Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I believe this doctrine is supported by scripture.  Once receiving
    Christ as savior, you bear the Holy Spirit within you, a mark of
    righteousness.  The Holy Spirit indwells a believer forever and
    therefore, to lose ones salvation would mean the following:
    
    1. God would have to reverse time and undo what Jesus did on the cross.
    
    2. God's forgiveness would only extend to a certain point therby
       limiting the power of the cross.
    
    3. The Holy Spirit would have to leave the indwelt regenerated
       Christian.
    
    Remember, the seven churches of which 5 fell into Paganism were still
    Gods churches and although deeply exhorted for their sin, were still
    admonished toward repentence.  
    
    If one could lose their salvation, at which point would they lose it? 
    At what point when we become faithless, God becomes faithless which is
    contrary to scripture in itself?
    
    -Jack

    I presented the opposing scriptures yesterday.  As for the 7 churches,
    Thyatira was told that they would be in the Great Tribulation if they
    didn't repent.  They haven't thus far.
    
    Mike

    btw Jack, you mentioned something yesterday about this not being an
    issue for the true believer that abides in Christ.  I agree with this.
    
    Mike

      Hi Jack,
    
        The main difference I have with your defense of OSAS is that
        you place the entire onus of one's salvation on what God desires
        and none of it on what the individual desires.
    
        This would seem to lead to a lot of perplexities.  Such as...
    
        Is one's conversion solely a result of God's will or does it
        include the individual's will?
    
        If one's conversion is solely a result of God's will, then does
        it not follow that the lost are lost because of God's will?
    
        I believe that God wills that all be saved and thus if any be 
        lost, it is a result of their own choice (will).
    
        I believe it is possible for one to choose to uninvite God as
        perverse a choice as that is.
    
        "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened
         and have tasted the heavenly gift and have become partakers
         of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and
         the powers of the age to come,
                                                            
         if they should fall away to renew them again to repentance
         since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and
         put Him to an open shame."
    
         Hebrews 6 somewhere (toward the beginning).  NKJV
    
    							Tony

This is one of those questions fundamentalists seem to enjoy endlessly
quibbling over.

Personally, I've never thought the question an important one.

Shalom,
Richard

 Yep, we love quibbling over this one, yes we do.  We send vaxmail to each
 other trying to get the other to bring it up so we can quibble over it.





 Jim

    Shhhh Jim!  You're giving away all the good secrets!

    
    
    
    A question, from what is one being saved?
    
    Phil.
    
    

      re: -1
    
      Hi Phil,
    
        From what is one being saved?
    
        Most would say that we are being saved from a penalty of death
        the Father has to dole out on someone because they sinned.
    
        I don't believe in the above.  I believe the penalty of death
        is inherent to sin and sin alone.
    
        We are saved from sin and sin alone.
    
        (Well, we'll also be delivered from our corruptible flesh and
        from the presence of sin and sinners, but the above is the 
        biggie to me.)
    
    						Tony

    We are freed from sin in the eyes of a Holy God.  Therefore, the
    penalty of sin also has no reign over us.  
    
    Richard, I would be surprised if you didn't consider quibbling over
    this an exercise of exchanging beliefs.  Jewish individuals quibble
    over many doctrinal issues...in fact make an art of it.  
    
    -Jack

    Tony:
    
    By the way, I want to respond to your usage of Hebrews 6 but I want to
    do it justice.  Suffice to say that Hebrews 6 does appear to support
    your position; however, considering it was written to converted Jews
    who were being influenced to go back to the Mosaic sacrificial system,
    one would have to take that passage in context with the rest of the
    epistle as well as other scripture.  But it is definitely a passage
    worthy of looking into!
    
    -Jack

    
    Tony,
    
    Thanks for your comments, for I want to establish from what one is
    being saved. For example, there are many recorded events in the 
    Bible of God's people seeing the saving hand of their God. Paul
    cites the examples of the Israelites who saw salvation against
    the Egyptians 1 Corinthians 10 (verses 6-10 shows that they were
    examples for us of what will happen to those who turn away from
    God.). So salvation could be being saved during a certain event,
    eg The Great Tribulation with eventually Armageddon (compare 2 Peter
    4:9).
    
    So freedom from the effects of sin, that is death.
    
