Bible makes this
| point as it reveals in history God's plan of salvation, all looking forward
| or backward to Christ's atonement.  Adam had liberty and ability to do good
| or evil.  Fallen man has liberty and no ability to do good.

** If fallen man is able to do nothing but evil, then what exactly is fallen
   man "free" to do?  Are you suggesting that fallen man is "free" to sin, to
   be all he can be because that's all he can be?

|                                                              Regenerated man
| has liberty and ability to do good and evil, though his ability to do good is
| not the same as Adam's prior to his fall.

** And how exactly does regenerated man differ from Adam?  Are you suggesting
   that Adam was able to establish righteousness apart from God?

|                                           In glory the regenerated will have 
| liberty and ability to do only good.

** If in glory the regenerated man is able to do nothing but good, then what
   exactly is regenerated man "free" to do?  I would answer that regenerated
   man in glory is free to explore/know/enjoy God without distraction. 

| Ability to do good comes from God only and that through Jesus Christ only.

** From whence comes ability to do evil?  Are you suggesting that man was
   created to do evil?

/Wayne

P.S.  Do you think God loves the lost?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

    
        >Paul, you expressed it better than I could have.  Jeff's
     	>position has got to (correct me if I am wrong Jeff) include
    	>the idea that God desires the lost to be lost for if He
        >desired them to be saved (assuming his sovereignty position),
    	>then they would be saved.

	Leaving a guilty sinner in his sins is not the same as desiring
        he be lost.                           
    
    	>If God could have saved them, but chose not to, God is accountable
    	>for their wretchedness.  He is the Author of it.  He is the Author
      	>of sin because He willed their wretchedness from the beginning
        >because had He willed otherwise, they wouldn't be wretched (again
        >assuming Jeff's sovereignty position).
    
    	>						Tony

        God is not accountable for their sin.  God is not the author of sin.
        We have all sinned of our own accord, in liberty.  God did not will
        that men sin.  Men sin because they are sinners by nature.  Do not
        blame God for mens' sins because he does not save some.

        jeff

>      Hi Jeff,
    
>        I take it that I expressed your view accurately in my
>        recent reply?  And Paul as well?
    
>     						Tony
    
    No, Tony, you didn't and neither did Paul.
    
    jeff

  Matthew 5:43-48
  "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor 
  and hate your enemy.'
  "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, 
  do good to those who hate you. and pray for those who spitefully
  use you and persecute you,
  that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His 
  sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just
  and on the unjust.
  "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?  Do
  not even the tax collectors do the same?
  "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than 
  others?  Do not even the tax collectors do so?
  "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven
  is perfect."

  In this text, Jesus Christ Himself is telling His hearers to love
  their enemy.  Love them, bless them, do good to them, and pray 
  for them.  He is essentially saying that we are called to treat
  everyone THE SAME.

  The next thing He does is tell us why.  Because we are sons of 
  the Father.  In other words, this is how the Father is.  He loves,
  blesses, and does good to His enemies.

  Other scriptures put it another way.  God is no respecter of persons.
  (Eph. 5:9).  God *IS* love.

  The sun and the water are metaphorical for the word, agape.  (See
  for example Eph. 5:26.)

  This is what God does.  He just pours Himself out for everyone.  All
  the while every man is on earth, the Spirit of God is trying to impress
  his heart with the truth, "I love you!"  He sends His rain and the sun
  on every heart trying to bring home this truth.

  The text concludes by saying "Therefore."  Therefore what?  Therefore
  be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.  In other words,
  this IMPARTIALITY, this BEING NO RESPECTOR OF PERSONS is characterized
  as a quality of perfection, even the perfection of our Father.  Therefore
  be like Him in character.  Have this impartial heart that is poured out
  in love for Jeffrey Dahmer every bit as much as for Mother Theresa.  No
  difference.  None.

  There are some here who insist that God has created several people with
  a certain flaw.  What is this flaw?

  Though the word comes to them, they are unable to respond to it by
  faith.  God is the Author of this flaw.  It is He who implemented their
  condemned course from first to last.  He created them, designed them in
  such a way that though He sends the sun and the rain, He set them up for
  failure.  He set them up to never be able to choose to respond to that
  rain that falls upon him.  (Of what use then is the rain?  What a sham!)

  How does such a doctrine square with one of the most beautiful and explicit
  scriptures speaking of the Father's love?  PATHETICALLY.  It is being
  suggested that God is incredibly partial.  So partial that He makes one
  group be saved and one group be lost.

  That is not what Matthew 5 is saying.  To make one person have to be lost
  while affording another with salvation is perhaps the most partial thing
  I can comprehend.  It smacks entirely contrary to what Jesus is trying
  to show us the character of the Father is all about.

  God is not partial.  He has sent His revelation of "I love you" to every 
  man.  He has enabled every man to respond to His overtures of love with
  the faith that saves, that allows His revelatory grace to transform the
  heart.

  Away with this talk of a partial God!  Listen to the words of Jesus 
  Christ instead!

							Tony

      Hi Jeff,
    
        Lets' take a person who, according to your position, is destined
        to 'not be saved.'
    
        This person comes into life with a sinful nature.
    
        Was this person responsible for coming into life?
    
        Was this person responsible for coming into life with a sinful
        nature?
    
    
        This person remains 'in life' a condemned man.
    
        Was this person responsible for remaining a condemned man?
    
        
        This person dies a lost man.
    
        Was this person responsible for ending up lost?
    
    						Tony

	Tony, you're making a lot of sense here. No person on this planet can
know if another will be saved or not at some point in time. If we as humans
every think someone is unredeemable, then we have failed Him. We should never
do that. God never does, so why should we?


Glen

      Hi Glen,
    
        Thanks.  I would however give those of Jeff's position the
        allowance that we are not to presume anyone is lost, that 
        it is not our prerogative to know.  (Of course if they are
        bound to be saved, it follows that our efforts to help others
        do not include being a channel through which the revelation
        that saves comes - it will come no matter what we do).
    
        When you say, "God never does," you echo my position, but
        not Jeff's and Daryl's which I think implies that God thinks
        upon some as unredeemable.
    
        God is love.  He is impartial toward all, always being love.
        Of course, when the lost see God's revelation to them of how
        much He loves them, they will not be able to handle the exp.
        This is the eternal burnings.
    
      Hi Ace,
    
        I am more than willing to hear your support for how it is that
        covetousness is 'merely' O.T. law and no more.
    
    						Tony

	Tony, considering God never gives up on us, that HAS to mean that every
single person on this planet can be saved.



Glen

As before when this has come up, I'm not going to participate in this
discussion long, because I don't see much fruit in it.

But I believe that your position is completely inconsistent, Jeff.

You have claimed again and again that regarding salvation, humankind can do
nothing, that everything is determined by God's will, and that free will for
humans is a complete myth.

Then you claim:

>        God is not accountable for their sin.  God is not the author of sin.
>        We have all sinned of our own accord, in liberty.  God did not will
>        that men sin.  Men sin because they are sinners by nature.  Do not
>        blame God for mens' sins because he does not save some.

This makes the clear claim that men sin *APART FROM* God's will.  But you
can't have it both ways.  If God's will determines everything, as you
continually claim regarding salvation, then it applies regarding damnation
also.  If we have the true liberty to sin, then choice, apart from God's
will, exists, and your whole previous claim about there being no such thing
as choice falls apart.

Be consistent, Jeff.  If you want to stand on the complete soveriegnty of
God, in such a way as to claim that EVERYTHING is God's will, then *be
consistent* and accept that people are damned by God's will.  If you believe
that such a thing as liberty and choice exist, that humans can do *anything*
which is not part of God's will, then *be consistent* and accept that this
means that your view of complete soveriegnty no longer applies.

Pick one.  Either God controls every single action, or He provided us with
some true choices.  But you can't hold to one claim in most situations, and
then when it breaks down switch to the other, while claiming that the other
position can't be applied to any other situation.

Paul

>considering God never gives up on us, that HAS to mean that every
>single person on this planet can be saved.

True, and agreed.  But "can be" doesn't equal "will be".

Paul

re.89

>    Hi Ace,
    
>        I am more than willing to hear your support for how it is that
>       covetousness is 'merely' O.T. law and no more.

Since I never said that I've no reason to address it.

regards,
ace
    

| <<< Note 883.92 by PAULKM::WEISS "I will sing of the mercies of the LORD forever..." >>>

| But "can be" doesn't equal "will be".

	I agree 100%! (bet you never expected to hear those words, huh? :-)

Hey, it may be in a limited context, but let's rejoice!  :-)

Paul

    Hi again,
    
    My time is limited, unfortunately, but I will do my best to respond to
    everything that has been asked of me, as I can. Please bear with me, if
    you would, and if it becomes apparent that I have missed someone or
    something, please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention. Thanks!
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      By the way, the following is a lot less important to me than this
      sovereignty discussion, but anyway...
    
Hi Ace,

  In .79, you said...

re.75

Tony, 

In Romans 7:9 Paul is referring to the Old Testament law and the demands it
places upon a person. 

regards,
ace 

In .93, you said...

re.89

>    Hi Ace,
    
>        I am more than willing to hear your support for how it is that
>       covetousness is 'merely' O.T. law and no more.

Since I never said that I've no reason to address it.

regards,
ace
    
Romans says...

Romans 7:7-12
What shall we say then?  Is the law sin?  Certainly not!  On the contrary,
I would not have known sin except through the law: for I would not have
known *covetousness* unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
But sin, taking oppurtunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner
of evil desire.  For apart from the law sin was dead.
I was without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I 
died.
And the commandment which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
Therefore the law *IS* holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Can you help me out here?  Can you see why I'd be confused with your
replies?

						Tony

    Hi Wayne,

    Thanks for the definitions. And thanks again for asking; perhaps people
    may understand me a bit better after this, though they may still not
    agree with me. :-) If you have more questions, please do feel free to
    ask.

    I have sometimes been described as "stoic" in the face of both the
    blessings and the trials that the Lord has given to me, but with
    respect to the actual philosophy of Stoicism, my foundation for such
    "stoicism" is quite different than that upon which the philosophy is
    based. Part of the reason for my apparent stoicism is that I am very
    much still learning how to show my emotions after having kept them
    bottled up in order to survive my pre-Christian life. 

    In any event, in my human understanding, I am very much sensitive to
    "good" and "bad", but I see that God works in all things for the good
    of those who are in Christ Jesus and who have been called according to
    His purpose. I also see that to the pure, all things are pure, and that
    I am made pure if I confess my sins, for He is faithful and just to
    forgive my sins and purify me from all unrighteousness. He also calls
    me to consider it pure joy when I face trials of many kinds. So I am
    not quick to label something "good" or "bad", because in Him, for me,
    all things work together for my good. I stand against evil and for
    good, as He directs, and in Him I have banished more demons over time
    than I can easily count. I am set free to experience His abundant life,
    where all things are permissible, and He is helping me to be mastered
    by nothing and to learn to avoid those things which are not beneficial.
    It seems as if a Stoic might shun joy, yet I can honestly say that the
    joy of the Lord is my strength.

    Fatalism is a different matter, and there is a lot about what I have
    said that might seem fatalistic on the surface. If I read your
    definition right, there is an underlying current of hopelessness and
    meaninglessness to life; in other words, there seems to be an attitude
    of, "Why should I bother? What's the point?"

    It is true that from God's perspective, everything is finished and has
    been from the Beginning. He has made it clear that there is nothing
    that we can do that will succeed against His plan and His purposes. He
    has pre-ordained each of our choices, but He has done it in such a way
    that it is beyond our ability to perceive. Jesus knew that none can
    come to Him unless the Father draws them. Paul knew that he was
    completely helpless to follow the Lord because there was part of him
    that rebelled, and yet, thanks to Jesus, he was more than a conqueror
    and could do all things through Him. God has had His prophets predict
    the future time and time again, essentially saying that these things
    will come to pass, not by man's choice, but by the will of God. Man
    always chooses exactly what God wishes, because they are helpless to do
    otherwise. Man is entirely unable to confound the will of God, no
    matter how hard he tries. To me, Romans 9 spells this out in terms more
    clear than anywhere else.

    For my perspective as a person, however, absolutely everything that
    happens in my life, whether I perceive it or not, has meaning and is
    vitally important. I am absolutely free to be just who and what I am at
    any given moment (at least to the extent that I have learned to let
    myself), trusting in the Lord to hem me in behind and before. I am free
    to make any decision that I wish and can choose to do anything that I
    desire. There are no limits on my freedom whatsoever. If I wished to go
    out and commit murder (may God forbid!), then I am free to do so;
    regardless, I will be faced with the consequences of my thoughts,
    words, and deeds no matter what I choose. The point is that I need not
    restrict myself but rather can rely upon the Lord to train me and teach
    me the way that I should go; He disciplines me. Contrary to popular
    belief, true self-control comes by the work of the Holy Spirit in our
    hearts, not by the work of our own will. His yoke is easy, and His
    burden is light.

    Now, once I have made a choice, that choice is immutable; I cannot take
    back that instant in time! But right up until I make that choice, I am
    free to choose anything I want, as far as my perspective is concerned.
    God has plans for me, and there is nothing that I can do to hasten them
    or change them. He Who began a good work in me will be faithful to
    complete it until the day of Christ Jesus. This depends entirely upon
    His faithfulness; mine is worthless, because I am incapable of being
    faithful on my own.
    
    So to summarize, where Stoics deny themselves, I am learning to be free
    to express myself, trusting entirely in the Lord to set the boundaries
    for me. I can finally begin to be who He made me to be. And where
    Fatalists say nothing matters, I say that *everything* matters, and
    that each little thing that happens, no matter how small, gives me
    insight into God, our Creator. Because He is working in everything for
    my good, then every little thing He sends my way is for my good. And
    each little bit of it gives me more insight into Who my Creator is. And
    that, to me, is what makes life worth living -- that I might know Him.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

re.97
>Can you help me out here?  Can you see why I'd be confused with your
>replies?

Why sure partner.

Antonio, your confused because when you summarized what I said you actually
summarized something you said!

8*)

If memory serves me correctly (it's been so long and so many reasonings ago),
you equated "the commandment" coming with "the revelation of God's love" in
Romans 7:9. I pointed out that Romans 7:9 is referring to the demand the law
placed on Paul not the revelation of God's love. Then you explained in a
"comprehensive" manner and using the associative law of algebra 8*) your
equating of the revelation of God's love with the coming of the commandment and
after that you asked me to offer support for "how it is that covetousness is
'merely' O.T. law and no more". I then said I have no reason to answer that
because I didn't say that. Then you said you were confused and then I wrote this
note.

Now I'm exhausted and think I'll go home now.  8*)

Laters,
ace

    .100 has been set hidden and the author notified.
    
    Nancy

    Hi Paul,
    
>As before when this has come up, I'm not going to participate in this
>discussion long, because I don't see much fruit in it.

But there's something you feel you must say, isn't there? ;)

>But I believe that your position is completely inconsistent, Jeff.

No kidding? ;)  I think the problem is that your understanding is
incomplete.  Of course I haven't attempted to address every issue
or implication which comes up.

>You have claimed again and again that regarding salvation, humankind can do
>nothing, 

I have not said this nor does the Bible teach this.  I have said and the
Bible clearly teaches that a man cannot *believe* on the Lord unto
salavation outside of God's gift of faith (Eph.)

>that everything is determined by God's will, and that free will for
>humans is a complete myth.

I have not said this nor does the Bible teach this.  In fact I just
several notes ago said explicitly that the will of man is free.

You have mischaracterised what I have said the Bible says.  And that is
where the problem lies.  You are creating a strawman, calling it "Jeff's
beliefs" and then throwing stones at it.

>Then you claim:

>>        God is not accountable for their sin.  God is not the author of sin.
>>        We have all sinned of our own accord, in liberty.  God did not will
>>        that men sin.  Men sin because they are sinners by nature.  Do not
>>        blame God for mens' sins because he does not save some.

>This makes the clear claim that men sin *APART FROM* God's will.  But you
>can't have it both ways.  If God's will determines everything, as you
>continually claim regarding salvation, then it applies regarding damnation
>also.  If we have the true liberty to sin, then choice, apart from God's
>will, exists, and your whole previous claim about there being no such thing
>as choice falls apart.

God's will does determine everything according to the Bible.  Within His
determination is the real existence of natural human liberty but that liberty 
is not absolute nor need it be to still be called liberty.  For example, I am
free to jump off my roof like a bird, no one will force me to and no one will
stop me if I'm really intent, but I will fall like a stone rather than fly
like a bird.  As you can see, I am free to act like a bird but I am not
able to fly like a bird.  So, naturally, freedom "to do anything"
is limited by ability.  But we wouldn't say my will is not free because
I can't fly like a bird.  And we shouldn't say in contradiction to the
Scriptures that we are not free because we are limited in our spiritual
ability by our sinful nature.

>Be consistent, Jeff.  If you want to stand on the complete soveriegnty of
>God, in such a way as to claim that EVERYTHING is God's will, then *be
>consistent* and accept that people are damned by God's will.  If you believe
>that such a thing as liberty and choice exist, that humans can do *anything*
>which is not part of God's will, then *be consistent* and accept that this
>means that your view of complete soveriegnty no longer applies.

I am consistent but may not appear so when discussing this in a haphazard
manner.  The real problem lies in your mischaracterisation of what I have
said.

>Pick one.  Either God controls every single action, or He provided us with
>some true choices.  But you can't hold to one claim in most situations, and
>then when it breaks down switch to the other, while claiming that the other
>position can't be applied to any other situation.

>Paul

I haven't switched anything.  And I wish you would stop suggesting that I
have.  The problem lies in your mischaracterisation of what I have said.

jeff

	Jeff, why can't you just correct the problem instead of just telling
people they have it wrong? Like explain why they have it wrong.


Glen

    RE: .102
    
    Hi, Jeff.
    
    I am NOT saying that your argument is circular because I'm sure I don't
    fully understand/appreciate what you've said.  But I am saying your
    argument SEEMS circular given the words you've written.
    
    What I'm explicitly granting here is that I may lack understanding and
    that what you've said may make perfect sense to someone else.
    
    I'm asking you questions so that I may gain understanding.
    
    A man resides in an arbitrarily large burning house.  The house is so
    large that the man may not be aware that there's fire.  But there is
    fire, and his house will be destroyed.  The nature of the fire is such
    that it cannot be extinguished, i.e., the destruction of the house is
    certain.
    
    Now imagine the burning house afloat in the ocean.  The man can neither
    fly nor swim.
    
    What is that man free to do?
    
    /Wayne

    
    Wayne,
    
    This is not a hypothetical discussion.  The truths of God's sovereignty
    and mens' liberty are revealed in the Scriptures whether they are
    understood by us or not.  However, I understand them so they must be
    understandable.
    
    You have created in your scenario a fantasy that is not based in
    reality.  It makes no sense to test the concept of liberty against a
    fantasy (arbitrarily large houses don't float and will not find
    themselves burning in the ocean).  
    
    However, I will attempt to respond.  The man's will is free.  He may
    jump in the ocean or he may stay on the house. He will not
    be externally forced to do either and he has the ability to do either.
    He may not take off in flight but we don't say his will is not free 
    because he lacks the ability to flee by flight, do we?  We say his
    options are limited.  But that doesn't impact the freedom he does have
    to choose between the two options in any way.  And even though either
    choice will probably result in a fatality we do not question our freedom
    of will according to the results of the choices we make when exercising 
    that free will.  We question our wisdom in choosing to act a particular
    way.
    
    Does that help?
    
    jeff
    

Another thought that came up from a bible study lately...