    As I understand it, God will overlook our sinful state if we excercise
    faith in the provision that he has given for salvation, that is the
    ransom sacrifice (Mattew 20:28). Now if one practices wrong doing 
    willfully, then according to Paul there is no sacrifice left to cover
    one's sin, "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the
    accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for
    sins left," Hebrews 10:26 NWT. So I don't see those who profess the
    OSAS doctrine reconcile this. 
         
    Phil.

ZZZ     -< Jesus' sacrifice doesn't cover the willfull wrong doer >
    
    Phil, in that case, Paul could take no comfort in his salvation. 
    Consider Pauls explanation of carnality in Romans 7, "For I know in me
    there dwells no good thing.  For the will to do good is within me, but
    how to perform that which is good I find not."  Paul is referring here 
    to the continual war going on within his members...the war that ravages
    The Spirit against the flesh.  If this be the case, then your statement
    cannot be reconciled with scripture.
    
    Also consider the analogy Paul gives in 1st Corinthians chapter 3. 
    This context also deals with carnal believers and I can assure you, the
    Corinthian Church was a body of believers lead by the flesh.  
    
    Speaking of the judgement seat of Christ:
    
    "For no other foundation can any man lay than that which is Jesus
    Christ.  Now if any man build upon THIS (Repeat...THIS) foundation
    gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every mans work
    shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it because it shall
    be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what
    sort it is.  If any mans work abide which he has built upon, he shall
    receive a reward.  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer
    loss, BUT HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED, YET AS ONE ESCAPING THROUGH THE
    FLAMES."  1st Corinthians 3:11-15
    
    I emphasize the last point because this judgement will be for believers
    and all their works, both good and bad will be presented before God.
    All our bad works will be burned and one may only have a foundation
    left...that being Jesus Christ.  
    
    I think it's important to point out that fire is used in the New
    Testament as a purging method.  To the church of Laodicea, Jesus said,
    "I urge you to buy gold refined by fire."  The implication here is that
    your deeds are like tarnished gold and that you need to exercise faith.
    Same with the Corinthian Church.  You will be saved as one escaping
    through the flames, or you will build upon the foundation of Jesus
    Christ with good works...the choice is yours.  But the foundation
    remains regardless.  
    
    As I stated a few replies back, Hebrews 6 needs to be taken into
    context with other chapters in the epistle and with other scripture!
    
    -Jack

    RE .13
    
    Jack,
    
    Yes, Paul had to get tough with himself to do what is right. But he
    never let up from keeping his eyes on the prize or proving faithful. 
    
    Zephaniah 2:2,3 KJV reads "Before the decree bring forth, before the
    day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon 
    you, before the the day of the LORD's anger come upon you. Seek ye
    the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment;
    seek righteousness, seek meekness; it may be ye shall be hid in the 
    day of the LORD's anger" Other versions use the word probabally, so
    salvation is not something that one can be fully sure of, it depends
    on continually seeking God and excercising continued faith in his
    Son's ransom sacrifice. Paul even gives the admonishion "Consequently
    let him that thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall."
    1 Corinthians 10:12 NWT and the surrounding verses show he is talking
    about God's power to save his servants.
    
    
    Consider, Jude's words in Jude 3-5 NWT "Beloved ones, though I was
    making every effort to write YOU about the salvation we hold in
    common, i found it necessary to write YOU to exhort YOU to put up
    a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to
    the holy ones. My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have
    long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly
    men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for
    loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus
    Christ." For this reason I don't like the OSAS doctrine because one
    could say to oneself "retire and wait your heavenly reward".
    
    As Tony , I think,  has pointed out free will is involved that is
    choosing life or death as the Israelites had to (compare Deuteronomy 
    30:19,20).
    
    Endurance is involved in the race for life as Jesus said "But he that
    has endured to the end is the one that will be saved." Matthew 24:13
    NWT
    
    Jack, reading the portion of Scripture from 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 I
    understand that ones has to abide by the foundation that was laid
    by Jesus. What happens if one changes their mind and builds in another
    foundation such as putting ones hope for salvation in material things
    such as gold?. What is the reward for such a course?.
    
    
    Phil.

    Phil:
    
    Thanks for posting what you did.  Coincidently, just about every
    passage you used is intertwined with dispensationalism.  I believe for
    example, that the incidents of Matthew and Zachariah you use are
    referring to the tribulation saints.  I believe the church will be
    raptured before these things occur.  Ironically, this is where the
    144,000 believers come into play.  I'm not just making this up to
    squirm out of being accountable for answering to these passages.  I
    have always believed this to be the case.  As far as the Jude passage
    is concerned, the passage you bring forth does refer to ungodly
    individuals; however, the epistles of John address that very same issue
    and it isn't clear that the agitators of this church were necessarily
    converted believers in the first place.
    
    Paul addresses the attitude of a believer and what it should be...and
    it addresses your uneasiness about the OSAS position...
    "What shall we say then; shall we continue in sin that grace may
    abound?  God forbid, for how shall we who are dead to sin remain
    therein?"  Paul asks the rhetorical question which calls for the
    answer...You cannot remain in sin.  I believe the act of repentence is 
    a predominant ingredient to one becoming a new creature in Christ.  
    
    I think we are dealing with somewhat a semantics issue here.  I don't
    believe the Holy Spirit can leave a person as they could in the Old
    Testament.  I would submit that if one lays a foundation and yet
    abandons the faith, then one was not really saved in the first place.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Jack,
    
    Thanks for your reply, I now understand more of your viewpoint. 
    Regarding the Jude passage, if a chosen one turns to willfill
    wrong doing wouldn't they be considered ungodly any. In my book,
    being godly involves continually seeking God and imitating Him.
    Christians are known by their fruit, if it's rotten it's not
    Christian.
    
    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I'll leave you with
    the wise words of David to his son Solomon "And you, Solomon my son,
    know the God of your father and serve him with a complete heart and
    with a delightful soul, for all hearts Jehovah is searching, and every
    inclination of the thoughts he is discerning. If you search for him, he
    will let himself be found by you, but if you leave him, he will cast
    you off forver." 1 Chronicles 28:9 NWT
    
    Phil.
         

    Yes but from the same writer...
    
    "If his children forsake my law and not walk in my judgements, if they
    break my statutes and keep not my commandments, then I will visit their
    transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. 
    Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor
    suffer my faithfulness to fail.  My covenant will I not break nor alter
    the things which have gone out of my lips."  Psalm 89:30-34.
    
    God made the Davidic covenant here...an eternal kingdom that would
    last.  How much less would Jesus consider the church...mad up of
    fallable individuals such as Paul himself from his Romans 7 discussion!
    
    Incidently, I am open to changing my position on this and am
    participating because I like the dialog.  Right now I am trying to
    reconcile the issue!  Thanks.
    
    -Jack

    
		Of The Perseverance of the Saints

[6.094]
1. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and
sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away
from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the
end, and be eternally saved.

[6.095]
2. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own
free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election,
flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon
the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the
abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the
nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the
certainty and infallibility thereof.

[6.096]
3. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the
world, the prevelancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect
of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; ad for a
time continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and
grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their
graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences
wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon
theselves.

    Too bad God's Word is higher authority than the Westminister Confession
    of men.

    Mike:
    
    Let's get into some specific points.  Do you believe the Holy Spirit
    can depart from you?  If so, how do you reconcile this with Ephesians
    1:13?  
    
    -Jack

>    Let's get into some specific points.  Do you believe the Holy Spirit
>    can depart from you?  If so, how do you reconcile this with Ephesians
>    1:13?  
    
    It left King Saul and Judas.
    
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    Your ignorance is showing terribly.  The Westminster Confession is a
    summary of biblical doctrines and is based solely upon the Scriptures.
    
    The men who assembled the Confession did so over a five year period in
    an assembly.  The men were the greatest intellects of their time and
    probably the greatest group of intellects ever assembled throughout
    history.  The vow each made was that nothing but the Scriptures would
    be reflected in the Confession.
    
    You'll pardon me for accepting the depth of intellect and knowledge of
    the Scriptures illuminated in the Confession while rejecting the modernism 
    of the Calvary Chapel sect and its shallow understanding of the Scriptures.
    
    jeff

    whoa,
    
    now we have bible believers banging at each other.
    
    In front of us "non believers" even.
    
    Sounds like the Calvary church does not pass the test of orthordoxy
    either.  Now whatever is orthodoxy!

    The Holy Spirit NEVER indwelt a person from the Old Testament as it
    does the New Testament.  The Holy Spirit came upon a person as it did
    King Saul and King David but it never resided within their hearts.  
    You may remember the great Psalm of repentence from King David after
    the Bathsheba incident where David says, "Do not remove me from your
    presence, neither let your Holy Spirit depart from me."  Yes, the Holy
    Spirit would not always tarry with wickedness in the Old Testament.
    