We see Jesus coming into Jerusalem on a colt.  As He is the son of God and did
not fulfill prophecy passively, but in actively ( he say the prophecy and knew
thathe was to fulfill it - so he ) walked in the fulfilment of the prophecy.  He
also walked in only what he saw the father doing, and his life was predestined (
he was waling in obediance to the father's will ).  If christ's life was
predestined, that all of scripture that was written about him before he was
alive on earth in human form, then that same relationship with the father's will
continues - wouldn't you say.  Is there any reason to believe that jesus life
today is not as predestined today as it was then, or for that fact ever has been?

Since Jesus lives in us ( as those who confess the lordship of jesus in our
lives ) then Jesus has a predestined life in us as well.  I'm not saying that
our lives are predestined as a result of this, only that Jesus life in us is. 
And if Jesus is living a predestined life in us and that life is in perfect
accord with the fathers will, the advocate we have is stronger and our partner
in this life is awesome.  I believe that there is power for today in christ's
obediance in our life now.

I't kind of like seeing Jesus surfing and the will of the father is the wave. 
We can participate in this incredible activity in our lives or be a lump of clay
that sinks to the bottom.

Tim

    RE: .105
    
    Yes, Jeff, your answer was clear.  The man was "free" to die.

    Thanks for responding even though you deemed my "scenario a fantasy."
    I don't talk hypothetically.  That you were unable/unwilling to see
    reality in the imagery helps me better understand your position.
    
    May those who have eyes to see and ears to hear believe in Jesus Christ
    who came that man might live.
    
    /Wayne

    
    >Yes, Jeff, your answer was clear.  The man was "free" to die.
    
    I sense you still want to use the result of the choice of exercising a
    free will to judge whether one has a free will or not, based upon your 
    comment.

    >Thanks for responding even though you deemed my "scenario a fantasy."
    >I don't talk hypothetically.  That you were unable/unwilling to see
    >reality in the imagery helps me better understand your position.
    
    Oh, I'm sure you've misunderstood me again, Wayne!  Fantasy is a
    technical term.  Certainly you spoke hypothetically.  This conference
    eschews the situational ethic for the revealed Word of God as its
    standard.  Even so the hypothetical situation you offered turned out to
    serve as an adequate measure of the truth of man's liberty regardless
    of the result.
    
    jeff
    
    

Hi, Jeff.

I must confess difficulty in carrying on a discussion with you.  We don't share
a common understanding of the English language, and I'll admit that mine might
be incomplete, if not wrong.
    
|   Oh, I'm sure you've misunderstood me again, Wayne!  Fantasy is a
|   technical term.  Certainly you spoke hypothetically.  This conference
|   eschews the situational ethic for the revealed Word of God as its
|   standard.  Even so the hypothetical situation you offered turned out to
|   serve as an adequate measure of the truth of man's liberty regardless
|   of the result.

** Huh?  What did you mean?  Eschew means to avoid or shun.  I for one would
   certainly shun the situational ethic as a standard in lieu of the revealed
   Word of God.  However, the context seemed to indicate that you meant to
   criticize "this conference" for not accepting the revealed Word of God.

/Wayne

P.S.  Are parables a valid means of revealing truth?

	In interpreting the Bible it is crucial to realize that there are
two sides to the truths revealed therein. There are:
	1) God's facts
	2) Man's experience of those God's facts

Much confusion results from not making this distinction. For instance, the
Bible clearly reveals that God...  (Romans 8:29-30) 

	1) Foreknew
	2) Predestinated
	3) Called
	4) Justified
	5) Glorifed
	
	...His believers.

	This is God's fact. There is nothing conditional about these steps.
These steps transpire according to His plan. He started the process through 
Foreknowing and He ends the process with Glorification. If there is
difficulty with this revelation it is only a difficulty in man's finite
understanding of God and His ways. We need only accept God's facts by faith.

However, there is another side to this truth and that is man's experience.
For man to enter into this divine fact he must believe, he must exercise his
will to choose God, he must have a turn, he must respond to God's calling.
And after doing so he must cooperate with God to be conformed to the image
of His Son. Then we must bear the responsibility to bring others to
salvation. Don't worry about whether the unsaved are been predestinated or
not. Rather believe that God's word which issues from your lips will not
return void and that He is using you to fulfill His purpose for which you
will receive a reward.

	Let us believe God's facts and let us exercise our being to
appropriate them. One day all will be clear.

regards,
ace

 ...and all God's people said...

    and Amen!

    Hi Tony,

    This note is for you. :-) It references your responses from .29, .42,
    .67, and .68, and a couple of others in passing. Please let me know if
    I left anything out. I hope that you will forgive me if I get rather
    bold with you, because at this moment, that is how the Lord is leading
    me.
    
    For the record, I do in fact embrace the entirety of the Bible as God's
    Word. I didn't respond to your note on Romans 1/10 for several reasons:
    1) because it wasn't addressed to me, 2) because my time is limited,
    and 3) because it wasn't time for me to respond yet.
    
    So let's talk about Romans 1/10. The fact that mankind is guilty and
    has rejected the Word of God is an accurate statement of our condition.
    The apostle Paul is exactly right. In fact, *none* are righteous, not
    even one. We are *all* guilty and without excuse, and that is true of
    every single person who will ever live, with the sole exception of
    Jesus. Period. Paul is stating these truths to build up to chapter 2,
    where he talks about judging others and obeying the Law.
    
    Your subsequent conclusion in .29 that they *could* have chosen to
    serve Him is exactly analogous to saying that they could have chosen
    to obey the Law. After all, God's laws were not beyond the physical
    ability of humans to obey. But they *were* beyond the *moral* ability
    of humans to obey, because there is nothing that we can do to make our
    hearts right before God, and God cares only about the condition of our
    hearts where our relationship to Him is concerned. The stain of sin is
    ever-present, and only Jesus can remove it. We do not have the ability
    to serve Him, but that does not make us innocent. 
    
    Let me give you an example. If God made you responsible for preventing
    the sun from setting, but He did not give you the ability to do it, when
    the sun set, you would be guilty of having disobeyed God even though
    technically you were helpless to do anything about it. That is what God
    has done with us, and that is why there are/were/will be none who can
    choose Him, apart from Jesus. Your conclusion that they could have
    chosen to serve Him is in error.
    
    The question then becomes, "Why would God do that to us?" Indeed, that
    does change our understanding of Who He is significantly and may
    threaten our understanding of Him and of love. But there is an answer
    to this question, and that answer is beautiful beyond human
    understanding or imagination.
    
    However, we'll never get to that question if we can't first agree that
    God has done what He has in fact done.
    
    Now, let's go over to John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the
    Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
    What does this verse mean to you?
    
    
    You asked me for an example of where you extended Scripture. In your
    .42, you state:

>I believe the Son is the express image of the Father.  I also believe that
>there was a time as Jesus hung on the cross that He could not see His own
>eternal security, that it seemed as though He might be losing His own
>'salvation' as it were.

    You will not find your second belief corroborated by Scripture. The
    truth is that none of us knows what Jesus thought or felt while He hung
    on the cross. We only know what the gospels record Him saying and
    doing. Any speculation beyond what is written is just that:
    speculation. It is not useful for building anyone up, because it is not
    based upon Scripture. As you use it, it is dangerously close to "false
    knowledge", and it is especially easy for one to become "puffed up"
    with such "knowledge". I would caution you to please be very careful in
    this area!
        
    Tony, I know that you have a heart that deeply yearns to understand the
    Lord and to be filled with Him. I say these things not to hurt you but
    to reveal sin, in the hope that you might be spared the inevitable
    consequences of this sin. God will grant you understanding in His own
    way: through wisdom. See James 1:5. If you lack wisdom, then all of the
    knowledge and understanding that can be had is worthless. Wisdom
    enables one to apply knowledge and understanding to reality. Without
    wisdom, one can have memorized the entire Bible and have missed the
    Spirit behind the words. Wisdom brings revelation and understanding to
    the heart. Please, seek the Lord on this; He will confirm my words to
    you, if you will hear Him.
    
    Also, in your .68, you said:
    
>I really don't mind my question as it stems from the perspective of my
>belief system which is inclusive of the truth that the character of God is
>inconsistent with any doctrine that says he "passes over" some people.
    
    Tony, dear brother, have you forgotten the original Passover? God
    wishes to expand your view of Who He is. Will you abandon your
    understanding and let Him give you His, no matter how scary it might
    seem to be?
    
    Then in another reply you used Matthew 5:43-48 to describe what the
    Father is like. I agree with you, He is like that. But please, don't
    discard the rest of the Bible, which also reveals what He is like, but
    that describes facets of His nature that may be considerably less
    comfortable to you!
    
    And you're right, God is no respecter of persons. But that does not
    mean what you think it means. It means that God does not esteem any one
    person over another with respect to their own accomplishments or
    character! Rather, He respects people for what He has given them, which
    varies from person to person.
    
    Well, that's enough for now; I've fired enough heavy artillery at you.
    I hope that you know that I love you, and I, in the same spirit as the
    apostle Paul, would give my salvation if it would mean that you could
    have what I have with our Father. I really mean that. I'll leave you
    with Romans 11:33-36 and ask that you listen to every word very
    carefully:
    
        Oh, the depth of riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How
        unsearchable His judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out! Who
        has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Who
        has ever given to God, that God should repay him? For from Him and
        through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever!
        Amen.
    
    With love in Christ,
    
    -- Daryl

Hi Ace,

>	In interpreting the Bible it is crucial to realize that there are
>two sides to the truths revealed therein. There are:
>	1) God's facts
>	2) Man's experience of those God's facts

This is a thoroughly modern idea which has no basis in valid bilical
interpretation.  Can you name a School which uses this method as its
form of systematic theology?  The Bible reveals the truth.  The idea of 
relativity or perspecuity does not exist in the Bible or any valid ethic
derived from the Bible.  That some truths are difficult to understand and 
some truths are resisted does not affect the truth at all.

>Much confusion results from not making this distinction. For instance, the
>Bible clearly reveals that God...  (Romans 8:29-30) 

The confusion results exactly because this unbiblical distinction is made!

>	1) Foreknew
>	2) Predestinated
>	3) Called
>	4) Justified
>	5) Glorifed
	
>	...His believers.

>	This is God's fact. There is nothing conditional about these steps.
>These steps transpire according to His plan. He started the process through 
>Foreknowing and He ends the process with Glorification. If there is
>difficulty with this revelation it is only a difficulty in man's finite
>understanding of God and His ways. We need only accept God's facts by faith.

>However, there is another side to this truth and that is man's experience.

The truth of God's acts are *the truth*.  Man's experience is not another side
to this truth.  Man either accepts these truths or rejects them.  And man 
should reject those ideas which are contradictory to these truths rather 
than try to diminish them or reduce their difficulty by an illegitimate
form of Biblical interpretation. 
 
>For man to enter into this divine fact he must believe, he must exercise his
>will to choose God, he must have a turn, he must respond to God's calling.
>And after doing so he must cooperate with God to be conformed to the image
>of His Son. 

And this is where (based upon your previous entries and certainly the
majority of participants here and in evangelical religion) is raised the
unbiblical and historically condemned doctrine which in effect makes the
"God facts", as you call them, basically meaningless and ineffectual and 
"man's experience" as paramount.

jeff

>>As before when this has come up, I'm not going to participate in this
>>discussion long, because I don't see much fruit in it.
>
>But there's something you feel you must say, isn't there? ;)

You caught me, Jeff.  :-)

I'll stick with not participating in this discussion.

Paul

re.144

Jeff,

I understand your view.

Thx,
Ace

    
    Well, Ace, aren't you going to defend your assertion concerning crucial
    realizations in interpreting the Bible?
    
    jeff

    With Ace I say, Jeff, I understand your view.
    
    With Paul I say, I'll stick to staying out of this discussion.
    
    My heart's desire is that people see Jesus.  If my words have caused
    any reader confusion, please contact me by phone or e-mail.
    
    /Wayne

Hi Jeff,

Wasn't planning on it. Did you want to be convinced?  8*)

regards,
ace

      Hi Daryl and the Rest of Ya,
    
        Just a quickie.  By the way, I have been out since last Wed.
    
        Daryl, we *interpret* the word differently.  You laid out
        an interpretation for Romans 1 and one with which I very
        much *interpret* differently.
    
        Even the thing I said about love is based on interpretation
        of scripture.
    
        I'll summarize my position...
    
        Election is according to foreknowledge.
    
        Perhaps more later.  Just wanted to jump in with a quickie to
        also serve to let others know I am back.
    
    						Take Care,
    
    						Tony
                                               

>	In interpreting the Bible it is crucial to realize that there are
>two sides to the truths revealed therein. There are:
>	1) God's facts
>	2) Man's experience of those God's facts
    
    God's Word often presents truth like this.  For instance, Daniel's
    prophetic visions of the future Gentile kingdoms in chapter 2 and 7 are
    actually the same vision.  Chapter 2's vision is "Man's experience of
    those God's facts" and chapter 7 is "God's facts."
    
    Mike

|>I believe the Son is the express image of the Father.  I also believe that
|>there was a time as Jesus hung on the cross that He could not see His own
|>eternal security, that it seemed as though He might be losing His own
|>'salvation' as it were.

|   You will not find your second belief corroborated by Scripture. The
|   truth is that none of us knows what Jesus thought or felt while He hung
|   on the cross. We only know what the gospels record Him saying and
|   doing. Any speculation beyond what is written is just that:
|   speculation. It is not useful for building anyone up, because it is not
|   based upon Scripture. As you use it, it is dangerously close to "false
|   knowledge", and it is especially easy for one to become "puffed up"
|   with such "knowledge". I would caution you to please be very careful in
|   this area!

** Really?  "...Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama
   sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
   (Matthew 27:46)  Study those words carefully--they're VERY strong!

   Psalm 22 is generally understood to be a prophetic account of Jesus'
   experience on the cross.  V. 1 says, "My God, my God, why hast thou
   forsaken me? why are thou so far from my salvation, and from the words of
   my roaring?"

   I would hope that better examples could be found to establish that Tony has
   sinned in going beyond or outside Scripture in his belief.  True, there's
   some speculation regarding what Jesus really felt on the cross, but I would
   NOT criticize Tony on this one!

      Hi Wayne,
    
        THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
    
        It really is based on interpretation and in this example, I
        was somewhat grieved from the standpoint that it seemed that
        my *basis* for believing was questioned and actually (I believe)
        slandered.
    
        Here, I am not insisting I may have interpreted correctly, just
        that I presently believe it is according to the word.
    
        Part of the planks for my view are that Jesus endured the cross
        fully in His humanity and had NO reliance to His innate divinity.
        He is our *faithful* High Priest.  He offered up vehement cries
        and tears and was heard because of His godly fear.  He esteemed
        others greater than Himself.  He died the death that was considered
        by any Hebrew to be the cursed death "for cursed is any man that
        hangeth on a tree" and if He had only faith to rely on, He was
        tempted to give in to the idea of being forsaken of God.
    
        Within all of this, why do I feel Christ would go through this
        event within such a thought?  Because Paul and Moses demonstrated
        a willingness to let go of salvation for the sake of rascals (some
        of Israel were rascals) and because of the last two verses of Ps.
        22.  He looked forward to a people that would declare "that He has
        done this."  But, mainly, because of 1 Corin 13.  Agape is more
        concerned with others than with self.
    
        I could offer more, but my main point is this...
    
        In terms of the following, it matters not whether or not I am
        in error regarding *my belief*.
    
        It seemed my UNDERLYING BASIS FOR BELIEVING SOMETHING I BELIEVE
        was described.  
    
        Now how can this be known?  Vision perhaps?
    
        Boy, I just get uncomfortable when it seems the heart is being
        judged.
    
        I perceived I was judged.
    
        (My PERCEPTION...I am not saying this actually took place!)
    
    	Thanks again Wayne.
    
    				      		God Bless,
    
    						Tony

      re: .113
    
      Hi Daryl,
    
        One other thing.
    
        I believe responsibility implies accountability and accountability
        implies being able to choose otherwise.
    
        To pose an analogy, if someone ties me to a chair and binds my
        hand to the trigger of a gun and applies an electric charge to
        my finger which causes the gun to fire and a person to die, I
        don't think the person is accountable.  He had no other choice.
    
        My *interpretation* is that accountability is implied in Romans
        1/10, i.e. to pose the analogy, they didn't have to pull the 
        trigger.  They were enabled, by God, to choose to serve Him.
    
    						Take Care,
    
    						Tony

    re: .124
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    I don't understand the last paragraph.  Can you tell me again what you
    are getting from Romans1/10 - briefly!  And how that applied to 
    accountablility.  I know we've been over this before, but its monday so
    humor me.
    
    
    Thanks
    Jill
     

    RE: .123
    
    Speculate means to meditate or reflect on a given subject.  The second
    meaning is to engage in risky business ventures that offer the chance
    of large profits.
    
    Tony, I know you've meditated deeply on what our Lord's suffering may
    have entailed.  I with you pray to "be found in Him, not having mine own
    righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the
    faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may
    know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His
    sufferings, being made conformable unto His death; If by any means I
    might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had
    already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if
    that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ
    Jesus." (Ph.3:9-12, KJV)
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Jill,
    
        My point is that the context around which God says the lost
        are without excuse is that He (God) revealed Himself to them.
        As faith comes by hearing (and He revealed Himself to them
        with His word, i.e. enabled them to respond to a hearing
        of His word), it follows that the context of Romans 1 is that
        they are without excuse because they were enabled to respond
        to that hearing by faith.
    
        This then runs contrary to the idea that God 'made' the lost
        be lost.
    
        The strength of my contention is watered down *alightly* by
        (what I believe to be) an extremely strange notion that
        one who is without the ability to choose is accountable for
        his choice.
    
        However, the context of Romans 1/10 is clear.  They are without
        excuse precisely because God gave them the word with which to
        hear, i.e. He enabled them to respond to His word.
    
        					Tony

    RE: .128 (see note .115)
    
    Paul, did you by mistake enter the wrong discussion/topic? :-)
    
    /Wayne

>        Part of the planks for my view are that Jesus endured the cross
>        fully in His humanity and had NO reliance to His innate divinity.
    
    I'm not convinced that you could prove this from scripture.  Part of
    the Old Testament portrait of the Messiah includes a divine nature.  I
    don't see how you can ignore your very nature.
    
    Mike

No, I just ran across that quote today, and needed someplace to put it.

Perhaps I should just start a note for myself for random things I run across
that I want to share.  I never know where to put them.

Paul

 Try topic 10!





 Jim

Cool!  I will, Jim!

Paul

    RE: .131
    
    Actually, Paul, I thought your comment was quite germane to the
    discussion--that's why I thought you were being sneaky! :-)
    
    By the way, I was just clarifying the discussion between Tony and
    Daryl--I wasn't really participating either. :-)
    
    /Wayne

    re .127
    
    Tony,
    
    It also says that God can harden the hearts.  Also that many have
    ears but don't hear.  
    
    Romans 7:18-24 says that we are all incapable of behaving righteously
    on our own.  Does that mean that we are not responsible for our sins?
    Take that even a step farther.  Does that mean that a lost person is
    not responsible for his sins?
    
    
    Jill
    

      Hi Jill,
    
        I have already acquiesced as to a point of unfathomability
        with my belief.  To repeat myself, it is this...
    
        I believe God enabled every person to respond to Him by
        faith.
    
        Thus my point of unfathomability is that I believe that it
        is possible to rebel against this enabling and not allow it
        to take place.
    
        Yes, God can harden the heart.  How?  By revealing His love.
        How so?  He enabled everyone to respond to Him by faith, but
        He created us with a free will which (somehow) has the capacity
        to reject that very same enabling.  When one cherishes the
        principle of sin, when seeing love, one often gets that much more
        hardened.  
    
    
        As God is the Author of this order of creation, even though His
        intent was to save, he FORESEES that some will reject in spite
        of His attempts.  Thus He can say that He hardened (for example)
        Pharoah's heart.  (Election by foreknowledge - as the scriptures
        say election is according to.)
    
        But, more than this...as with this view I am suggesting, the
        onus was on Pharoah.  He could have chosen otherwise.  And that
        is why the scriptures ALSO state that Pharoah *hardened his own
        heart*.
    
        Still, God could use Pharoah to satisfy His own ends.  He could
        prophesy of such as Pharoah and Judas - all the while He tries
        to save them, but knows their course via foreknowledge.
    
        You put it well when you said, _they_ don't hear.  (But, they 
        had ears to hear.)
    
       
        Think upon it this way Jill.  I posed the analogy of the person
        tied to a chair with a gun bound to his hand and another person
        gives this person an electric shock.  This causes the person's
        index finger to involuntarily (no real free choice) pull the
        trigger and kill someone.
    
        Now I ask you...who really killed the person?
    
        In this analogy, with your view, God is the person supplying the
        electric shock.
    
        He is entirely accountable.  Every sin committed is entirely His
        doing.
    
        With my view, in a sense, He has partial accountability from the
        standpoint that He gave them free will and knew that even though
        He would enable all to choose to serve Him, some would not.  Yes,
        He is accountable from the standpoint that He authored this order
        of creation, but all had the choice to serve Him such that they
        are "without excuse."
    
        My picture of God is very much unlike the person that supplies
        the electric shock.
    
        Love doesn't force every choice from puppets, it draws people to
        choose Him as free moral agents.
    
    							See Ya,
              
    							Tony

    Hi Tony,
    
    I hear you.  
    
    Think of it at a different level.  If two people have a fight whose
    fault is it?  Even if one person "caused" it.  The other person is
    still responsible.  He could have backed off, or not let the insult
    hurt him.  It takes two to tangle as they say. 
    
    Your saying that since God didn't enable the lost person to hear the
    truth this person can just go and start murdering people all over.
    None of it is his fault, its is all God's fault.  This is contrary to
    the gospel.  It says we are not saved by works, but by faith.  However 
    still accountable for our actions.  Explain this.
    
    Jill
    

    
    A man went away on a business trip to San Fransico.  He was well
    known and liked in the city where he dwelled and in fact one of
    his best friends was the Chief of Police.
    
    While away the Chief would check in on his friend's property each
    evening to make sure everything was secure.
    
    As it happened the business man arrived home at precisely the same
    time the Chief arrived to check on the property.  They talked outside
    for a short time then went into the businessman's home.
    
    When the opened the door they discover a thief in the foyer.  He was
    quite surprised by the entrance of the owner and the Police Chief
    beside him.  He stood there looking at them with a sack full of stolen
    goods in one had and a knife in the other.
    
    They all stood looking at each other with no one making a move.  The 
    business man looked at the Chief and then the thief and back again, 
    waiting for him to act and stop the thief.  The Chief did nothing even
    though he had a gun.  He had the power and authority to stop the thief
    but he did nothing.
    
    Soon the theif began inching his way to the door and as he saw nothing
    was being done he move more swiftly.  He flung open the door and ran
    out.
    
    The business man was dumbfounded.  He could not believe what he had
    just witnessed.
    
    Finally the businessman began to speak.
    
    Businessman: "Why didn't you stop him!"
    
    Chief: "I have a plan"
    
    Businessman: "What plan?"
    
    Chief: "That one day there will be no more thieves but all will be good
    	    citizens"
    
    Businessman: "But you could have killed the thief and your plan would
                  begin to be completed"
    
    Chief: "I am not willing that any criminal would perish but that they
            would come to me and surrender"
    
    Businessman: "This is not justice! He has escaped and doesn't have to
                  pay for his crime.
    
    Chief: "One day all criminals will get their day in court and will face
            me then.  Each will pay for what they have done."
    
    Businessman: "But, But.... why didn't you just stop him?"
    
    Chief: "It was not my will"
    
    Businessman: "I don't understand"
    
    Chief: "I have a plan.  You will simply have to trust me my friend." 
    
    

Reply: .137

  Hi Jill,

    Would you care to answer two things for me?  One is my reply .87
    and the other is, "Does God love the lost?"

    (I don't think anyone of your belief has attempted to answer either
    of these by the way.)

    >Think of it at a different level.  If two people have a fight whose
    >fault is it?  Even if one person "caused" it.  The other person is
    >still responsible.  

    >He 

    >*****could have**** 

    >backed off, or not let the insult
    >hurt him.  It takes two to tangle as they say. 
    
    With my view, I agree with your reasoning 100%.  With *YOUR* view,
    I do not.  With your view, as you told me, a lost person has been
    predestined to be lost because God 'designed' him in such a way that
    he cannot choose to serve God.  Whether this person actually engages
    in a fight or merely resorts to his thoughts, it is all sin for
    "whatever is not of faith is sin" and he is not enabled by God to
    ever exercise faith.  He is a puppet with strings pulled by God
    who has deemed he will always sin.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but you have effectively placed yourself
    in a suicidal position.  You have argued on the basis of reasoning
    that appeals *entirely* to my position and that has no appeal what-
    soever to your own position!

    The entire tenor of your reply was that the person doing wrong HAD
    THE CAPACITY TO CHOOSE OTHERWISE.  Your position, to which your reply
    is supposed to serve as some sort of analogy, is that a lost person
    WAS DENIED ANY CAPACITY TO CHOOSE OTHERWISE ON THE BASIS OF HOW
    GOD 'DECIDED' TO DESIGN HIM.

    >Your saying that since God didn't enable the lost person to hear the
    >truth this person can just go and start murdering people all over.
    >None of it is his fault, its is all God's fault.  This is contrary to
    >the gospel.  

    Yes, this is what I am saying, but please understand.  I am saying this
    as an argument against the position that "God didn't enable the lost
    person to hear the truth."

    I believe God has enabled all people to hear the truth and to respond to
    that hearing by faith.

    You, on the other hand, are waffling.  The entire credibility of your
    fighting analogy *as you stated it* was that the person who fought could
    have made a different choice.  You effectively shot your entire position
    to pieces by your own words.

    Explain this.

    >It says we are not saved by works, but by faith.  However still 
    >accountable for our actions.  Explain this.
    
    First off, by stating at the front that the lost are without excuse for
    they *were* enabled to serve God.

    Second, to suggest that the faith referred to is the faith Abraham had
    when he became absolutely convinced that what God said, He could perform.
    (Rom. 4).  

    Third, by suggesting that this faith allows the word of God to perform
    what it says, i.e. "Walk before Me and be thou blameless (perfect)."
    In other words, faith allows God to change the heart.  A changed heart
    cannot but do good things.  Thus, in the judgment, God can appraise the
    status of any heart (faithful or faithless) on the basis of works, i.e.
    that which the heart decides to do.

    "By their fruit ye shall know them."

    My view has no problem with us being accountable for our actions.  Your
    view is steeped with problems.  So much so that you really contradicted
    yourself with your...

    >*****could have**** 

    all the while your view really implies, the person...

    >*****couldn't have**** 

						Take Care,

						Tony

    re: .138
    
      Just in case your reply can be misconstrued to be a straw man...
    
      A straw man is something manufactured that doesn't apply to 
      a differing position.  The straw man is then soundly 'defeated'
      and, on that basis, the differing position can seem to be
      soundly defeated (as well). 
    
      I also believe God has a plan.  I also believe the lost don't
      face the real judgment until some time after their terrible 
      deeds.
    
      I do not believe God created people so that they had to be lost
      (given no choice to serve Him).
    
      Thus, I suppose, I don't believe in the plan as you may under-
      stand it.  But, I do believe in a Plan.
    
      Agreed there.
    
    						Tony
                                

    
    If I am not incorrect I believe that it was Tony who began to
    to raise this issue because I made a statement similar to the 
    following in another topic awhile back.
    
    Everything that has happened in my life has been the will of
    God.
    
    This statement was apparently taken issue with and then the extended
    discussions preceded. With other topics being created and the
    philisophical questions asked, such as did God create the lost to
    be lost, etc. 
    
    The statement appeared to be quite literally blasphemous because it
    was taken that it meant that I was sinless, perfect, etc.  Of course
    this perspective brings with it the clear indication of what types of
    beliefs and viewpoints and understandings a person has regarding God.
    
    God is looking at ones heart not ones understanding.  Man looks to his
    understanding and the better he can explain just what is going on and
    why the better he feels about his position in Existance.  The issue the
    Lord examines is the character and the attitude not a man's knowledge
    and understanding.   
    
    So then my attitude is one of complete submission to the Lord and this
    means to me that all that occurs is by the One who has all power and
    glory and dominion.  Who am I to question how the Almighty God does His
    work and lays out His plan.  Can I a mere man counsel God or even begin
    to grasp His ways.  
    
    His ways are past finding out.  They are beyond any words any man can
    speak with even the greatest level of understanding.  Who are you to
    say what God has done or will do.  If he has created men to be vessels
    of wrath or to have a choice who are you to even tremble your lips with
    a question as to why?
    
    All our thoughts and words are as dung.  Our ideas and understandings
    are worthless when compared to God.  
    
    So we can believe what we want and we can hold to those beliefs
    thinking they are right but they are all wrong if for even a brief
    instance we think we can understand God with our puny human undertandings
    and explanations.  
    
    But even in the midst of all of this, in the midst of of our lack, the
    Lord looks to see what is in our hearts, to see the attitude.  
    
    So then the parable I gave is meant for one to see what their attitude
    is.  How did I react or respond in my heart to the parable.  Was I
    proud and said, "That stupid Poland is at it again, trying to prove he
    is better then me." "That fool thinks he is a prophet but I know he is
    deceived."  or "Lord I know that you will even use someone like this
    guy to reveal something to me, may I see what you are showing me."
    or "I never saw things that way before."
    
    The Lord is looking at the heart response with all things that occur.
    
    It doesn't matter if you believe that God created the lost to be lost
    or that the lost have a choice.  That is your belief and what ever it
    is all it does is get in the way of who the Lord truly is in your
    heart.  Beliefs can be like idols and they can get in the way of the
    Lord speaking to you for your eyes are transfixed on the idol and not
    on the Lord. 
    
    Who is willing to sacrifice all of thier beliefs, all of thier
    foundations, all of thier cornerstones that make them who they are and
    let the Lord plant firmly the cornerstone of Jesus Christ and the
    foundation of the Word in Spirit, and build the walls of Righteousness.
    
    Who has the courage to forsake the ship and walk out onto the water to
    fully trust the Lord wether I live or die.  To trust the Lord so that
    all things become His will for you.  
    
    Am I saying that the Lord is not in the peoples lives and hearts that
    read and participate in this conference, No!
    
    Am I saying I am better then you and am on some imaginary higher plain,
    No!
    
    I am simply challenging all to be courageous.  Courageous to do
    something that is so far removed from our nature and that is to go to
    the cross and die.
    
    As far as the parable is concerned I would ask the question:
    
    Who's will was it that the thief stole the property of the businessman?
    
    Was it the businessman who owned the property and knew full well that
    it could one day be stolen?
    
    Was it the thief who entered the home and took the goods?
    
    Or was it the Chief of Police who had the power and authority to kill
    the thief and thus prevent the goods from being stolen?
    
    Bob
    
      
    
    

      Hi Bob,
    
        Excellent reply!  I appreciated it.
    
        I am not saying you are contradicting this, but I will not
        forsake comprehension.  I am called to comprehend the dimensions
        of God's love.  Other scriptures refer to God exhorting His
        hearers to KNOW Him.
    
        You asked who's will it was.  Daring to have an answer implies
        some level of *understanding* which _seems_ a contradiction to 
        some of what you just said.  (How dare we think to understand?)
    
        But, I have an answer.  The will lies with the person who stole
        and the person in authority.  God hardened Pharoah's heart and
        Pharoah hardened his own heart.  God hardened it by creating
        Pharoah with a free will knowing that some will choose another
        way (sin - service to other than God).  Pharoah hardened his
        heart by making that choice though he could have chosen to serve
        God.
    
        Thanks again.  I gleaned much from your reply though could not
        find a blessing in all of it.
    
    							Tony
                    

    
>>        Excellent reply!  I appreciated it.
  
	Thank you. I am glad that you appreciated it.
  
>>        I am not saying you are contradicting this, but I will not
>>        forsake comprehension.

	You are correct I am not saying to forsake comprehension.  We
will comprehend some of the things the Lord is doing in our lives and in others
lives.  We will also comprehend what the written Word of God says.

	But our comprehension of God and His Words or works is to become
static to us.  In other words it must alway be in a position of being on
the altar to be consumed by the Lord.  The state of being and the attitude
of heart before the Lord is one that will not hold on to even the comprehensions
the Lord has given when the Lord's Spirit is about to teach you something new
about yourself and about Him.  Those comprehensions, and I am speaking of the
comprehensions that the mind grasps, must become worthless to you because the
Lord wants a living and vital relationship.  Not a relationship carved in stone
but one that flows in the heart.

	Now there is another comprehension that is one of the heart and it
reveals itself in the attitude and character of a man.  This comprehension can
not be grasped with the mind nor lived out by the dictates of the mind.  It is
a heart comprehension of the Spirit with the Fruits thereof.  It manifests itself
in the light of God pouring forth from us. 

>>  I am called to comprehend the dimensions of God's love.  

	Again this comprehension of the dimensions of God's love is with
the heart.  When we love someone we do not feel the love in our mind but with
our heart.  And if someone hurts or rejects us we feel the pain in our hearts.

	Please understand the Lord says to Love the Lord with all your heart, all
your soul and all your mind.

	The comprehension of the true love of God must begin in the heart, and then
it will permeate our soul and finally our mind will surrender to the true and gentle
mercy of God, who is Love.

  
>>Other scriptures refer to God exhorting His hearers to KNOW Him.

	Again this knowing begins in the heart and then the soul and the mind.

	When understanding the Love of God begins with the mind, it is like
	loving your wife when having no feelings of love.  No matter how much
	you may want to do the right thing to love her without the feelings it
	all is in vain.

	We are to Know the Lord as a husband knows his wife.  It is an intimate
	relationship that begins in the heart with the feeling of love and 
	adoration, then she fills up your soul with longing and caring and
	acts of gentleness, then your mind begins to finally get the picture,
	I love her and she loves me.

	In many relationships though the mind is a great stumbling block for
	the love that is in the heart to be permitted to come through to the
	other perrson.

	So is it with the Lord.  Our mind's comprehensions can be a stumbling
	block for our heart's reception of the Love of God.
    
       >> You asked who's will it was.  Daring to have an answer implies
       >> some level of *understanding* which _seems_ a contradiction to 
       >> some of what you just said.  (How dare we think to understand?)
    
	My asking was hypothetical and rhetorical.  No one can give the
	answer to the parable because the Lord gave it so that some might
	simply consider.  Consider what? That in and of itself is one
	more question that can not be answered.

	Each person will see what the Lord wants them to see and glean
	what he wants them to glean.

>>        But, I have an answer.  The will lies with the person who stole
>>        and the person in authority.  God hardened Pharoah's heart and
>>        Pharoah hardened his own heart.  God hardened it by creating
>>        Pharoah with a free will knowing that some will choose another
>>        way (sin - service to other than God).  Pharoah hardened his
>>        heart by making that choice though he could have chosen to serve
>>        God.
  
	I can see how you see this and I can not argue with you that you see 
	it this way.  I am not going to say that you are in error because
	I am not your Master and if your Master has you in the place where
	you see this issue this way then what is that to me.

	For many years I also saw things this way and must say that it was 
	according to my own beliefs and understanding that I saw it that way.

	However no one during those years could have convinced me to see
	it any other way because the Lord had me right where I was supposed
	to be,  I am not more right now then I was then though He has shown me 
	a different perspective of His Will now.  But this is where I am and
	I see that as His Will.

	But here is the difference I have noticed.  By surrendering to His
	soveriegnty and recognizing that the Lord is in control of all that 
	happens I am free from having to judge others or circumstances. I
	no longer need to analyze wether this thing that someone does is
	God's will or isn't, that this is of God and that isn't, that this
	person is lost and this saved, that this church has the truth and 
	that doesn't.

	The most special thing that came from this was that I became free,
	free from my own understandings and free to allow the Lord to guide
	me in everything, fully trusting Him and relying upon Him without
	doubts.  The grip of doubts and confusion and questions fell away
	and the Lord's Spirit leads me into all righteousness.

	By accepting the Lord's Will in all things I surrendered my judgement
	and received the Lord's judgement in its place.  His judgement is
	Wise and He can be fully trusted to complete His plan and whatever
	that plan is it is good and right and true and light and peace.
  
        >>Thanks again.  I gleaned much from your reply though could not
        >>find a blessing in all of it.
    
	Your welcome. 

	Bob	
                    

Reply: 883.143

	Hi Bob,

	>But here is the difference I have noticed.  By surrendering to His
	>soveriegnty and recognizing that the Lord is in control of all that 
	>happens I am free from having to judge others or circumstances. I
	>no longer need to analyze wether this thing that someone does is
	>God's will or isn't, that this is of God and that isn't, that this
	>person is lost and this saved, that this church has the truth and 
	>that doesn't.

	I just want you to be aware that I have come to believe that I am
	totally free from having to judge others or circumstences all the
	while I recognize that the Lord has not 'made the lost be lost.'
	The only thing I 'feel' a desire to experience is deeper revelations
	of God's love and a deeper experience of conveying that revelation
  	in all things including my actions and my speech.

	>The most special thing that came from this was that I became free,
	>free from my own understandings and free to allow the Lord to guide
	>me in everything, fully trusting Him and relying upon Him without
	>doubts.  The grip of doubts and confusion and questions fell away
	>and the Lord's Spirit leads me into all righteousness.

	And although I have a different idea of what sovereignty is, I
 	am free as well.  My basis for freedom seems to be different, not
	being that His desire takes place in every particular.  I am free
	in proportion to my personal faith in His personal unconditional
	love and acceptance of me.

	>By accepting the Lord's Will in all things I surrendered my judgement
	>and received the Lord's judgement in its place.  His judgement is
	>Wise and He can be fully trusted to complete His plan and whatever
	>that plan is it is good and right and true and light and peace.
  
	With my undersdanding of sovereignty, I too see it as wrong to judge
	anyone and am free from judgment too.

  	I trust that God loves me with an infinite love (and everyone else
	as well) and that is sufficient for me.

	I won't get into it, but I believe my 'heart-comprehension' of God's
      	love is far better than one that is inclusive of some idea that God
	has purposed the lost to be lost.  The Spirit of God has commended 
	this wonderful truth to my heart.

						Take Care Bob,

						Tony

    I have just a few things to address here for the record; after that, I
    am feeling a strong sense of completion from the Lord as to my
    participation in this subject, at least for the time being.

    First of all, to Wayne, I appreciate that you are coming to Tony's
    defense, but in both of the last two times, it seems very clear that
    you did not perceive the depths of what I had said. In any event,
    everything is as it should be, and I just wanted to say this to close
    the loop; you are a dear brother with a tender heart, and I would not
    wish for you to think that I was ignoring you or not considering your
    words. I have done so, very carefully!