    However, Jesus established a new covenant with the Church and in John
    14 it states, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
    another comforter, that he may abide with you forever.  Even the Spirit
    of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it sees Him not;
    neither knows Him.  But you know Him; and he dwells with you, and shall
    be with you.  I will not leave you comfortless, I shall come unto you."
    
    Regarding Judas Iscariot, I don't recall the Holy Spirit leaving him. 
    The only thing I recall is that a demon came upon him at the last
    supper and I for one believe that a demon and the Holy Spirit can not
    reside within the same heart.  In fact, I don't believe the apostles
    received the Holy Spirit until Pentacost.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Are you saying that the holy spirit never dwelled within Abraham's
    heart?
    
    Is the holy spirit too the same today, tomorrow and forever?
    
    Just tying to understand.
    
                               Patricia

    
>    now we have bible believers banging at each other.
    
>    In front of us "non believers" even.
    
>    Sounds like the Calvary church does not pass the test of orthordoxy
>    either.  Now whatever is orthodoxy!
    
    
    I don't shy away from exposing ignorance no matter who's showing it.
    
    Calvary Chapel is not orthodox, never will be.
    
    I don't think it unreasonable to strongly suggest that the Reformers of 
    the 16th century, brilliant and biblically literate men that they were, 
    represent Protestant orthodoxy while modern sects like Calvary Chapel
    represent less-orthodox Protestantism.
    
    However, the more I see your attempts to support your own nonbiblical
    views by the fact that there are differences in Christian beliefs  the
    more I see the reason to narrow the term "orthodox" to a smaller set of
    doctrines which are shared universally.  These would be the
    fundamentals (where the word fundamentalist originated).  This will
    make our discussions fruitful if you'll agree to be measured by them.
    
    Does anyone have "The Fundamentals"?
    
    jeff

I Timothy 4:1
NOW the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

II Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there
come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition;

II Peter 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the
knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled
therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
II Peter 2:21
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,
than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered
unto them.

I Peter 1:10
Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who
prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

Jude 1:24
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you
faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.

      Hi Jeff,
    
        Does the Westminster 'whatever' have a monopoly on being
        intelligent as well as desiring to be true to the scriptures?
    
        If your answer is yes, I agree to disagree.
    
        If your answer is no, my next question then is, "On what
        basis are their conclusions better than anyone else's?"
    
        I personally feel that you overemphasized the characteristic
        of 'intelligence.'  True it is that intelligence is needed
        in order to partake of spiritual food, but I tend to prefer
        wisdom to intelligence.
    
        There are incredibly brilliant minds that are equally as
        foolish.
    
        Finally, Jeff, with your fondness for 'orthodoxy', I fail to
        see how you could have seen any truth in Christ if your 
        orthodoxy was Judaism.
    
        There is an endtime transition of covenant and adherence to
        orthodoxy someday may equate to the abomination of desolation.
                                                            
        Adherence to orthodoxy was all that Israel needed to do to seal
        their rejection of the Messiah.
    
    							Tony

    
>        Does the Westminster 'whatever' have a monopoly on being
>        intelligent as well as desiring to be true to the scriptures?
 
    In Protestantism I think so.  I've found nothing comparable to it. 
    Indeed there is nothing like it to be found.
       
>        If your answer is yes, I agree to disagree.
 
    Do you have any examples to support your disagreement?
       
>        If your answer is no, my next question then is, "On what
>       basis are their conclusions better than anyone else's?"
    
    Since my answer is "yes", I'll skip this question.
    
    
>        I personally feel that you overemphasized the characteristic
>        of 'intelligence.'
    
    How so?
    
    >  True it is that intelligence is needed
    >    in order to partake of spiritual food, 
    
    Then how can intelligence be overemphasized?
    
    >but I tend to prefer
    >    wisdom to intelligence.
    
    What is wisdom and what is intelligence?  What are you saying here?
    
>        There are incredibly brilliant minds that are equally as
>        foolish.
 
    Equally foolish to each other?  I agree that intelligence by itself is
    as hostile to God as is purposeful ignorance.  But intelligence
    harnessed by the grace of God and infused with His Spirit is exactly
    what is required to properly understand and instruct others in the
    truths of God's word.
         
 >       Finally, Jeff, with your fondness for 'orthodoxy', I fail to
 >       see how you could have seen any truth in Christ if your 
 >       orthodoxy was Judaism.
  
    There were many orthodox Jews saved before and after Christ so I don't
    see your point.
      
 >       There is an endtime transition of covenant and adherence to
 >       orthodoxy someday may equate to the abomination of desolation.
    
    And what is the abomination of desolation in SDA thinking...let me
    guess...Roman Catholicism instituting by law a Sunday sabbath across the 
    whole world?!  Egads!!!  This is truly farfetched.  Roman Catholics
    observe mass almost any day of the week and meet their oblgations.  I
    suspect there are Catholics in good standing who never receive mass on
    a Sunday in their whole lives.
                                                            
>        Adherence to orthodoxy was all that Israel needed to do to seal
>        their rejection of the Messiah.
    
>    						Tony
    
    	It is Christ who saves, by God's gift of faith and the regeneration
    of the Holy Spirit.  Many Jews (25% of Jesus' time) were saved and
    countless others were saved prior to Jesus' time through faith in the
    coming Messiah.
    
    jeff

    ZZ    Are you saying that the holy spirit never dwelled within Abraham's
    ZZ    heart?
     
    ZZ    Is the holy spirit too the same today, tomorrow and forever?
     
    Yes, questions worthy of answers.  Personally, I do not believe this to
    be the case.  My opinion on this matter is that the nation of Israel
    was set apart as a nation and a people for Gods purpose.  As Leslie
    corrected me on yesterday, Abraham was justified by faith just as we
    are today.  When the Holy Spirit came upon individuals of the Old
    Tesatament, these individuals were able to do mighty exploits. 
    Solomon, Sampson, Elijah, Deborah, Elisha, David, all the Prophets...
    the list goes on.  The Holy Spirit came upon an individual as God chose
    them to be annointed.
    
    Keep in mind that it is FAITH which justifies a person.  God is the
    same yesterday and today.  In the Old Covenant, the sin of Israel was
    covered (hidden) from the eyes of God through the sacrifice.  Today,
    the sin of believers is FORGIVEN, not merely covered.  The Holy Spirit
    is a gift of God, a comforter who will never leave you as mentioned in
    John 14.  
    
    -Jack       
        
    

    Re: .27
    
I Timothy 4:1
II Thessalonians 2:3
II Peter 2:20
II Peter 2:21
I Peter 1:10
Jude 1:24

      Hi Jeff,
    
        I felt you overemphasized intelligence in that it seemed to
        be placed at a higher level than wisdom.  From the content 
        of your last reply, I can see that even if it may have 
        seemed to come accross that way, it wasn't your intent.
    
        I feel that there are many people who have sought the scriptures
        with much sincerity.  It often seems that a person comes along
        who is blessed by receiving precious truth.   If the scriptural
        record is a guideline to the gradual unfolding of truth, it does
        not usually seem to come all at once by some collective group
        of individuals rather it seems to come at different times and by
        different peoples.  Kind of like what if people rejected 
        Jeremiah's exhortations because Isaiah represented their "West-
        minster Confession"???
    
        In terms of a last day transition of covenant, your mention of
        Sunday and all of that was way off the mark of my own thinking.
        I am Adventist, but I have some views that cannot be considered
        distinctly Adventist.
    
        But, there is a transition of covenant coming.  Just yesterday,
        I read in Hebrews 8 that...
    
        "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
         after those days says the Lord.  I will put my laws in their
         mind and write them on their hearts and I will be their God
         and they shall be My people."
    
         [now catch this next verse]
    
       "None shall teach his neighbor and none his brother saying 'Know
        the Lord' for all shall know me from the least of them to the
        greatest of them."  ch. 8 NKJV
    
        None shall teach his neighbor.  Tie this in to Ephesians where
        it speaks of God giving apostles, prophets, TEACHERS, etc. until...
    
        until when.
    
        Till they come to the knowledge of the truth to the measure of
        the stature of the fulness of Christ.
    
        That is pure apocalyptic.  There are no teachers at this time and
        Ephesians is definitely looking to the end.
    
        My point is _there is an endtime transition of covenant_.
    
        Look at Hebrews 10:1-4.  Shadow gives way to VERY IMAGE.
    
        THAT IS THE ENDTIME TRANSITION OF COVENANT.
    
        And what does it produce?  Heb. 10:1-4 again.  The worshipers
        have no remembrance of sin.  
    
        It produces perfection of character.
    
        I don't want to dilute the controversy between Sabbath and 
        Sunday and while I don't want to downgrade the Sabbath, it 
        (along with Sunday) are primarily symbols.
    