    Finally, to Tony, there is so much that I would wish to share with you,
    but apparently now is not the time. I could address your questions in
    .87 (and I did address your other question), but it seems clear that
    there would be little point in my doing so at this time.

    I apologize if you felt attacked or judged, and I can understand why my
    words might have had that effect on you. And yes, for the record, I do
    see into your heart, to the extent that God has revealed it to me. That
    is how I know that we truly are brothers, even though we are not in
    unity yet. There will be time for that later, Lord willing.

    I would just leave you with this thought. God's love is much more
    profound and has a higher nature and purpose than any of us can ever
    understand, at least in this lifetime. Speaking for myself, I no longer
    have a need, or even a desire, to understand Him, because I have
    utterly surrendered myself to Him. To everything He gives me, including
    everything that I have shared here, I hold on very lightly, ready to
    surrender it at any moment for a deeper revelation of Him and from Him.
    This is part of trusting in the Lord with all of my heart and leaning
    not on my own understanding. In all of my ways I do acknowledge Him (as
    deeply as He has enabled me to do so thus far), and He does direct my
    paths; this is a reality for me, and it has set me free from the vast
    majority of the burdens I had previously been bearing. May God be
    praised!

    My prayer for you, and in fact for everyone, is that you too would
    reach the point where you feel the need to discard everything you
    presently perceive as reality, including all of your thoughts, beliefs,
    hopes, and dreams, and most of all your understanding of love, so that
    you might receive the depths of what God has for you. This usually
    means going through a Psalm 22 experience, sometimes more than once.
    But what God has for you is that for which your heart has always
    yearned, and it makes all of the past suffering, however intense,
    worthwhile, because it is a glimpse into the real depths of His love. I
    tell you the truth, nothing you desire can compare with this!
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    
    Tony,
    
    I understand what you are saying and I am not here to
    attempt to persuade you to see things any other way.  That is
    the work for the Holy Spirit.  But allow me to point out to you
    the meaning of judgement from my previous replies.
    
    You said:
    
    >>With my undersdanding of sovereignty, I too see it as wrong 
    >>to judge anyone and am free from judgment too.
    
    But then you said:
    
    >>I won't get into it, but I believe my 'heart-comprehension' 
    >>of God's love is far better than one that is inclusive of 
    >>some idea that God has purposed the lost to be lost.
    
    Here you proceed to lay down a judgement of what is better and
    what is not.  
    
    You say that God has commended this to your heart.  I will not 
    argue with that for I am confident that the Lord shows you just
    what He wishes and reveal to you according to His plan for your
    life.  
    
    But on the otherside of that token is my input which the Lord's
    plan dictates to be spoken so that you are able to read it.
    
    Thus all things work together for your good including me pointing
    out to you that you are indeed judging what is better and what is
    not, what is true and what is false.  I say that because many times
    you also say that what I have said in this conference is in error.
    
    I will not say that to you, not because you do not speak error but
    because I am free from judging, at least that is the character and
    attitude of my heart and the manifestation of my being as a human.
    
    There is man's judgment and God's judgment.  Man's judgement is based
    upon him believing that he can understand what it is that he sees and
    grasps with his mind.  In other words he becomes god.  Now this is 
    much more subtle than appears. He believes he knows what is right and
    wrong, what is better or best or worst or least.  But that is the
    very lie that Satan presented in the garden.
    
    If you eat of the tree you will be like god knowing good and evil.
    
    One says this is better, another says something else is.  One says
    it is good and another evil.  One says the Bible says this and 
    another says it says that. Etc.
    
    The judgement of the mind comes from the position that it is right
    and what one knows is the truth.  
    
    God's judgment is based upon God who is pure and perfect.  It has no
    hypocrisy in it at all.  
    
    Now in conclusion if you believe that what you have is better then
    something else you are free to do so.  However if you can perhaps you
    will see that it is a judgement you have made based on your present
    perspective and revelation thus locking you into seeing only that
    very thing you have allied yourself to.  
    
    When we make a judgement we become connected with the very thing we
    judge and make ourselves one with it.  This is why it is written,
    
    Judge not that you be not judged for with what judgement you judge it
    shall be judged to you.
    
    Bob

      Hi Bob,
    
        A few replies back, Daryl refused to discuss doctrinally with
        Phil on the basis of a difference in belief, i.e. John 1:1.
        Is that not an example of judgment in the sense that you
        defined it?
    
        My belief on judgment is the following.  God sends revelations
        of His character.  If that revelation is received by faith, the
        heart becomes more like His.  If it is not received by faith, the
        day will come when a full revelation of His character will be
        shown to the lost who will then see a full revelation of their 
        sin which will lead to despair and to eternal death.
    
        It is a process facilitated by the word.  The Father committed all
        judgment to the Son.  The Son, in that day, will judge no man,
        but the word will judge.  He who falls on the Rock will be broken.
        He on whom the Rock falls will be crushed.  Same Rock.  Same
        revelation.  Different result based on the receivers response
        (faith or unbelief).
    
        So we differed in terms of what judgment is.  I do not see God with
        a partial heart.  He ultimately simply says "I love you" to all,
        but the lost are destroyed by this revelation.  No heart of
        condemnation.  No desire to hurt the lost, but a process (like
        gravity).
    
        I will not say what my heart toward you is.  I do not know my
        heart.  That is for God.  But, I will say what it ought be.  Total,
        unconditional love always.
    
        My idea of judgment does not enter into the realm of believing
        someone is in error on something.  It is in the realm of whether
        or not there is a condemning attitude toward a person.
    
        Thus where you saw me judging you, I did not.  We placed 
        different meanings to the term "judgment."
    
    						Take Care Bob,
    
    						Tony

    Hi Tony,
    
    I'll speak for myself on this one so that Bob won't be put in that
    position.
    
    In all things, as best I can, I do as I see my Father doing. Now, I am
    not perfect and will probably not always see clearly. But He works in
    all things for the good of those who are in Jesus, so therefore I may
    continue to do as I see Him doing and let Him take care of the results.
    
    In this case, I did not discuss doctrinal issues with Phil, not because
    I have anything against Phil (I don't!), but because the Lord told me
    not only to refrain from doing so but also exactly in what manner I was
    to refrain from doing so. There was no judgment involved; I was simply
    being obedient. To others, there may have been the appearance of
    judgment, but no personal judgment was involved on my part. Please be
    very careful not to judge by appearances!
    
    Now, I do also have particular feelings concerning the JW beliefs, and
    the Lord has told me what is going to befall their leaders. If some day
    He has me speak of that, then again, I will be doing so because He has
    told me to do so, not because I personally am judging them. My
    judgments are worthless, because I only see the surface of things.
    However, when God shares His judgments with me, they are righteous
    judgments, because He sees into the heart. Sometimes I will speak such
    judgments, and sometimes not, but that depends on what He has told me
    to do, and not upon my own will (unless for some reason I am sinning
    and not speaking from my heart in faith).
    
    That is a glimpse into the nature of my relationship with my Father
    through the Lord Jesus. Everything I have written in this conference
    has been exactly what I have heard Him saying. It is not for me even to
    judge why He has had me write what I have written; it is only for me to
    obey and to experience the blessing of the beauty and joy of being free
    to obey in this way. It is He Who works through the words He has me
    speak, just as He works in me as He has me speaking His words and
    hearing the words of others. His Word never returns void but will
    always accomplish the purposes He sets for it -- purposes which are
    well beyond my own understanding!
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

RE: .145

Hi, Daryl.

|   First of all, to Wayne, I appreciate that you are coming to Tony's
|   defense, but in both of the last two times, it seems very clear that
|   you did not perceive the depths of what I had said. In any event,
|   everything is as it should be, and I just wanted to say this to close
|   the loop; you are a dear brother with a tender heart, and I would not
|   wish for you to think that I was ignoring you or not considering your
|   words. I have done so, very carefully!

** May my heart be as you say!  Thank you.

   I also sense in your words that you feel I may lack discernment.  I
   do, indeed, just ask my wife! :-)

   However, I would submit that you perhaps have underestimated my
   perception because I, too, don't always share everything that the Lord
   has revealed to my heart until "the right time."

   I know you consider my words, as I do yours.  Brothers in Christ must
   NEVER ignore what the Spirit might choose to address through each other!

   And Tony is my brother, too!  We have our disagreements, but I know
   Tony has a burning desire to be holy as our Father is holy.  God will
   straighten both Tony and me out in His time because our eyes are fixed
   on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.

Anyway, thank you for sharing what you hear our Lord saying.  I may not like
what I hear you saying, and I may disagree with what you say according to my
understanding, but by God's grace may I never ignore what you say.

/Wayne

Tony,

	Let us proceed...
    
        >>A few replies back, Daryl refused to discuss doctrinally with
        >>Phil on the basis of a difference in belief, i.e. John 1:1.
        >>Is that not an example of judgment in the sense that you
        >>defined it?
    
	I believe Daryl answered this for himself.

        >>My belief on judgment is the following.  God sends revelations
        >>of His character.  If that revelation is received by faith, the
        >>heart becomes more like His.  If it is not received by faith, the
        >>day will come when a full revelation of His character will be
        >>shown to the lost who will then see a full revelation of their 
        >>sin which will lead to despair and to eternal death.
    
	OK

        >>It is a process facilitated by the word.  The Father committed all
        >>judgment to the Son.  The Son, in that day, will judge no man,
        >>but the word will judge.  He who falls on the Rock will be broken.
        >>He on whom the Rock falls will be crushed.  Same Rock.  Same
        >>revelation.  Different result based on the receivers response
        >>(faith or unbelief).
    
	OK

        >>So we differed in terms of what judgment is.

	How do you come to this conclusion?

        >>I do not see God with a partial heart.

	What do you mean by this?

        >>He ultimately simply says "I love you" to all,
        >>but the lost are destroyed by this revelation.  No heart of
        >>condemnation.  No desire to hurt the lost, but a process (like
        >>gravity).
    
	I agree.  The Lord has no desire to hurt anyone.  This has nothing
	to do with God's perfect plan.  We know that some will be lost.
	This is part of God's perfect plan.  What He does can not be judged
	based on man's understanding of justice for all He does is perfect
	and right.

	All your words describe one who sees the tree, but misses the forest.
	
        >>I will not say what my heart toward you is.

	I do not understand why you make this statement.  Is it based upon
	something you think I said?

        >>I do not know my heart.  That is for God.  But, I will say what 
        >>it ought be.  Total,unconditional love always.
    
	OK

        >>My idea of judgment does not enter into the realm of believing
        >>someone is in error on something.  It is in the realm of whether
        >>or not there is a condemning attitude toward a person.
    
	I was not really speaking about judging people directly but rather
	judging beliefs and judging what is right and what is wrong, what
	is better or what is worse, what is true or what is false.

        >>Thus where you saw me judging you, I did not.  We placed 
        >>different meanings to the term "judgment."


	I am afraid you misunderstood.   I did not see you judging me.
	I was simply pointing out that in one statement you said you did
	not judge in answer to what I described as judgement in an earlier
 	note, then proceeded to make a judgement that what you believed was
	better than another belief. 

	In looking at judgement you refer to the word judging.  Jesus did
	say that our own words will commend us or condemn us.  These words
	are more then the sounds that come out of our mouths.  From the 
	abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.  

	The Lord God sits on the throne of our heart or He does not.  But
	what sits on the throne of our mind.  Our mind is shaped by what
	beliefs we have and how we hold onto those beliefs. These beliefs if
	not completely surrendered to the Lord are as idols.  We all need
	God and some do not turn to the Almighty so they have other gods.

	These other gods are beliefs, which are very powerful.  So powerful 
	that some people even sacrifice their own children to the fire.

	We all have beliefs and they are just as powerful and can take the
	place of God in our hearts so that we speak the words of our idol
	condemning ourselves.

	But the Lord desires to transform the mind so that it does not need
	to usurp authority over the heart and hold onto beliefs in order for
	it to be safe in its very existance.  The transforming of our minds
	becomes such that it surrenders to the heart and obeys the still small
	voice of God within.     
    			
    
        Bob

Re: 883.150

  Hi Bob,

	*Let us proceed...
    
	OK

        >>So we differed in terms of what judgment is.

	*How do you come to this conclusion?  

	Based on your inclusion of
	judgment also applying to that which people believe, say, etc.
	I believe your view was more inclusive than my use of it, however,
	after giving your reply some thought, I believe your application
	of the term to be more accurate than mine was.

        >>I do not see God with a partial heart.

	*What do you mean by this?

	That was very poorly phrased.  I meant to say I don't see God
	as having a partial heart.  If God 'makes' the lost be lost, I
	see God as having a partial heart on the basis of the future He
	'made' them have as being so much less fortunate than the future
	He 'makes' the saved have.  (And here I use the word 'make' as
	applying to my understanding of your view as I don't believe it
	applies to my view.)

        >>He ultimately simply says "I love you" to all,
        >>but the lost are destroyed by this revelation.  No heart of
        >>condemnation.  No desire to hurt the lost, but a process (like
        >>gravity).
    
	*I agree.  The Lord has no desire to hurt anyone.  This has nothing
	*to do with God's perfect plan.  We know that some will be lost.
	*This is part of God's perfect plan.  What He does can not be judged
	*based on man's understanding of justice for all He does is perfect
	*and right.

	I am not suggesting that I am judging what He does.  Where did I ever
	suggest to be judging what God does?  Now, I certainly see that I
	am judging YOUR CONCEPT of some of what God does and from the posture
	that some of your concept is a false one (and thus I am not judging
	what God does, but rather your false concept of what He does).

	In the above you said God does not desire to hurt anyone.  Do we
	agree that what befalls the lost is 'hurtful' to the lost?

	If yes, the belief that God does not desire to hurt anyone cannot be
	consistent with the belief that God 'makes' the lost be lost for He
	is then the one making them experience this hurt.  (Why would He make
	them experience something that He does not desire for them?)  If His
	plan is perfect, why would it require Him to resort to something He
	does not desire, i.e. the 'hurt' of the lost?

	*OR*, do you believe God does not 'make' the lost be lost?

	*All your words describe one who sees the tree, but misses the forest.
	
	I disagree and perceive this statement to be audacious and highly
	inaccurate.  Can you tell me what my position is on why the lost 
	endure what they endure?  If you cannot, your words above are founded
	on an incomplete picture of my belief system.

	So, I invite you to tell me what my 'entire picture' is.  I am eager
	to hear this.  (I am assuming that partial necessary validity of
	your above statement is a knowledge of the entirety of my belief
	system for only within that backdrop can you state the above with
	credibility.  What I have stated is a small piece of a big pie.
	You cannot evaluate my view of the forest on the basis of only your
	view of the small piece I have volunteered.)

        >>I will not say what my heart toward you is.

	*I do not understand why you make this statement.  Is it based upon
	*something you think I said?

	I am merely saying that for all I know I could be judging you in the
	way I meant the word judgment (i.e. condemnation toward you).  I 
	believe it is presumtion to state the status of one's own heart.
	I'll leave that to the only One who really knows.  It is not based
	on anything I think you said.

	I'll continue...

   Continuing on...

	*I am afraid you misunderstood.   I did not see you judging me.
	*I was simply pointing out that in one statement you said you did
	*not judge in answer to what I described as judgement in an earlier
 	*note, then proceeded to make a judgement that what you believed was
	*better than another belief. 

	*In looking at judgement you refer to the word judging.  Jesus did
	*say that our own words will commend us or condemn us.  These words
	*are more then the sounds that come out of our mouths.  From the 
	*abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.  

	Exactly.  Your meaning of the term as you used it was different than
	my own.  My own meaning of the term 'judgment' (for which I include the
	verb form judging) was not inclusive of belief/words.

	*The Lord God sits on the throne of our heart or He does not.  But
	*what sits on the throne of our mind.  Our mind is shaped by what
	*beliefs we have and how we hold onto those beliefs. These beliefs if
	*not completely surrendered to the Lord are as idols.  We all need
	*God and some do not turn to the Almighty so they have other gods.

	Please define your terms:
	throne, heart, sits, shaped

	Am I close in saying the following???

	throne - metaphor describing the person seated as being in charge
	sits   - metaphor describing position of authority
	heart  - metaphor describing the conscious component of man as
		 pertains to moral things (right, wrong).
 	shaped - describes the molding of moral conscious status of a person.
	mind   - describes the consciousness of man outside of faith being
		 utilized (I guess).

	So metaphorical!!

	Anyway, I can't make out what you said.  Can you remove all metaphor
 	and just supply *meaning*.

	To me, if the Lord sits at the throne of our hearts, he has all of
	us and it makes no sense to speak of some 'other' at the throne of
	our minds.  How can God not sit at the throne of our mind, if He
	has our heart?

	What to you is the difference between heart and mind?

 	To me, mind is inclusive of all of our conscious existence.  Heart
	refers to mind from the moral perspective.  To speak of idols 
	(whether God or false) is to reside exclusively in the realm of
  	heart, i.e. mind from the perspective of moral things or heart.
	They are interchangeable.

	Anyway, I'm just being honest.  You are attributing different meanings
	to words that are metaphors and if you really want to get through to
	me, I ask you to abandon your use of metaphor and stick completely
	to communicating with meaning of metaphor in their place.

	*These other gods are beliefs, which are very powerful.  So powerful 
	*that some people even sacrifice their own children to the fire.

	*We all have beliefs and they are just as powerful and can take the
	*place of God in our hearts so that we speak the words of our idol
	*condemning ourselves.

	*But the Lord desires to transform the mind so that it does not need
	*to usurp authority over the heart and hold onto beliefs in order for
	*it to be safe in its very existance.  The transforming of our minds
	*becomes such that it surrenders to the heart and obeys the still small
	*voice of God within.     
    			
    	Terminology disconnect.  I don't get the meaning of mind (as you use
	it) primarily.

						Tony

	Tony,

	First I will qualify this by stating I will be as clear as is
	humanly possible.  But that is no guarantee you will understand
	what I am saying for what it really is.  This is not a judgement
	concerning you but a statement of fact that you will filter what
	I say with the filters you have in your conscious mind.  
 
        >>>So we differed in terms of what judgment is.

	>>*How do you come to this conclusion?  

	>Based on your inclusion of
	>judgment also applying to that which people believe, say, etc.
	>I believe your view was more inclusive than my use of it, however,
	>after giving your reply some thought, I believe your application
	>of the term to be more accurate than mine was.

	If I understand you here you are saying that you recognize what my
	definition is for the word judgement is in this circumstance.   
	
        >>>I do not see God with a partial heart.

	>>*What do you mean by this?

	>>That was very poorly phrased.  I meant to say I don't see God
	>>as having a partial heart. 

	I see.  You are saying God is not partial to the saved anymore
	than He is to the lost. This is true.  God is not more partial
	to anyone, even though he said,"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have
	I hated." Man's love is as corrupt as his hatred but God is pure
	and perfect in everything.

	>>If God 'makes' the lost be lost, I see God as having a partial 
	>>heart on the basis of the future He 'made' them have as being 
	>>so much less fortunate than the future He 'makes' the saved have.

	Here is man's view of things.  If God makes, if God forces, to
	God we are robots then if.....this is what I here children say when
	they are mad and can't have thier way.  God is a tyrant if He sends
	someone to hell.  Why does God let there be pain and sickness in 
	the world, thats not fair,etc.  

	The idea of "If God 'makes' the lost be lost," sounds no different.
	It is a human comprehension.  It is a battle cry of the mind to not
	surrender to the Omnipotent God and recognize He is Supreme in all
	things. 
	
	>>>(And here I use the word 'make' as
        >>>applying to my understanding of your view as I don't believe it
        >>>applies to my view.)

	I am glad you clarified that that it was by your own understanding.
	And I am glad you specified that you are looking at what I say as
	my view.  It is not my view, though the only way that it can be
	expressed to you in this medium is in the form of "my view".  

	My views have been completely surrendered to the Lord and are in
	the process of being surrendered.  But based on all the words you
	have written in this conference that I have ever read your views
	are still your own.  Now please understand I do not have a problem
	with that, that is God's will and design for you at this time.  

	We all go through the process of believing we have the truth only
	to be confounded by the Lord and find ourselves groveling in the
	dirt with so much pain that we finally surrender "My view".  But 
	like many of the people in the Bible when everything is OK again 
	run off with the new view (or perspective) that we have received
	from the Lord and have to go through the process again of having 
	the Lord, wether by Satan or people or circumstances, bring us
	to the point of pain so we are back grovling in the dirt, in sack
	cloth and ashes, surrendering up the new thing the Lord just
	revealled to us so that He can reveal something new about our
	relationship with Him.

	Our beliefs and revelations are just like the brass serpent 
	Moses made.  Eventually it has to be destroyed because if it isn't
	we turn it into an idol and it becomes our god instead of God.
 
        >>>He ultimately simply says "I love you" to all,
        >>>but the lost are destroyed by this revelation.  No heart of
        >>>condemnation.  No desire to hurt the lost, but a process (like
        >>>gravity).
    
	>*I agree.  The Lord has no desire to hurt anyone.  This has nothing
	>*to do with God's perfect plan.  We know that some will be lost.
	>*This is part of God's perfect plan.  What He does can not be judged
	>*based on man's understanding of justice for all He does is perfect
	>*and right.

	>I am not suggesting that I am judging what He does.  Where did I ever
	>suggest to be judging what God does? 
	
	Again your view of judging seems to only be an attitude toward others
	and does not encompass that there is judgement of beliefs and actions
	etc. 
 
	>> Now, I certainly see that I
	>>am judging YOUR CONCEPT of some of what God does and from the posture
	>>that some of your concept is a false one (and thus I am not judging
	>>what God does, but rather your false concept of what He does).

	No you are actually judging your own beliefs of what you think you
	know about God and about my so called concepts of what He does.

	>>In the above you said God does not desire to hurt anyone.  Do we
	>>agree that what befalls the lost is 'hurtful' to the lost?

	First off let us begin by saying that you laid the foundation of the
	statement that...God does not desire to hurt anyone.  I agreed with
	you because in the context of speaking of your issue of the lost
	there is limited undertanding of the spiritual mechanics of pain in
	the second death so to move from this issue I agreed with your
	understanding.  I myself would not have intiated such a statement as
	it is not in my nature.

	>>If yes, the belief that God does not desire to hurt anyone cannot be
	>>consistent with the belief that God 'makes' the lost be lost for He
	>>is then the one making them experience this hurt.  (Why would He make
	>>them experience something that He does not desire for them?)  If His
	>>plan is perfect, why would it require Him to resort to something He
	>>does not desire, i.e. the 'hurt' of the lost?


	The above statement is quite amazing.  It is as if you are argueing 
	your point with someone else other then me and in fact most of our 
	arguments are with ourselves and our own beliefs.  We do this in an
	attempt to validate them or at the very least justify them to 
    	ourselves and others.  Your explaination is a human concept and has
    	nothing to do with the revelation of the Will of God and His plan.

	But let me attempt to enter your argument though it is probably futile.
	Your logic is not at all incorrect from a human perspective.  But 
	logic will completely fail you in regards to recognizing the revelation
	of the soveriegnty of God.  Man's undertanding can not grasp nor
	explain nor rationally catagorize the plan of God.  But wether we can
	grasp it or not God has a perfect plan and everything that happens is
	His plan unfolding and being completed. Not a hair falls from your
    	head without it being the Will of God. 

	>>*OR*, do you believe God does not 'make' the lost be lost?

	This statement is the same as saying if we are FORCED to do the will
	of God then we are nothing but robots.  

	The words forced and make are so finite that they can not be used
	to describe or define God and His Will. 

	>>>*All your words describe one who sees the tree, but misses the forest.
	
	>>I disagree and perceive this statement to be audacious and highly
	>>inaccurate.  Can you tell me what my position is on why the lost 
	>>endure what they endure?  If you cannot, your words above are founded
	>>on an incomplete picture of my belief system.

	You may disagree all that you want and you may perceive what I said
	however you wish.  You are focused on one issue and are trying to
	understand the entire soveriegnty and Will of God by trying to 
	explain this one issue.
    
    	But it is only one small tree in a vast
	forest.  You even coming to a complete understanding of this one
	issue will not help because even if you figure it out you will find
	the roots of the tree are intertwined to the next tree and you will
	start all over again attempting to understand that tree.  In the
	process you miss the entire forest.

	All the knowledge that you think you can gain will not benefit
	you in receiving the revelation of Wisdom.

	>>So, I invite you to tell me what my 'entire picture' is.  I am eager
	>>to hear this. (I am assuming that partial necessary validity of
	>>your above statement is a knowledge of the entirety of my belief
	>>system for only within that backdrop can you state the above with
	>>credibility.  What I have stated is a small piece of a big pie.
	>>You cannot evaluate my view of the forest on the basis of only your
	>>view of the small piece I have volunteered.)

	I do not care what your entire picture is because I have no desire
	to convince you of anything. I am only interested in
	what God's entire picture is.  But I also do not need an ocean to
	be able to identify the water, one drop will suffice.  

	
	To be continued	
        

  >> Continuing on...

	>>>*I am afraid you misunderstood.   I did not see you judging me.
	>>>*I was simply pointing out that in one statement you said you did
	>>>*not judge in answer to what I described as judgement in an earlier
 	>>>*note, then proceeded to make a judgement that what you believed was
	>>>*better than another belief. 

	>>>*In looking at judgement you refer to the word judging.  Jesus did
	>>>*say that our own words will commend us or condemn us.  These words
	>>>*are more then the sounds that come out of our mouths.  From the 
	>>>*abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.  

	>>Exactly.  Your meaning of the term as you used it was different than
	>>my own.  My own meaning of the term 'judgment' (for which I include the
	>>verb form judging) was not inclusive of belief/words.

	Alright we have established that.  But just because you do not
	recognize it as judgement we all make judgements concerning things
	including beliefs.  Not recognizing it does not make it so.

	>>>*The Lord God sits on the throne of our heart or He does not.  But
	>>>*what sits on the throne of our mind.  Our mind is shaped by what
	>>>*beliefs we have and how we hold onto those beliefs. These beliefs if
	>>>*not completely surrendered to the Lord are as idols.  We all need
	>>>*God and some do not turn to the Almighty so they have other gods.

	>Please define your terms:
	>throne, heart, sits, shaped

	>Am I close in saying the following???

	>throne - metaphor describing the person seated as being in charge
	
	I see a throne as being where the king sits and rules from.

	>sits   - metaphor describing position of authority
	
	I see sitting as taking residence of the throne.  It means sits like
	in a chair.

	>heart  - metaphor describing the conscious component of man as
	>	 pertains to moral things (right, wrong).

	The heart is very hard to explain.  It is the inner man.  The spirit
	of a man.  His spiritual existance.  Or maybe not.
 	
	>shaped - describes the molding of moral conscious status of a person.
	
	Shaped is is like influenced, formed, conformed

	>mind   - describes the consciousness of man outside of faith being
		 utilized (I guess).

	I suppose that is as good explaination as any but then again it may
	not even be close. 

	>>So metaphorical!!

	Yes metaphorical because the language of the heart is metaphorical.
	
	The kingdom of heaven is liken unto......


	>>Anyway, I can't make out what you said.  Can you remove all metaphor
 	>>and just supply *meaning*.

	>>>*The Lord God sits on the throne of our heart or He does not.

	The Lord comes in and we surrender our life(heart/spirit) to him.
	We step down from being Lord of our life and He takes the throne.
	The kingdom of God is within.

	>>>But what sits on the throne of our mind.

	Even though we have surrendered our heart to him and He spiritually
	indwells us our mind is still not fully surrendered.  Our hearts
	are made pure but our minds are still filled with all the filth of
	our humanity.  We have preconceptions, ideas, imaginations that rise
	up against God, filters, etc.  We can still allow other things to
	sit in authority in our minds, like money, power, knowledge, sex, etc.
 
	>>>Our mind is shaped by what beliefs we have and how we hold onto 
	>>>those beliefs. 

	Our character and behavior and reactions and responses to both 
	internal and external stimuli will be based upon what beliefs we
	have recieved or been programmed with through our life.  These
	beliefs shape how we see things, hear things, process thoughts and
	concepts, etc.

        >>>These beliefs if not completely surrendered to the Lord are as 
	>>>idols.  We all need God and some do not turn to the Almighty so 
	>>>they have other gods.
	
	This is self explanatory.

	>>To me, if the Lord sits at the throne of our hearts, he has all of
	>>us and it makes no sense to speak of some 'other' at the throne of
	>>our minds.  How can God not sit at the throne of our mind, if He
	>>has our heart?

	It makes perfect sense if you can see that your beliefs shape 
	what you do and how you do it and what you see and why you see it 
	that way.  But you do not appear to see this.  God can reside in our
	heart and we still be carnal, our minds still filled with all
	kinds of darkness.  But as the Lord reveals Himself in His time and
	that has nothing to do with us, then the mind is enlightened with the
	glory and presence of Christ.
  
	>>What to you is the difference between heart and mind?

	I attempted to explain this earlier.

 	>>To me, mind is inclusive of all of our conscious existence.  Heart
	>>refers to mind from the moral perspective.  To speak of idols 
	>>(whether God or false) is to reside exclusively in the realm of
  	>>heart, i.e. mind from the perspective of moral things or heart.
	>>They are interchangeable.

	I have nothing to say to this.

	>>Anyway, I'm just being honest.  You are attributing different meanings
	>>to words that are metaphors and if you really want to get through to
	>>me, I ask you to abandon your use of metaphor and stick completely
	>>to communicating with meaning of metaphor in their place.

	But I do not wnt to get through to you.  That is not my intent and I
	think I have said that a number of times.  I know that thier are other
	people that are reading my words that do not need an explaination of
	my metaphors because they have the explaination from the Lord of what
	He wants them to see in the metaphor.

	>>>*These other gods are beliefs, which are very powerful.  So powerful 
	>>>*that some people even sacrifice their own children to the fire.

	>>>*We all have beliefs and they are just as powerful and can take the
	>>>*place of God in our hearts so that we speak the words of our idol
	>>>*condemning ourselves.

	>>>*But the Lord desires to transform the mind so that it does not need
	>>>*to usurp authority over the heart and hold onto beliefs in order for
	>>>*it to be safe in its very existance.  The transforming of our minds
	>>>*becomes such that it surrenders to the heart and obeys the still small
	>>>*voice of God within.     
    			
    	>Terminology disconnect.  I don't get the meaning of mind (as you use
	>it) primarily.

	There are no other gods but God.  So then the only thing that can bring
	a person to behave toward a god that is not a god is that they believe
	something.  Beliefs are what makes a person do what they do. They make
	their decisions based on their beliefs.  So it is easy for a belief to
	take over our lives as opposed to letting the Lord take over our lives.

	Even though the Lord lives in us, we still can obey the beliefs over the
	Lord.  The Lord wants to eliminate our false beliefs and have us be
	surrendered vessels ready to give up all of our beliefs for him.

	This surrender and giving up of our beliefs occurs as He puts us
	through the suffering, which comes from God because it is His will
	that we suffer, and thus our minds are transformed and renewed without
	all the garbage beliefs that held us captive.
  
	Bob

  Hi Bob,

    I just want you to have my perspective of the terms 'my belief'
    and 'your belief.'

    1 Corin 8:2
    If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he
    ought to know.

    When I refer to what I believe, I use the term 'my belief' not
    because I am trying to infer that they are mine from the stand-
    point that they are from my 'mind' (as you seem to define the
    term), but because I believe it is arrogant to equate one's beliefs
    with God's.  I want to be teachable and I never want to suggest 
    that what I believe is *necessarily* truth.

    When I refer to 'your belief', I mean the exact same thing as 
    pertains to you.  What you presently understand to be truth.

    I am uncomfortable with your assertion that what you say is what
    God has told you to say.  This would seem to imply that you have
    attained to the discernment that you are 'filterless' so to speak.
    Perfect in hearing so that what God tries to speak to you comes
    through in perfect clarity.

    Our dialogue has one aspect that is disconcerting for me.  You term
    my beliefs as flawed on the basis of filters and what have you.
    You refer to 'surrendering understanding' etc.  You then picture
    yourself as speaking exactly as God has given to you to say.

    You've set up a backdrop where what I say is flawed on the basis
    of your assessment of my spirituality and what you say is 100%
    right on on the basis of your assessment of your own spirituality.

    Just to let you know...

    I believe you are flawed as well.  I believe you don't 'hear' 
    quite as good as you seem to think you do so that what you echo
    as the word of the Lord is not necessarily 100% inerrant.  So,
    I will continue to use the term 'your view' to describe what you
    are presenting.  I have to go with my own convictions.  To accept
    what you are saying as wholly God's view would be idolatry on my
    part.

    I believe I am flawed and thus I say 'my view' (differentiating it
    from God's as I don't want to presume I have all truth perfectly
    or that I am without error).

    Finally, I fail to discern the mode by which you come to the con-
    clusion that your view is God's.  The description of the Bereans 
    doesn't come through clearly from what you say asbeing your own
    mode.  (Just being honest.)

						Tony

	Hi Tony,

    >>I just want you to have my perspective of the terms 'my belief'
    >>and 'your belief.'

    >>1 Corin 8:2
    >>If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he
    >>ought to know.

    >>When I refer to what I believe, I use the term 'my belief' not
    >>because I am trying to infer that they are mine from the stand-
    >>point that they are from my 'mind' (as you seem to define the
    >>term), but because I believe it is arrogant to equate one's beliefs
    >>with God's.  I want to be teachable and I never want to suggest 
    >>that what I believe is *necessarily* truth.

	Lets speak about beliefs.  A belief is a correlations of 
	understandings, experiences, teachings,assumptions, preconceived
	ideas, etc.  This thing called a belief is the sum total of
	knowledge received about and concerning a particular topic.

	For example you ask a person what are their beliefs about
	money.  They will reply with a series of statements such as
	money don't grow on trees, easy come easy go, a penny saved is
	penny earned, etc, etc.  These are beliefs about money.  Wether
	they are true or not is irrelevant.  They are beliefs.

	It is true that the stronger a persons belief is about something
	the less teachable they are about that issue.  

	The mind wants stability so that it can be secure.  The mind 
	bases security upon what it can duplicate in experience.  
	For example the mind says I have a belief based on the 
	evidence that man cannot walk on water. From all experience
	of all the knowledge that the mind collects, both conscious and
	unconscious, the mind forms the belief that man can not walk
	on water.

	To teach someone that man can walk on water, without their mind
	having some evidence that it is possible, would be very difficult.

	But once the mind collected the information from a very reliable
	source, for example seeing someone walking on the water with 
	ones own eyes, the mind then begins to reprogram and forms a new
	belief that it is possible for a man to walk on water.  Some will
	even form more courageous beliefs and take the quantum leap and
	risk the possibility that if it is possible that the man they see
	is walking on the water, then, although as unbelievable as it sounds
	they could walk on water as well.  Thus it is thier belief that
	enables them or disables them to exercise faith.

	According to your way of thinking and your present belief systems
	you feel the need to say:

	** I believe it is arrogant to equate one's beliefs
    	**with God's.

	This is a belief.  You state it as such.  I do not believe it
	is arrogant to equate one's beliefs with God's because it is
	not relevant to me to do so.  In other words it is not in my
	thought patterns, nor revelations to see things in this way.


    >>When I refer to 'your belief', I mean the exact same thing as 
    >>pertains to you.  What you presently understand to be truth.

	What I am trying to say is that my main belief is that it is
	essential for me to surrender every belief I have to God.  The
	mind is totally opposed to this because it demands structure, 
	organization, security and assurance of understanding.  If it
	does not "believe" it has those things it believes that all it
	will have is feelings of insecurity, fear,self condemnation and 
	the like. This is a powerful and self preserving belief.

	But it is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which shows 
	God wants us to believe on Him, to surrender, to die.  All things
	which are contrary to the minds need to survive at all costs.

    >>I am uncomfortable with your assertion that what you say is what
    >>God has told you to say.

	You are uncomfortable because you have beliefs about what a person
	that speaks what God wants them to speak is.  In addition you have
	beliefs about what your response to such a person should or 
	shouldn't be.  In other words if you believe that I am a prophet 
	you should have a certain response, such as you should listen.  If
	on the other hand you believe I am not a prophet then you do not 
	have to listen and in fact you should point it out to everyone that
	I speak falsehood.

	The problem again is that your present beliefs about what a 
	prophet is or isn't shape everything you say to me and hear
	from me. 

    >>This would seem to imply that you have
    >>attained to the discernment that you are 'filterless' so to speak.
    
	This is a belief.  You believe that someone that speaks the word of
	the Lord must be filterless.  This is not true. God can speak
	through anyone or anything, including a donkey or a rock. 
	Do people really believe that prophets are perfect?  They are men
	just like everyone else.  They even sin. So it is highly unlikely
	that they would be filterless.  But by the inspiration of the Holy
	Spirit God overides all the prophets frailities and weaknesses and
	speaks the Word He wants to be heard.

    >>Perfect in hearing so that what God tries to speak to you comes
    >>through in perfect clarity.

	I find it irrelevant how perfect my hearing is.  You see if I were
	to measure my ability to hear from God on a scale of one to ten,
	I would be at a negative six thousand and seventeen to the tenth
	power.  My ability is irrelevant.  But God's Spirit can do all
	things and thus I can do all things through Christ Jesus.  That is
	called faith.

    >>Our dialogue has one aspect that is disconcerting for me.  You term
    >>my beliefs as flawed on the basis of filters and what have you.

	Here again you are viewing everything I say through your beliefs.
	I do not think I said that your belifs were flawed on the basis of
	your filters.  This is how you are hearing it.  I have no problem
	with what and how you believe anything.  You are exactly where the
	mercy of God has you.  You cannot even change one single belif you
	have.  But I am obviously here presenting to you the revelation 
	that you do have beliefs and filters and that it is possible, if
	God gives you this awareness, that these beliefs are powerful and
	shape how you see everything.

 
    >>You refer to 'surrendering understanding' etc.  You then picture
    >>yourself as speaking exactly as God has given to you to say.

	You do not know how I picture myself.  You know how you belief
	I picture myself and these beliefs shape the communication
	between us.  By the way this applies to everyone.  All people
	communicate based on thier beliefs, filters, etc.  The fewer
	the rigid self protective beliefs the greater the unity.
 
    >>You've set up a backdrop where what I say is flawed on the basis
    >>of your assessment of my spirituality and what you say is 100%
    >>right on on the basis of your assessment of your own spirituality.

	If this is how you see things then our communication is going
	to simply be as it is, a series of replies that I must answer
	different expressions of the same view, answering different 
	questions that are based on the same belief.  In that thier 
	is no possiblity of unity and the discussion can go on forever
	and a day.

    >>Just to let you know...

    >>I believe you are flawed as well.  I believe you don't 'hear' 
    >>quite as good as you seem to think you do so that what you echo
    >>as the word of the Lord is not necessarily 100% inerrant.  So,
    >>I will continue to use the term 'your view' to describe what you
    >>are presenting.  I have to go with my own convictions. To accept
    >>what you are saying as wholly God's view would be idolatry on my
    >>part.