        The Sabbath will point to the full gospel which perfects the
        conscience.  It will (as a symbol) point to it.
    
        In the last days, the controversy will be over two gospels.
        The perpetuation of the old and the revealing of the new.
    
        "In that He says, 'A new covenant' He has made the old 
         obsolete.  Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is
         ready to vanish away."
    
       Jeff, you sound like someone that would find it difficult to 
       even be able to consider fresh light.  That was my point about
       the Jews and orthodoxy.  Not that some Jews did not accept new
       light, but that strict adherence to orthodoxy can be a built-in
       destructive mechanism making it difficult to embrace not yet
       seen truth.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    Mike, you want me to address each one of these passages individually?  
    I will...and you brought up some good passages.  (Just got back from a
    meeting).  I will respond to this!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    It's interesting regarding the intellectuals who wrote the Westminister
    Commentaries and Jeff's suggestion that "That is Orthordoxy"
    
    The whole purpose of the protestant reformation was to take back the
    responsibility of reading and interpreting scripture from the Catholic
    Church and let every believer read and interpret scripture for
    <himself>.  This proposal to use the commentary, is counter
    reformatory.  Why not just take away everybodies bible and produce a
    catecism from the documentary and tell everyone what to memorize!

    From what I understand (I could be wrong), The catholic hierarchy of
    years past claimed to have the authority or understanding of scripture
    and it was up to them to interpret for the masses (No pun intended).  
    
    Any reformation was to bring the word of God back to the people and in
    my mind, each person is obliged to study the scriptures for themselves.
    It does say the disciples studied the scriptures day and night to see
    if these things were so!
    
    -Jack

      Patricia,
    
        I think you hit one VERY fundamental nail right on the head!
    
        Jeff's posture is papal in nature.  It doesn't matter if every
        bit of doctrine in the 'confession' be truth, the more signi-
        ficant point is that it is bandied about like some universal
        catechism (and thus) a church like Calvary Chapel finds itself
        under a less than attractive label.
    
        I think catechisms are detrimental.  They suppress the receptive-
        ness of fresh light because, by very nature of the fact that
        fresh light is fresh, it cannot find itself in the "confession."
    
        And if its not in the Confession...
    
        Well, embracing it just might be heretical.
    
        Yeah, its no spirit I want to partake in.
    
    							Tony

    re .17
    
    Jack,
    
    Yes, the Davidic covenant will be fulfilled. That is God's kingdom
    will be established with Jesus (from the lineage of David) as king
    of that kingdom. Also predestined is a priest and king class to
    rule along with Jesus as co heirs of that kingdom (Revelation 5:9,10).
    
    However, the question is are *individuals* predestined to be part of
    this heavenly kingdom?. Certainly, it is God who calls and seals these
    prospective kings/priests but is their acceptance dependent on their
    continued fauthfulness?. The letters to the seven congregations as
    recorded in Revelation chapters 2 & 3 has bearing on this. Take for
    example Jesus comment to the congregation in Smyrna "Prove yourself 
    faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life"
    Revelation 2:10, Jesus was pointing out that their prize was
    conditional upon excerising faith even unto death.
    
    I like the illustration that I read last night, One is rescued from
    a burning tower by the fire service. During the rescue operation
    one is lead to a place of safety. Now if one, for some foolish reason,
    goes back to that burning tower then they will put their life in danger
    again. Now for Christians, the world is a place of danger that they
    are to be no part of, John warns them "Do not be loving either the
    world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love 
    of the Father is not in him, beacause everything in the world the
    desire of the eyes and the showy display of one's means of life does
    not originate with the Father, but orginates with the world.
    Furthermore, the world is passing away and so its desire, but he that 
    does the will of God remains forever." 1 John 2:15-17 NWT Again safety
    is conditional upon excerising faith, ie doing the will of God.
    
    Phil.
    

    
>    The whole purpose of the protestant reformation was to take back the
>    responsibility of reading and interpreting scripture from the Catholic
>    Church and let every believer read and interpret scripture for
>    <himself>.  
    
    This is not true as stated, Patricia.  The Reformation was to reform
    the doctrines of the Catholic Church to the actual Bible.  It was not
    successful in reforming the Catholic Church so split with them.  One
    emphasis was certainly to put the Bible in the hands of the masses. 
    However, as the Westminster Confession makes clear, the biblical
    authority of the clergy remained an important aspect of biblical
    Christianity.
    