	You have stated your beliefs.  So be it.

    >>I believe I am flawed and thus I say 'my view' (differentiating it
    >>from God's as I don't want to presume I have all truth perfectly
    >>or that I am without error).

	OK.

    >>Finally, I fail to discern the mode by which you come to the con-
    >>clusion that your view is God's.

	I have no need to come to this conclusion.  I am simply believing
	by faith.

    >>The description of the Bereans 
    >>doesn't come through clearly from what you say asbeing your own
    >>mode.  (Just being honest.)

	I would say according to you beliefs of views, your are free to
	your view.
	
	Bob
    
    	PS.  I must get back to work. So I can not say wether
    	I will be entering in the short term or not.
    

    Hi Tony,

    There is another aspect about all of this which you may wish to
    consider in your prayer time with the Lord:

    There is a definite spiritual hierarchy that the Lord has established.
    God appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers,
    etc. (I Corinthians 12:27-31). This hierarchy is the reverse of man's
    hierarchy in that those of greater authority are actually below those
    of lesser authority, for the purposes of support, encouragement,
    teaching and admonition, and building up. A house is constructed from
    the bottom up, not from the top down, and before the first wall can be
    erected, the foundation must be laid.

    It takes great humility to receive teaching and counsel from one below
    you in the hierarchy, that is, one who is in a position of greater
    spiritual authority, as appointed by God. The pride of one's own
    knowledge and beliefs tends to interfere with this and prevents the
    existence of such a discipling relationship, often before it can even
    really begin.

    If Bob is called to the office of Prophet, as the Lord has confirmed to
    me, and if the Lord has confirmed your calling to you as He has
    confirmed it to me, then it is entirely correct that Bob would have the
    greater revelation and would be in a position to counsel, rebuke, and
    support you, for not only is he your brother, he is also your superior
    in the Lord, one to whom you can turn for Godly advice, who by God's
    mercy is trustworthy (I Corinthians 7:25). I am not suggesting that you
    should follow him, or anyone else, blindly, for he too is only a man.
    However, if you resist him and/or his words without a Scriptural basis
    for doing so, and without any understanding of what a Prophet really is
    as called by God, then please understand that you are hurting yourself
    and, to a lesser extent, him and others as well.
    
    Now, all of this is exactly as it needs to be right now, so that all of
    this may be said, and for other reasons. God wastes nothing. However, I
    would ask you, if the Lord revealed to you that He has placed a Prophet
    in your life, what should your response to such an individual be? Why
    would the Lord do this for you?
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Bob and Daryl,
    
        Don't prophets usually say, "Thus saith the Lord?"
    
        And I am SERIOUS about this!
    
        Why?  Because Nathan stated an absolute untruth to David.
        The point?  Not all that comes from the mouth of a prophet
        is prophecy.  It is prophecy when God speaks through a
        person as such.  BUT, don't prophets speak at other times???
    
        Is virtually everything a prophet says and writes prophecy?
        I don't believe so.
    
        How was I to know that you (Bob) were conveying what God
        prophesied in you to convey or if you were communicating
        to me outside of direct revelation (prophecy) from God?
                                                    
        The whole reason I said "your belief" is because I believe
        that prophets do not ALWAYS speak and write prophecy.  They
        do so when God uses them as such.
    
        And I never heard you (Bob again) convey to me that your
        words were prophetic utterances.
    
    						Tony

    re .158
    
    Is this the difference between being a prophet and having the gift
    of prophecy?
    
    
    Jill
    

      Hi Jill,
    
        Wasn't Nathan a prophet?  And John the Baptist?  (who came to
        doubt if Jesus really was the Messiah and sought affirmation)
    
    						Tony

	Tony,

        >>         -< Not All That A Prophet Says Is Prophetic >-

	This is true.  In an enviroment such as this it may be
	difficult to discern when the Lord is speaking and when
	a person is simply relaying thier revelation of the Lord,
	what could be called teaching or sharing.  In this the
	Holy Spirit must be relied upon to reveal.  

	For the most part in this last string I have been expounding
	what I sense the Holy Spirit would want me to.  The parable
	was a gift from the Lord.  But for the most part I have been
	sharing my heart with you and answering your questions as
	I felt the Lord giving guidance.

	There are varying degree of which the Holy Spirit speaks to
	ones heart and as I express to you what I sense needs to be
	said I do so.


       >> Don't prophets usually say, "Thus saith the Lord?"
    
	I have found that there is a misunderstanding of prophets. There
	are differences between Old Testamment or Law Prophets and New
	Testament or Grace Prophets.  It would take thousands of lines
	of text to even begin to do this and I am not certain the Lord
	would have me begin.

        >>And I am SERIOUS about this!
    
	I believe you are serious.  I only will say thus saith the Lord
	if the Lord lays it on my heart to do so for certain circumstances
	and I have found it is usually for stiff necked, proud people who
	will not listen to the Lord anyways.  For the most part I find
	I can just share and others who have ears to hear, hear.  They
	know it is the Lord I do not have to tell them.

        >>Why?  Because Nathan stated an absolute untruth to David.
        >>The point?  Not all that comes from the mouth of a prophet
        >>is prophecy.
	
	In a sense that is true.  But God will use all things for His
	purposes. Again Nathan was an Old Testament prophet.  The Spirit
	of God came upon him but did not indwell him and this is different
	then how the Spirit speaks through prophets today.  Today meaning
	since pentacost.

	Comparing New Testamant prophets to Old will result in some
	confusion.  I am not saying Grace Prophets will not do some
	of the things Law Prophets do but there is completely different
	operation at work bringing it all about.

        >>It is prophecy when God speaks through a
        >>person as such.  BUT, don't prophets speak at other times???
        >>Is virtually everything a prophet says and writes prophecy?
        >>I don't believe so.
    
	There is so much that can be said but my time is limited.

        >>How was I to know that you (Bob) were conveying what God
        >>prophesied in you to convey or if you were communicating
        >>to me outside of direct revelation (prophecy) from God?
          
	>>The whole reason I said "your belief" is because I believe
        >>that prophets do not ALWAYS speak and write prophecy.  They
        >>do so when God uses them as such.
    
        >>And I never heard you (Bob again) convey to me that your
        >>words were prophetic utterances.
    
	God would have all his people be prophetic.  The Holy Spirit
	in us makes us a prophetic people.  

	I am simply saying listen to what I am saying with your heart
	and the Spirit of God will reveal to you if what I say is
	beneficial to you or not.  

	I do not want to have to say Thus saith the Lord as though I
	speak to strangers.  My hope is that I might speak or write
	what the Lord desires for me to share with friends.

	Bob
    

    Tony,

    I appreciate that you are serious about this. Your question is a good
    one.

    Prophets do more than just prophesy. And just because they may not
    always be directed to say, "Thus says the Lord," that does not mean
    that their words should be ignored. The testimony of Jesus is the
    spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10), and God desires a prophetic
    people who overcome Satan by, among other things, the word of their
    testimony (Revelation 12:11).

    Prophets, as the eyes and the ears of the Body of Christ, and as the
    second tier in God's hierarchy, are vitally important for the
    well-being of the Body. Though everything they say and do may not
    itself be a prophecy, God works through them profoundly and reveals
    much in the depths of the examples of their lives (which often *are*
    prophetic, though sometimes that fact is not seen even by the prophet)
    and of the words they choose. One would do well to pay close attention
    to every aspect of a prophet's life and be slow to judge based upon
    one's own understanding.
    
    Prophets do have a level of support beneath them: the apostles. But
    while prophets are very rare, apostles are even moreso. They too
    provide a very strong witness for the Lord by their very lives, by
    their acts, and by the words they use, though they are not prone to
    saying, "Thus says the Lord" unless He explicitly leads them to do it.
    And they too are not perfect. They rely directly upon Jesus for their
    support, and occasionally upon other apostles as well.
    
    There are also false prophets and false apostles. How can one tell the
    difference? Ultimately, God Himself testifies on behalf of His servants
    to the hearts of those to whom He chooses to reveal them. He does so by
    pointing out the fruit of their lives and by creating within the hearts
    of the believers a desire to hear them, to have what they see the Lord
    has given them, to humble themselves, and to follow them as they follow
    Jesus. They do not take the place of the Holy Spirit in people's lives!
    But they do serve the same Spirit and are one with Him, and so the Lord
    Himself enables people to receive them, as He wishes, so that they too
    might be one with Him. 
    
    He also causes persecution for His purposes. Sometimes a prophet must
    speak hard words, and many, many times he is persecuted for it because
    the people simply will not hear him. Without getting back into the
    question of whether or not God has closed the people's eyes and ears,
    one cannot expect a prophet to deliver nice, comforting, or
    easy-to-understand words all the time, so one should be particularly
    careful about judging a prophet based upon one's own understanding of
    God's love, which is necessarily incomplete at best. If a prophet of
    God speaks a prophecy, it *will* come to pass. But even when a prophet
    is not prophesying, he or she has a unique and extremely deep
    relationship with the Lord that is very much needed for the edification
    of the Body of Christ.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      Thanks Andrew, Bob and Daryl,
    
        I'll cut one thing to the chase.  I am (thus) open to the
        possibility that Bob was not echoing prophecy and thus what
        was coming through him was coming through (his) filters.
    
        This is NOT to say any of it was untrue, just to say that
        where God is not using one as a prophetic channel, that which
        the channel is communicating has that same susceptibility we
        all have - those filters Bob speaks of.
    
        And of course, I am open to the possibility that Bob has 
        less filters!                                   
    
    						Tony

    Of course Bob has filters.  All humans have filters.  That is why you
    must hold everything up to the light of the Spirit.  Ask for wisdom and
    revelation to know the truth.
    
    Jill
    

    
    Tony,
    
    >>  -< If Not Prophecy, Then Filters >-
    
    It is possible to be in a state of receiving in which our 
    minds demand for human understanding, which includes filters,
    is made subject to Christ and thus remains "Waiting on the Lord".
    This could be called in a humble state.  Not relying upon its
    own understanding.  This humble, ready, waiting state of being
    is trained over time to go with the flow of the Spirit of God.
    
    In a sense this is a prophetic state.  A person can share 
    prophetically in many ways without the minds filters getting
    in the way.  It is a flowing of the Spirit.
    
    So in a sense what I have shared in this string is prophetic in
    that I go with the flow of the Spirit of the Lord.  However it is
    different then when the Lord says I want you to go here and speak
    this or that or says to do this or that.  
    
    In this string I have not had the Lord tell me to do anything.  
    But I have been going with the flow of the Holy Spirit as he guides
    me. This may sound contradictory but I can not explain it better.
    
    So was it prophetic? Yes, in so much that the Spirit of God in me
    is prophetic.  Was it a prophecy? No, in so much as the Lord did
    not directly say to me say this or that. There is a difference yet
    it is all prophetic.
    
    Do I have filters?  Am I a man?  Yes I do have filters but the Lord,
    through suffering has diminished thier power, broken thier strong 
    holds and allowed me to be in a ready state of waiting with my 
    ability to believe captive to him.
    
    In other words, where once my beliefs had me captive and my filters
    blinded me, now Christ has taken my very ability to believe, which
    is greater then any one belief, and revealled the filters for what
    they truly are.  So then Christ set me free from my own beliefs and
    filters.  Do I from time to time discover that a filter exists and 
    a false belief resides in my mind? Yes, but I thank God through my
    Lord Jesus Christ that I am liberated from my belief that I must set
    myself free and my heart calls upon the name of the Lord and I am
    saved.  He delivers me from all filters and beliefs and reveals 
    himself.  Like light in the darkness. Revelation and deliverance.
    
    I have found that once my beliefs came under the Lordship of Christ
    the filters fell, the opinions collapsed, the needs sunk into the sea,
    the wants, desires, hungers fell off like scales.  My mind was being
    made pure (or sanctified).  Am I perfect?  I do not think so.  But that
    does not mean that I am not a useful vessel of the Lord's.  
    
    >>This is NOT to say any of it was untrue, just to say that
    >>where God is not using one as a prophetic channel, that which
    >>the channel is communicating has that same susceptibility we
    >>all have - those filters Bob speaks of.
    
    Wether someone speaks as a prophetic channel or not, one listening
    better listen to the Holy Spirit in ones own heart as to wether
    what the person is saying is of the Lord.
    
    Bob  

    
    While writing to a brother I did a very quick synopsis
    of my perspective of the Soverignty and Will of God.
    
    This may help in clarifying the way I see this issue.
    
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Without going very deeply into this, I believe that time is
    singular and is complete in God, the beginning and the end 
    are as one.  Thus all is complete and Jesus who is the beginning 
    and the end is all in all.  Thus I see all things as complete 
    and thus God's will.  However if I descend into this realm of 
    time I find all things being completed and thus choice appears 
    as a vital issue in our day to day experiences. From this earthly 
    plain choice is part of the plan of God.  However from the
    heavenly plain all things are complete and are one in God.  In
    other words the plan is fulfilled and is being fulfilled.  I 
    find the Lord revealing to me that a spiritual walk in Christ 
    is more one from the view of it is all complete for it permits 
    ones beliefs and understanding to step aside and allow faith 
    to be prevelant.
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    
    If I have offended the brother I wrote this too I will accept
    his reprimand.
    
    Bob

    There's one more thing that I would like to add. It has to do with the
    distinction I make between being in one's head and being in one's
    heart.

    The filters we've been discussing are all artifacts of being in one's
    head instead of in one's heart. We normally shy away from being in our
    hearts because it *hurts* to be there! In our hearts, we know the truth
    about ourselves and about the Lord Jesus. Even the unsaved know, and
    this is part of how God has revealed Himself to everyone, saved and
    unsaved alike. The truth hurts! When we are faced with the Truth, we
    realize just how wretched we really are, and very few of us like to be
    exposed to that. So most of us, through one mechanism or another, are
    blinded to that Truth. The only way to retreat from that Truth is to
    retreat into one's head, away from feelings, and in fact away from
    reality, into a more comfortable reality where we are in control. Most
    of us dwell in such a reality to one extent or another.

    When a person is saved, he or she then embarks on a journey that few
    get to undertake. It is a journey of self-discovery out of the head and
    back into the heart, where Jesus has taken up residence. The journey is
    a perilous one, and a painful one, because on it the person is exposed
    to the sin that is in their hearts. Some people can't deal with it, so
    they turn off the road and head down a more comfortable path (which
    will invariably have perils of its own, including some very subtle
    traps). Others can humble themselves and endure the pain, allowing the
    Lord to forgive them and purify them by His grace; then they are able
    to proceed onward.

    But this journey happens in phases. Things will seem to be going along
    very nicely for a while, then the next revelation of sin comes, perhaps
    in a way more painful than those before, as the Lord draws us closer
    and closer to our hearts (or deeper and deeper into our hearts). Again
    we must either turn off the road or allow ourselves to be humbled so
    that we can rely upon the Lord's grace and endure the pain.

    It is pride and self-preservation (and sometimes just a hatred of
    discomfort) that motivates us to turn off the road. In some cases, we
    actually think that something that we have or that we are is worth
    saving, so we take control and do what we think will save it,
    vehemently resisting the truth that there is *nothing* within us that
    is worth saving and that we, and all that we are, including our hopes
    and dreams, must die. All of this can also be subtle and below the
    level of consciousness -- after all, a survival instinct is just that:
    an instinct. 

    Nothing dies apart from the will of God, and that includes ourselves.
    God pulls His children inexorably toward our hearts, and ultimately
    every side road that we might take winds up heading in that same
    direction. As we progress toward our hearts, our filters and beliefs
    begin to fall away, because by God's grace we have quite literally died
    to them. The Lord has opened our eyes, and we have seen our beliefs for
    what they are and can abandon them in favor of His Truth. The closer we
    get to our hearts -- and when we get there, the deeper into our hearts
    we go -- the more of the Truth we are able to see and appreciate.

    We are all at different points along our respective journeys. God's
    hierarchy of spiritual authority is like a tiered arrow that is itself
    a Body headed toward the heart of our Father, with Jesus as the very
    Way. By definition, those at the lower levels will have fewer filters
    than those above them; otherwise, they would not be equipped to offer
    the support that it is their blessing to offer. They could not remove
    specks from others' eyes if they had not first removed the planks from
    their own. They will also be closer to the heart of the Father than
    those above them, so that they might lead the way. Are they perfect?
    Certainly not. But the wisdom that they have acquired on their own
    personal journeys is invaluable to those above them and is in fact part
    of the process of exposing the sin in the hearts of those above them
    (so that the specks may be removed).
    
    I just wanted to offer this perspective and tie some things together.
    :-)
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      A lot of what you guys are saying is summarized, to me, by the
      scripture "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died" Rom 7:9.
      The imagery of birth pangs also applies as does Heb 12, the 
      chastening of the Lord.
    
      The Christian walk is one of several contractions.  Each contraction
      being the experience of seeing, in deeper light, God's love.  This
      'sight' reveals sin to a deeper degree.  Guilt then results as guilt
      is organically connected to sin; you just can't separate it.  For the
      Christian, the sense of alienation/guilt is ultimately overcome by
      faith and the peaceable fruits of righteousness results.  This
      process is the chastening of the Lord.  It is how we are made
      righteous.  As with birth, the contractions come with greater force
      and frequency.
    
      On and on the contractions go unless the experience is shortened by
      death, however one generation does not see death.  This is the last
      generation which will be translated.  This generation will come to
      perfection and after having given up all sin, will be enabled to see
      the Father face to face.  
    
      While all sin has been given up, the totality of the evil of evil
      has not been made known.  When God can afford to reveal all of His
      love to His children (afford means they can survive the experience),
      they will, because of sinful flesh, have a full revelation of how
      bad sin is.  They will feel to be that sinner and thus experience
      the corresponding guilt.  Along with this, Satan and his cohorts
      will tempt them as well (mark of the beast movement).
    
      This is the sword which smote Shephard and which is turned on the
      little ones (Zech 13).  This is the cross with one exception to
      Christ's cross; He was a Forerunner behind the veil.  They follow.
      Part of their confidence to run boldly to the throne of grace is
      believing by faith that One ran there before them and paved the
      way, enduring the same struggle.
    
      This last contraction gives birth to a newborn creature.
    
      The lost refused all prior contractions, but the day comes when the
      mirror of James (the perfect law of liberty) is held before them as
      well.  They see the totality of evil all at once (see Psalm 73, esp.
      verses 3-5,13,14,16-19).
    
      They have that same last contraction, but had none of the previous
      ones.  It is not survived.
    
      Both groups endure the exact same weight of guilt.  It is demonstrated
      that life is inherent to righteousness and (final) death is inherent 
      to sin.  That which destroys the lost (weight of guilt) is endured
      by the righteous.
    
      Faith is the eye which sees and holds on to the pardoning assurance
      of our loving God.  Unbelief is the blindness that leads to an
      all-consuming despair.  Where pardon is not perceived, it is not
      appropriated.
    
      Here is the finishing of the Great Controversy.  "Ye shall not surely
      die" is finally revealed to be untrue.  There is no salvation (life)
      in sin.
    
    						Tony
    

    Tony,
    
    How do you come to the conclusion that there will be a generation that
    will come to perfection and will have given up sin entirely? How do you
    reconcile that with 1 John 1:8?
    
    For what it's worth, I don't see any contradictions at all in the
    Christian walk, but from what you said, I'm not clear on what you view
    as contradictions, so I can't address that point.
    
    And if you will forgive me, I'm having trouble seeing how the majority
    of what you said applies to the reality of every-day life. It all
    sounds very ethereal to me, which is fine if you want to take the
    discussion into the theoretical aspects of theology. 
    
    Personally, I have no use for such theory. For me, Christianity is an
    eminently practical walk where I live by faith in second-by-second
    communion with my Father, growing closer to Him all the time. He
    reveals His Word to me in a very real and concrete way that changes my
    life, and in so doing, changes others' lives as well through the
    application of His Word to the reality of their day-to-day lives. This
    is the way in which God's Word becomes written on the heart. Everything
    that I have described comes from the viewpoint of reality, and because
    of that, it has the power to affect and change reality.
    
    I'm afraid that the majority of what you said has no practical meaning
    for me at all. However, it is possible that I am missing something, and
    for your sake, I would like to attempt to understand how what you said
    benefits or otherwise affects you in your every-day life. Could you
    explain this to me? In other words, what practical benefit would I gain
    from sharing in your understanding of what you said?
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Daryl,
    
        Boy, you were kind of rough on me!
    
        1 John 1:8
        If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the
        truth is not in us.
    
        The last generation will not KNOW they are without sin and 
        (thus) will not say they are without sin.  As any human being
        who is without sin would not know it and thus would not claim
        it, any who would claim to be without sin would be deceiving
        themselves.  They must be with sin.
    
        I don't want to belabor this discussion.  What I wrote is
        according to the Word.  If it is truth according to His Word
        and if you find no practical meaning for it, either it is not
        'profit' for you at this time or you need to go to the Giver
        of His Word and find discernment as to how it has merit for
        you in your walk.
    
        I have one primary barometer of the usefulness of a thing.  If
        something is spiritual truth and derived from the word of God,
        it is useful for me (unless I am not ready for it).
    
    						Tony

    re: .169
    
    Hi Tony,  
    
    I've been meaning to ask you about this for a while now.  Its kind
    of the next step in the study we started way back in 795.  
    
    This is what I am seeing as the "purpose":
    
    Romans 14:10-11 
    For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.  It is written: "`As
    surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me;
    every tongue will confess to God.'"
    
    
    Isaiah 45:22-24 
    "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and
    there is no other.  By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in
    all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee
    will bow; by me every tongue will swear.  They will say of me, `In
    the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.'" All who have raged
    against him will come to him and be put to shame.
    
    
    Rev 3:9
    I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be
    Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and
    fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
    
    
    It says that *everyone* will acknowledge that God is love.  *Then*
    judgement will occur.
    
    
    Jill
    
    

      By the way Daryl, I never said the word "contradictions", I
      said the word "contractions" and in reference to birth pangs.
    
    						Tony

      re: .172
    
      Hi Jill -
    
        Yeah, sounds good to me.  The verses you pose seem to have
        their fulfillment some time after the resurrection of the
        unjust (after the millenium) and just before their final
        destruction.
    
        I do believe however that there are different aspects to
        judgment.  There is, for example, a judgment of the living
        which will take place before the 2nd coming and which would
        seem to me to be prior to the judgment you referred to.
    
        I think!
    
    						Tony

    Tony,

    You're right, you said "contractions" and not "contradictions"; my
    mistake. No wonder I couldn't address the point. :-) 

    And I apologize for being rough on you; I was afraid you might feel
    that way. If you do not wish to discuss this further, I will respect
    that. However, I do have a few very serious questions for you which, if
    you won't discuss them here, I would ask that you take before the
    Father in searching your heart.

    You say that there will be a generation that will be without sin and
    that you have written this according to the Word. I'm afraid I must
    question both of those assertions. First of all, how do you justify
    from Scripture that there will be a generation that is without sin? And
    what passage(s) do you feel back this up? I am willing to examine
    anything you submit, if you feel led to submit anything. But this is a
    very important point, is it not? I have seen nothing in Scripture that
    could justify this position.

    I'm going to have to say some more hard words. This feels to me very
    much like another area (perhaps more obvious than the first I
    mentioned) where you may have gone beyond what is written in your
    desire to understand God. The rest of what you wrote seems to follow
    that same line of thinking. I am not willing to state this as a
    certainty until you are given the opportunity to show how this is not
    so. But if you can not or wish not to do this, I'm afraid my
    observation must stand.
    
    Yes, I know that I am digging away at your very foundation. I apologize
    for the pain this is causing you! I say these things not to pick on you
    or to hurt you but rather because the Lord has put you on my heart
    because you are close to His heart. He wishes to lay a completely new
    foundation within your heart. You already have the right cornerstone.
    But this new foundation must be laid so that you will be empowered to
    touch people's lives as you have always dreamed of doing. The process
    of laying the new foundation is a painful one, but if you are willing
    to submit and endure it, the Lord will bring the desires of your heart
    to fruition.
    
    With love in Christ,
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Daryl,
    
        Sure, time permitting, I'll state a few supports.  Though I
        have to admit, I now seriously question your foundation.
    
        By rough, I meant the level of disagreement.  Not just that
        you did not find it to have practical application, but adding
        the phrase "at all"...that sort of thing.
    
        Again, I will enter...time permitting.
    
        By the way, was my response to 1 John 1:8 fair?
    
    						Tony

    Hi Tony,
    
    Thanks for being honest about how you feel and that you also question
    my foundation; it is only natural that you would. And fair is fair; I
    can not ask you to offer support for your views without also being
    willing to offer support for mine. Please do feel free to ask, and I
    too will respond as time permits.
    
    Re: "rough", that's what I thought you meant. You're absolutely right;
    I was rough! But I considered every word of what I said very carefully,
    as I do with everything I write, and so it accurately expressed what I
    intended to say. Again, I'm sorry if it hurt!
    
    And regarding your response to I John 1:8, thanks for asking! Though
    you may not like what I have to say... But I must be honest. The truth
    is that I found your response to be a "workaround", that is, a way of
    making Scripture fit into a particular belief system (which may have
    been taught to you, perhaps? I'm guessing, but that's almost how it
    feels to me, at least in part) rather than taking the Scripture as-is
    and adjusting the belief system to fit it -- or better yet, making
    Scripture itself the belief system -- which is the proper response to
    the Word of God. I wasn't going to say this, but you asked, and I very
    much appreciate that!
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Several notes in this string have been set hidden and the authors
    notified.
    
    Continue on in your discussion as per conference guidelines, reference
    2.11.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy 

    
    Based on the conference policies it is not possible to be
    clear even though others have demanded and insisted that
    I do so.
    
    From hence forth I will speak as I did in parables, mysteries,
    dark sayings, poetic and prophetic and metaphorical images.
    
    Those that understand them, understand them those that do not,
    do not.  It will be for the Lord to decide.
    
    

  Hi All,

    I hope the following is within Conference guidelines.  My aim is
    merely to defend myself by trying to demonstrate that my reply was
    an attempt to *embrace* from the perspective of shared agreement
    and not to stray from the conversation that had taken place.

    The following are excerpts from the reply of Daryl's (.168) which I 
    responded to (.169) with an intention of agreement/harmony.  Excerpts 
    from Daryl's reply are asterisked and mine are not.  I am placing things 
    near each other so as to ease in the assessment of whether or not I 
    strayed from the discussion and to see the degree of harmony in what 
    we each said.

    My aim, as I said, was twofold.  It was to reach out and embrace Bob 
    and Daryl by indicating solid points of harmony/agreement and also
    to extrapolate the experience of 'birth pangs' (yes I did add this
    part!).

    *We normally shy away from being in our
    *hearts because it *hurts* to be there! In our hearts, we know the truth
    *about ourselves and about the Lord Jesus. Even the unsaved know, and
    *this is part of how God has revealed Himself to everyone, saved and
    *unsaved alike. The truth hurts! When we are faced with the Truth, we
    *realize just how wretched we really are, and very few of us like to be
    *exposed to that. 

      A lot of what you guys are saying is summarized, to me, by the
      scripture "The commandment came, sin revived, and I died" Rom 7:9.
      The imagery of birth pangs also applies as does Heb 12, the 
      chastening of the Lord.
    
      The Christian walk is one of several contractions.  Each contraction
      being the experience of seeing, in deeper light, God's love.  This
      'sight' reveals sin to a deeper degree.  Guilt then results as guilt
      is organically connected to sin; you just can't separate it.  For the
      Christian, the sense of alienation/guilt is ultimately overcome by
      faith and the peaceable fruits of righteousness results.  This
      process is the chastening of the Lord.  It is how we are made
      righteous.  As with birth, the contractions come with greater force
      and frequency.


    *When a person is saved, he or she then embarks on a journey that few
    *get to undertake. It is a journey of self-discovery out of the head and
    *back into the heart, where Jesus has taken up residence. The journey is
    *a perilous one, and a painful one, because on it the person is exposed
    *to the sin that is in their hearts.  Others can humble themselves and endure the pain, allowing the
    *Lord to forgive them and purify them by His grace; then they are able
    *to proceed onward.

    Proceeding onward (as Daryl put it)...and this is what I elaborated 
    upon:

      On and on the contractions go unless the experience is shortened by
      death, however one generation does not see death.  This is the last
      generation which will be translated.  This generation will come to
      perfection and after having given up all sin, will be enabled to see
      the Father face to face.  
    
      While all sin has been given up, the totality of the evil of evil
      has not been made known.  When God can afford to reveal all of His
      love to His children (afford means they can survive the experience),
      they will, because of sinful flesh, have a full revelation of how
      bad sin is.  They will feel to be that sinner and thus experience
      the corresponding guilt.  Along with this, Satan and his cohorts
      will tempt them as well (mark of the beast movement).
    
      This is the sword which smote Shephard and which is turned on the
      little ones (Zech 13).  This is the cross with one exception to
      Christ's cross; He was a Forerunner behind the veil.  They follow.
      Part of their confidence to run boldly to the throne of grace is
      believing by faith that One ran there before them and paved the
      way, enduring the same struggle.
    
      This last contraction gives birth to a newborn creature.
    

    *But this journey happens in phases. Things will seem to be going along
    *very nicely for a while, then the next revelation of sin comes, perhaps
    *in a way more painful than those before, as the Lord draws us closer
    *and closer to our hearts (or deeper and deeper into our hearts). Again
    *we must either turn off the road or allow ourselves to be humbled so
    *that we can rely upon the Lord's grace and endure the pain.

    This again is so consistent with the following (quoting again):

      The Christian walk is one of several contractions.  Each contraction
      being the experience of seeing, in deeper light, God's love.  This
      'sight' reveals sin to a deeper degree.  Guilt then results as guilt
      is organically connected to sin; you just can't separate it.  For the
      Christian, the sense of alienation/guilt is ultimately overcome by
      faith and the peaceable fruits of righteousness results.  This
      process is the chastening of the Lord.  It is how we are made
      righteous.  As with birth, the contractions come with greater force
      and frequency.
    

    I do not discern that it was inappropriate for me to add to what was
    discussed, but I do discern that there was much with which we had
    agreement and much with which what I wrote was merely an echoing of
    exactly what Daryl had said mainly for the purpose of striving for
    harmony.

    I am sorry that purpose was not discerned.

							Tony

      re: .183
    
      Based on evidence heretofore given, I will hear your replies
      with the knowledge that you, as do all of us, have filters
      which can cause your words to be something less than wholly
      inspired.
    
      But, I will continue to glean...
    
      Thanks for your contributions.  I embraced most and discarded
      some.
    
    						Tony

    Bob,
    
    I for one, greatly appreciate your parables and am looking forward to
    hearing more of them.
    
    
    Jill
    

    What follows is my original response to Tony's, which was hidden
    because it referred to a hidden note. As only one sentence was
    involved directly, I have removed that sentence.
    
    Hi Tony,
    
    I do see and appreciate that you are trying to embrace what I have been
    saying. For me, the breakdown occurs in the mapping of your analogy to
    mine. While I agree with your analogy in principle, I didn't perceive
    that your analogy was to you what mine is to me; it felt distinctly
    ethereal and unreal to me. That's why I wanted to know how your analogy
    made a difference in your day-to-day life, because mine has a very
    profound impact on my life.
    
    Regarding I John 1:8, my difficulty with your position is that I don't
    know of a single verse anywhere in Scripture that corroborates the
    concept of a sinless person (apart from Jesus, of course), much less a
    sinless generation. On the contrary, the Bible repeatedly emphasizes
    the fact that none of us is free from sin and that none of us is
    righteous, which agrees with I John 1 verses 8 and 10. Therefore, I see
    your position as side-stepping that verse.
    
    Let's look at this realistically. If there *were* such a sinless
    generation, they would surely be conversant with the fact that sin
    exists, no? This is part of what we inherited from Adam and Eve: the
    knowledge of good and evil. This would raise the question of sin within
    themselves. You say that none of them would claim to be without sin,
    even though they were in fact without sin. The only way that they could
    actually *be* without sin is if they were entirely oblivious to that
    fact, because the instant any of them so much as entertained the
    thought that they might be without sin, they would have deceived
    themselves, according to I John 1:8.
    
    Is this what you are saying, that there is or will be a generation that
    will be without sin but will be entirely oblivious to that fact?
    
    In any event, I would honestly love to see what verses you believe
    support concept of a sinless generation and how you reconcile them
    against those that say there is none without sin, as well as with
    reality. To be honest, I don't see how it can be done, but I'm more
    than interested in hearing anything you wish to share.
    
    Normally, I'm not willing to be rat-holed like this. :-) But in this
    particular case, the Lord is leading me to follow through on this, so
    you have my complete attention (or at least as much as I can afford to
    spare for this topic!). :-)
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Daryl,
    
        Good!  I will proceed to detail where scripture indicates
        that sinless of living is possible and that there will be
        a last-day (corporate) experience of sinlessness.
    
        The support is so vast that I scarcely know where to start!
    
        (Give me a little while.  For this I will primarily write
        from home, save files into ansi format, and copy them over
        to my account at work.)
    
        I might open a new topic on this when I begin as it is a stray
        from this topic.
    
    						Tony

    
    Thank you Jill.  
    
    The Lord exhalts the humble and brings down the proud.
    
    An lastly: A true gleaner, gleans.  He does not continually attack
    the farmers integrity.
    
    Bob

      The last word is your Bob.
    
      May God direct our paths and may we all be willing to 
      follow His leading and to discern His leading in and
      through others.
    
      Peace.
    
    					Your Brother,
    
    					Tony

    Okay, thanks, Tony. I will look forward to it!
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

Hi All,

  At the risk of belaboring, I offer this text.  This one has actually
  been on my mind for well over a month and I never bothered to enter
  it.  I just want to offer it for consideration and I will interject
  brief comments. 

Isaiah 5:1-4
 1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
   A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:
  
   My Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill.
 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the 
   choicest vine.
   He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it;
   So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth
   wild grapes.
 3 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge please,
   between Me and My vineyard.
 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?
   Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring
   forth wild grapes?"


   In verse 2 and verse 4, it is said that God EXPECTED His vineyard 
   to produce good grapes.  This is incompatible with the sovereignty 
   view presented here that says that God's will comes to pass in 
   every particular - unless of course God expects *something other 
   than His will to come to pass*!!!

   God expected something.  He would not then, by assert of His will,
   make for that thing which He expected to not take place.

   In verse 4, God says, "What more could have been done to My vineyard
   that I have not done in it?"  He is saying that He did all that He
   could.  There was nothing more He could do.  

   And yet...wild grapes.

   God did all He could.  There was NOTHING more that He could do.  After
   all, He used the choicest vine (Christ).

   Apparently, the branches chose not to abide in the choicest vine for
   we are made known by our fruit.

   The branches must have been able to choose, else God would not have had
   an expectation that didn't come to pass and would not have done all
   that He could do and still have the result been other than His heart's
   desire.


						Take Care and God Bless,

						Tony

    Hi Tony,

    Yes, I can see why you would say that. There are other passages that
    give this same kind of viewpoint.

    However, these passages are like the example that I mentioned earlier,
    where God commissioned you with preventing the setting of the sun,
    without giving you to the power to do it. In that example, He expected
    you to do as He asked, and yet you were unable to do it.

    The most obvious example of this is the Law itself. He expected men to
    obey and punished them greatly when they did not. However, the NT makes
    clear that He not only knew in advance that men would fail; He
    explicitly designed it that way.

    God set us up to fail. Why? So that those He has chosen would, through
    the pain of their failure, have the blessing of coming to Jesus through
    the revelation of Romans 7:24-25.
    
    Even so, God still feels the pain of our failure with us and is angry
    with those who are not His, even though He directs their actions. The
    wisest man who ever lived, and also one of God's prophets, knew this:
    see Proverbs 20:24 and Jeremiah 10:23-24.
    
    So indeed, what more could be done to His vineyard that He has not done
    in it? If nothing more could be done, then why, when He expected it to
    bring forth good grapse, did it bring forth wild ones? Do you really
    believe that this could have happened by the will of anyone but God
    Himself?
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Daryl,
    
        I'll look at those scriptures, but my first take at your reply
        is that one can interpret something almost any way one wants
        to and that is one extremely unexpected interpretation.
    
        Your view reduces to this to me:
    
        Agape cannot be understood; it is just accepted outside of
        reason thus placing agape outside of where Paul places it in
        Eph, i.e. comprehending agape.
    
    						Tony

    Hi Tony,
    
    I'm not sure how to say this. Again, there are deeper perspectives.
    
    It is true that agape cannot be understood with the head, just as God
    Himself, Who is love, cannot be understood with the head. Both He and
    His ways are beyond understanding.
    
    However, it *can* be understood by the heart, but only when it has
    first been received by the heart. This reception is an act of God by
    revelation, not an act of man by desire. This is the understanding
    spoken of by the apostle Paul in Ephesians, and I can testify that it
    is beautiful beyond anything in this world! This is also the
    understanding that Paul imparted to those whose lives he touched and
    who received him, and through him, the Holy Spirit.
    
    The power of God to change lives cannot come from the mind's
    understanding and appreciation for Who He is, because He is so far
    beyond us that our minds are utterly inadequate to the task. We can
    discuss the characteristics of God and debate His Word, but at best,
    such things can only have the form of godliness and none of the power
    thereof. At worst, such things are utter hypocrisy.
    
    However, if the revelation of God's love has been given to our hearts,
    we are forever changed in ways that the entire world can see if it
    cares to look. His Word is literally written on our hearts, in
    increasing measure over time, and everything that we do and say flows
    from that. We speak and live the Truth, because the Word is not just
    true to us, it (He) has actually made us true.
    
    If you are willing to surrender your understanding of agape, then
    surrender your desire to understand it, and then finally surrender your
    belief that agape can even be understood, you will find yourself much
    closer to understanding it than you have ever been before!
    
    With love in Christ,
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Daryl,
    
        This all seems to presuppose that I don't understand agape
        with the heart, a presupposition I reject (to some extent).
    
        I do not believe it right to surrender what is believed to
        have been commended to the heart and I hope to surrender 
        all that lies only in the mind (what to me means what has
        not been embraced by faith, but only by intellect - which 
        of course could then be error).
    
        I rest EXTREMELY COMFORTABLE in the conviction that part of
        an understanding of agape that has been commended to my
        heart is an understanding you will some day see by the grace
        of God.
    
        I hope some day that God reveals to you what He has revealed
        to me.  This deeper perspective is one you will rejoice in
        when that which is in your head is fully emptied of and
        your heart sees things a little deeper.
    
        I am hoping my friend...
                                		In His Love,
    
        					Tony

    Hi Tony,

    It grieves me to say that I feel as if this is being reduced to a game
    of one-upsmanship, and I won't play that game. If my words are
    considered of no consequence, and what I have to offer is not
    considered helpful or valuable, then I will not offer them.
    
    Your understanding of agape differs from mine. I believe that your
    understanding is not Scriptural, and if your previous response is any
    indication, you would probably say the same about me. If you are truly
    content with your understanding, then I will simply leave it at that
    and will not grieve you any further.
    
    However, in closing, I must say that I now strongly question whether we
    do in fact serve the same God. For myself, all that I can say is that
    the Lord Jesus Christ is my Savior and King, and it is through His Holy
    Spirit and in His name that I seek the face of His Father. If you can
    say the same, with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, then
    may He Who began a good work in us be faithful to carry it on to
    completion until the day of Christ Jesus, our Lord.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

  Re: .197

    Hi Daryl,

    *It grieves me to say that I feel as if this is being reduced to a game
    *of one-upsmanship, and I won't play that game. If my words are
    *considered of no consequence, and what I have to offer is not
    *considered helpful or valuable, then I will not offer them.
    
    Boy, you really took my reply the wrong way!  This caused me to feel
    pretty bad.  I consider your words to be of MUCH consequence.  I firmly
    believe you already have and still do (future tense) have much to offer
    me, to teach me.

    I never once in that reply, or ever, said that none of your words
    you offer are not "considered helpful or valuable."  What I did do
    is be candid with where I am at/who I am at this moment.  I was candid
    enough to tell you that part of who I am is someone who believes he
    has an understanding of agape that can (gasp!) actually be a blessing
    to Daryl Gleason.  Should I be condemned for who I am?  Well, God doesn't
    condemn me!  Did I err in being overly candid?  I don't know!

    *Your understanding of agape differs from mine. I believe that your
    *understanding is not Scriptural, and if your previous response is any
    *indication, you would probably say the same about me. If you are truly
    *content with your understanding, then I will simply leave it at that
    *and will not grieve you any further.
    
    I don't think its an "either-or" proposition.  I believe our concepts
    of agape have commonalities and differences.  Yes, I VERY STRONGLY 
    am content with our different views on sovereignty and the impact that
    has on what agape is, but I believe, in other areas, you can show me 
    things about agape that I don't know.  I believe the same about me
    concerning you.  (Am I audacious to believe I can actually show you
    a thing or two???)

    *However, in closing, I must say that I now strongly question whether we
    *do in fact serve the same God. 

    This was by far the most grievous thing you said.  We met in person.  It
    seemed we 'clicked' on about 4 or 5 things on a spiritual level.  I find 
    it incredible that you could say the above and it certainly leads me to 
    need to temper the extent to which I believe you can be a blessing to
    me for the level of blindness required for you to "strongly question",
    I truly feel is quite high.

    We serve the same God Daryl.  A man up in the Himalayas who has never
    even heard the name of Christ or of the cross, but whose heart has
    responded to the creative word of Christ serves the same God as we.
    You and I have each responded with some faith to a revelation of the
    goodness of our God.  Some cleansing of heart has occured for each of
    us.  Neither of us has totally 'arrived.'  We see through the glass
    dimly.  You no doubt understand things about God that I yet do not.
    I may understand things that you do not.  God, in His mercy, covers
    our erroneas concepts.  Thank God He is covering mine.

    Nevertheless, I am FREE TO LOVE.  I can love you whether you perceive
    me as the chief-heretic or the chief-apostle - it makes no difference.

    But, I am grieved and astounded at your lack of discernment regarding
    questioning if I could even be serving the same Lord.  God can afford
    you MUCH better eyesight, my friend.  Meanwhile, I KNOW you know the
    Lord and I KNOW He can, already has, and may continue to use you to
    bless me.

    *If you can say the same, with all of your heart, soul, mind, and 
    *strength, then may He Who began a good work in us be faithful to carry 
    *it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus, our Lord.
    
    I can't presume to say it with all my heart because I am still a sinner.
    A sinless heart would say it with all of his heart - certainly more of
    it than mine.  I look forward to the day that I say it with all my 
    heart.  Perhaps someday, God will play a videotape of my life and
    say, "THERE!  That's when you served Me with all your heart My son!"

						Take Care My Brother,

						Tony

  Hi Brothers and Sisters,

    It is with EASE that I share the following replies.

    Daryl and Bob are RIGHT ON about the need to surrender our
    understanding!  Sometimes it takes a long time to beat a 
    dead horse (me) until its really dead!  (I'm still alive
    tho, but a tad more crucified than before).

    I am busy with work, but let me say I have had such a 
    blessed weak and God has used numerous people including
    Daryl, Bob, Paul, Jill, and a woman whose name will have 
    to be anonymous to pour out a blessing for me.

    I hope the following replies are explanation enough, but
    if not, PLEASE post a response.

    I may not be able to get to it today (work), but it is God's
    will that this food and drink be offered for other people's
    consumption.

    Please taste and see that the Lord is *GOOD*!

						AMEN!,

						Tony

From:	CLT::EDSDS6::GLEASON "Daryl Gleason, DECset Engineering  06-May-1996 1545 -0400"  6-MAY-1996 15:49:08.99
To:	TONY
CC:	GLEASON
Subj:	Response to your note, pending moderator approval

Hi Tony,

The following note is in response to your last note to me in topic 883. I've
sought moderator approval, and if it is granted, I will post it as a reply.
However, I don't know how long that will take and felt led to send it off to
you as-is now. Hopefully we can continue our conversation in the conference,
but it not, we can do so by mail if you wish.

In His love,

-- Daryl

    Tony,

    I am at a loss for what to say but have prayed for wisdom and grace, as
    I always do, because my own wisdom is worthless, and I have nothing
    worthwhile to offer in and of myself. It is my hope that we can work
    through this, but that is in the Lord's hands. I have not given up on
    you, nor will I do so until and unless the Lord specifically tells me
    to do so. I say this so that you will know that my heart is not hard
    toward you (though it is in great pain, but I'm willing to endure
    that).

    I have said to you that you must surrender, *completely*, your
    understanding of agape. You have said that you do not believe God would
    call you to surrender something that He commended to your heart. By your
    own words, this is a belief on your part, and I'm afraid my words must
    stand; you *must* surrender your understanding if you are be enabled to
    understand what I am talking about. You have not grasped it, because your
    own understanding prevents this, having been built on the foundation of
    that belief. You say that you know, but you cannot know as you ought. I
    cannot in this case say this about myself, because everything I say here is
    from a point of having first surrendered it, so I know nothing in and of
    myself. The plank has been removed from my eye.

    If there is *anything* that we are not willing to surrender, then it is a
    false god to us. Yes, God would most certainly call you to surrender your
    understanding of what He has commended to your heart, so that it may not be
    a false god to you. This is why I used such strong words. It was not from
    lack of discernment but rather from seeing clearly, since the plank has
    been removed from my eye. He would ask you to store such things up in
    heaven, which means that you first have to surrender and let go of them,
    leaving them in His care. You cannot serve both Him and your understanding
    of Him. The understanding must go, because it exalts itself against the
    knowledge of Christ. I have said that you have the right cornerstone, and I
    continue to stand by that. But everything else must be torn down if you
    would receive His foundation, built in His prescribed manner.

    I can say these things to you in full confidence because I myself have
    walked this path that the Lord is now asking you to walk. I have abandoned
    my understanding even of those things that the Lord has commended to my
    heart. If I had not done this, then I would have nothing to say to you or
    to give you, because I would still have a plank in my own eye. If you
    cannot believe by faith that the plank has been removed from my eye, then
    you will not be able to receive what I have to give, and thus my words
    cannot be helpful or valuable. If you would receive what the Lord has for
    you to receive from me, you must first let go of *everything* to which you
    are clinging. I cannot hand you something if your hands are already full,
    and that is the position in which we presently find ourselves.

    We are not in the position to learn from each other in the way that you
    would wish. Yes, I will learn things from you, but not in the same way that
    you will be able to learn from me. That is by design. This belief/desire of
    yours must also be surrendered if the love and grace of the Lord is to flow
    between us. If it is surrendered, I can testify that you will experience
    things with the Lord that you have never experienced before. I probably
    will too, because the Lord is always doing new things, and each
    person-to-person relationship is unique. But the choice to do this or not
    is yours; it is entirely up to you to determine what, and how much, you
    wish to receive from me.

    With love in Christ,

    -- Daryl

In the following, the '>'s are mine and Daryl is replying to me...
    
    Hi Tony,

>Well, I want to learn how to surrender my understanding.  I am in the process
>of trying.

    This is a difficult process! :-) And that's just the right question to ask:
    "How?". It comes by way of revelation that the understanding that God has
    given us (as opposed to our own understanding, which is worthless) is to be
    returned to Him for Him to do with as He pleases and not kept by us. But
    that's only the beginning. One of the harder things is separating our own
    understanding from the understanding that God has given us. That too
    requires revelation, which God grants to us in His timing as we grant Him
    permission to do whatever it takes within us to bring us closer to Him. The
    Word of God is living and active...

>If you discern that our conversation should be suspended until I have actually
>surrendered my understanding, that is OK by me.

    Not at all! But thanks for offering that. Actually, I'm hoping that our
    conversation may facilitate this process.

>I am not saying you are wrong about this; I am merely saying I don't know.

    Thanks; I hear you.

>I don't need to have you feel that you can learn anything from me in order for
>me to be willing to learn from you.  I have  been through a humbling fire. 
>****PRAISE JESUS!!****

    Thanks for that too!

>I still don't understand the statement about you strongly questioning whether
>or not we serve the same God.  I feel it was inappropriate.

    Yes, it was a very strong statement, and it was not made lightly! What we
    are dealing with is the god of your own understanding, as opposed to the
    God of the Bible. The two share many traits, but the former is a man-made
    creation -- an idol, if you will, while the latter is the Lord God Almighty
    Himself. This is the result of leaning on one's own understanding combined
    with a very serious demonic influence in which Satan appears as an angel of
    light, revelations and all. You will find that I will probably come against
    this very strongly, as you have seen me do already.

    I do not say that you willingly serve another god or that every revelation
    you have had has been false. Rather, it feels very much to me as if Satan
    has been allowed to deceive you by laying a foundation other than that laid
    by the Lord Jesus. It is this false foundation that He is in the process of
    uprooting.

    These too are strong words, I know, but they are the truth (and I do not
    say that lightly either). My heart has been to see you set free, and that
    remains true. I have had to say such strong words so that some things might
    be brought to the surface and seen for what they are. This whole process
    will take time, during which I will continue to do as I see the Father
    doing, which may mean that I am not always allowed to be gentle with you.
    For that, I ask your forgiveness in advance!

    With love in Christ,

    -- Daryl

As with the previous note, Daryl is replying to a mail message of mine...
    
    Hi Tony,

>Well, I did it.  I verbally and thoughtfully surrendered the whole thing.  All
>my intellect.  All of it.  My misconceptions, preconceptions, 'right'
>conceptions.  And I did it over and over and over again! Even in the middle of
>the night.  I basically have been doing it  all yesterday after work through
>to the present time.
>
>The end result can be described in two words - contentment and relief.

    PRAISE GOD!!!!!!!!!!

>Now, I do not believe we will ever know when and if we have truly  surrendered
>all of our understanding.  We must consecrate ourselves before the Lord
>*daily*.  We must offer ourselves at the altar daily. There's so much of our
>hearts that we don't know.

    Absolutely!

>It didn't occur to me until afterward how much of this makes so much sense. 
>Whether or not the belief I have is true is IRRELEVENT.  It all needs to be
>surrendered.  Take the divinity of Christ.  What if my intellectual approval
>of this has faithless components to it?  It is DUNG!  Jesus needs ALL of it,
>both truth and error and He can give  back to me as He pleases in His time.

    Perfect!!!

>A few scriptures came to my mind.
>
>One was the image of the Pharisee and the publican.  I saw myself as the
>Pharisee so into his "intellectual pride."  Such a proud and haughty man I am! 
>I saw that I have been making disciples that are twice the son of hell than I
>am!  (It brought tears to my eyes - it was a teary  ride in.)  And I don't
>mean to overdramatize, but we do impart the sum total of who we are and I have
>surely imparted a haughty intel- lectualism.  I mean, I know I have imparted
>truth too, but so also  some bad leaven.

    *Sigh* I would have wished to spare you this image, but sometimes the truth
    simply must be told. I thank God that He did it and not I!

>And then I thought of Peter when he asked Jesus about what would happen to
>John.  Jesus said, "What is that to you?  Follow Me!"  I considered it in the
>light of "Do I understand this?  Is this a misconception?  What of that?" 
>What is that to me?  Just follow Jesus.  He'll sort it out. I need not know
>how.  I need only to impart according to my conviction (hopefully a conviction
>surrendered to Him and borne from Him in the first place) and let Jesus take
>care of the rest.  "If any man thinks  he knows anything, he knows nothing yet
>as he ought to know."  (1 Corin 8:2).

    Bingo!

>I don't need to know.  I need to follow and honestly do according to a
>conviction more and more actuated by the grace of God and (hopefully) less and
>less by anything else (love of self primarily).

    Absolutely. For me, this means following what the Lord puts on my heart,
    and sometimes ignoring what my head is telling me. It's difficult
    sometimes, but since I realized this and started doing it, I have had no
    regrets whatsoever!

>Because I believe the process of surrender is continuous, I foresee the
>possibility of conflict with Daryl.  Mail from my friend this morning reveals
>his desire to "remove the foundation."  Well, we will see what this foundation
>will be, however I do not believe anyone has necessarily surrendered all until
>He reflects perfectly the character of Christ. Daryl, as well as I, may have
>misconceptions.

    Tony, dear brother, you've done it! The foundation has now been removed,
    and the false god has been cast down! Praise God!!! While it's possible
    that there may still be rubble to be cleared away, a very large part of the
    work at least is already done!

    My message was written yesterday afternoon, probably while you were
    beginning the process of dealing with all of this. It may be that the Lord
    used my words to speak directly to Satan and to expose him, since you
    probably didn't have a chance to read my message until this morning. I have
    seen that kind of thing happen before, but of course I can't say for sure
    that this is what happened in this case. 

    In any event, I now have nothing left to say. :-) By that I mean that there
    is nothing left for me to come against in the name of the Lord Jesus. There
    may be more things in the future, because we cannot be perfect, but for
    now, I am at peace. Praise God!!!

    And so that you will know, it is a given that I too cannot be fully
    surrendered; if I were, then I would be a perfect man, which I most
    certainly am not! There are a couple of things that bind me still (and
    perhaps more that are below my level of consciousness), and Lord willing,
    perhaps I will have a chance to share them with you someday. I would rather
    not do so by mail, but I would be happy to do so if we can get together in
    person sometime. I'd like to show you how human I really am... And if I can
    tell about my own weaknesses to God's greater glory, then may He be
    praised!

    And yes, it is entirely possible that we may have further conflicts in the
    future. I pray that they would be minor, because I long for unity of spirit
    between us. However, I have surrendered even that desire to the Lord so
    that I might be reconciled to His will, whatever that may be. I think you
    said it best:

>Well, whatever the conflicts that may arise, God is strong enough for them.

    Absolutely. Praise God!!! 

    For now, I wish to leave you with Jude 24-25. I hope to have even more
    blessings to offer you soon.

    Thanks so much for your message! As the apostle Paul said, "Love never
    fails." Surely, the Lord has demonstrated that to me through you, and I can
    only thank and praise Him for the privilege of having suffered for your
    sake!

    With love in Christ,

    -- Daryl

      I was blind and now I see.
    
      Its amazing...I reread the replies and I saw things in the first
      two especially that I simply never saw before.  To some extent,
      a veil truly has been lifted from my eyes.
    
      If any of you guys are listening...please, this is for real.  It
      really is.
    
      I'm feeling bad for the pain I have caused Daryl and Bob.  They
      have been here trying to feed me and I, for a long time, cast the
      food as though they were pearls (if you know what I mean).
    
    						Tony

    Hi, Tony.
    
    You know the desire of my heart was that you might "hang in there" with
    Daryl and Bob to hear what our Lord would say to you.
    
    I sit here with tears in my eyes, deeply moved by indications of the
    Holy Spirit at work.
    
    Praise God from whom all blessings flow!
    
    /Wayne

      Oh, God used Wayne too!  I'm sorry Wayne!
    
      We are a family, aren't we???
    
      					Tony

    Yes, we are.
    
    Tony, thanks for the affirmation.  My real joy is in seeing God working
    in lives.
    
    As I told you, God through Daryl addressed my own pride.  Pride is
    ugly, huh?!
    
    /Wayne

      I need to say that I posted .206 before reading .205.

Glory, Glory, Glory.  I'm so blessed to see this, and to see the freedom it
brings.

One little thing jumped out to my sense of humor:

>I have had such a blessed weak

You have!!!  You've had a blessed "weak."  Isn't it blessed to be weak?

I've had a blessed 'weak' too.  :-) :-) :-)

Paul

    Sing oh sing
    the wondrous story
    of the Christ who died for me
    sing it with the saints in glory
    pah pum pum pah pum pum pum
    
    

    As a moderator of this conference, I told several of my co-mods and
    Daryl that while the struggle on line between Tony and Daryl was there,
    it was very evident that this struggle was painful for both because
    they truly were struggling for acceptance, not rejection.
    
    What a GREAT GOD we serve, Brothers and Sisters...
    
    Thank you Tony for your example of humility, and honor before our
    Father.
    
    And thank you Daryl for being willing to be vulnerable for the sake of
    your siblings.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    "O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that
    trusteth in Him. O fear the Lord, ye His saints: for there is not want
    to them that fear Him. The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but
    they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing." (Ps.34:8-10,
    KJV)

    As I have shared with Tony, it really has been my privilege and
    blessing to suffer through this. There has been great pain, it is true,
    but the pain came from suffering *with* Tony, and not *because of* him.
    
    Hard words are often at least as hard for me to give as they are to
    receive. Appearing to come from a point of pride, arrogance, or
    weakness is also very difficult for me. But when one has glimpse the
    glory of the Lord Jesus and has fallen in love with Him because He
    first loved them, one can be inspired to suffer these things and more
    for the sake of that love, and for the sake of His love for others.
    
    This suffering that I have been blessed to experience for His sake and
    for Tony's sake has drawn me even closer to Jesus, because in my pain
    and weakness, He was strong. I could ask for no greater blessing than
    that, nor for a greater testimony of the apostle Paul's words: Love
    never fails.
    
    With love in Christ,
    
    -- Daryl

    I've just been totally at a loss for words (which is why I didn't pipe
    in here sooner) ... so I'll just use His.  :-)
        
    Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or
    imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 
    to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all
    generations, for ever and ever! Amen.  (Ephesians 3:20-21)
        
    I love you brother!  
        
        
    Jill
    

    Tony!  Do you realize that there are 3 days between friday night
    and monday night!!!!!
    
    
    Jill
    

    re: -1
    
    Oh wow!
    
    (Thats was my initial reaction...I'll leave it at that!)

      Hi Nance,                                     
    
        I just want to affirm your inclusion in all of this.  You have
        been an instrument in the hands of the Lord to help me in various
        ways of which you of course are aware.
    
        You have commended Daryl to me and have been instrumental in
        bringing us together.
    
        You are a part of it all and I just want to thank you for the
        beautiful you that you are by the grace of our Lord Jesus.
        He has begun a wonderful work in you and will complete it!
    
    						Thanks Sis!,
    
    						Tony

    re:  .216
    
    Wow! was my response too!  :-) :-)
    

    You're quite welcome Tony.  I am always amazed as a little child when I
    see the "network" of Christians and the deep loving relationships we
    can enjoy when connected by the Master.
    
    Your Sis,
    Nancy