    >This proposal to use the commentary, is counter
    >reformatory.  Why not just take away everybodies bible and produce a
    >catecism from the documentary and tell everyone what to memorize!
    
    The Westminster Confession (and shorter and larger catechisms) are
    simply helpful tools from our perspective.  However, at the time they 
    were of much greater import (considering the turmoil of the Reformation
    and its aftermath) and invaluable in educating the masses concerning 
    biblical doctrine.  It is a summary of biblical doctrines with
    Scripture proofs.  And as I mentioned earlier the men who summarized were
    exceptionally superior both spiritually and intellectually.  However,
    it does not claim infallibility.
    
    It is appropriate to hold this as a standard of Protestant orthodoxy. 
    However, as I said, I wouldn't object to a shorter, finer list of
    fundamental beliefs as a measure of orthodoxy.  UU and other modern
    ideas about God could be measured against what is properly called
    biblical Christianity.
    
    jeff

    Phil:
    
    Your analogy is a good one and is worthy of remembering.  I believe the
    emphasis on Holy living is there but I am still trying to reconcile
    the issue of faithlessness in a walk with God with fallen grace.  I
    would like your comments on 1st Corinthians 3 which I posted
    yesterday...particularly of the verse that says "...He too shall be saved
    yet as one escaping through the flames."  
    
    ZZ    Revelation 2:10, Jesus was pointing out that their prize was
    ZZ    conditional upon excerising faith even unto death.
     
    You most likely disagree on this point; however, I believe this would
    apply to the judgement seat of Christ as mentioned in 1st Corinthians
    3.  I believe this judgement applies to believers...the elect of Jesus
    Christ.  The Great White Throne Judgement in Revelation 20 is a
    judgement for those who are not written in the lambs Book of Life. 
    Smyrna would not be suseptible to this judgement but they, as believers
    would have to give account for the talents God gave them.  The
    Judgement seat of Christ is to receive rewards such as the Crown of
    Life.  The Great White Throne is a judgement for unbelievers.
    
    -Jack

    .39
    
    Jack,
    
    OK, I'll do a little study on 1st Corinthians 3 and get back to you.
    
    Phil.

    
<        Jeff's posture is papal in nature.  It doesn't matter if every
>        bit of doctrine in the 'confession' be truth, 
    
    	And this is where you stumble, Tony.  Truth, in your eyes, is not
    paramount.  Especially if there is an authoritative basis for it.
    
    >the more signi-
>        ficant point is that it is bandied about like some universal
>        catechism (and thus) a church like Calvary Chapel finds itself
>        under a less than attractive label.
 
    And the SDA is probably sunk by the measure of the Confession, more
    important to you.
       
>        I think catechisms are detrimental.  They suppress the receptive-
>        ness of fresh light because, by very nature of the fact that
>        fresh light is fresh, it cannot find itself in the "confession."
 
    There is no "fresh" light.  The Scriptures are closed, the revelation
    of Jesus Christ complete.  The Bible is adequate for all faith and
    life.  Of course, this truth leaves no room for false prophets and
    ear-ticklers such Ellen White and other SDA "prophets".
       
>        And if its not in the Confession...
 
    If its not in the confession it's not a major doctrine in the Bible.
       
>        Well, embracing it just might be heretical.
>        Yeah, its no spirit I want to partake in.
    
>    							Tony
    
    
    Having known you for a long time now Tony I understand that orthodoxy
    is anathema to you for it destroys your beliefs.  
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    well at least I now know where you are coming from.
    
    You want to asign some group of men the responsibility of defining
    orthordoxy and then measure everyone else's faith against your
    standard.
    
    So what do you propose to do with those who don't meet your test.
    
    i.e. the catholics, the SDA's, the UU's the Church of Calvary, the
    UCC's etc,etc,
    
    So instead of us liberals complaining, let's not worship the Bible
    let's worship the living God will be added.
    
    Let's not worship the Westminister Confession, let's not worship the
    Bible, let's worship the living God.
    
                                      Patricia
    
                              opposed forever to every human orthordoxy!
     

        ZZ      opposed forever to every human orthordoxy!
    
    Does this include feminism?  Seriously asking because orthodoxy isn't 
    restricted to matters of faith.
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 1107.42 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    You want to asign some group of men the responsibility of defining
>    orthordoxy 
    
    	Though I'd prefer not to trivialize it as just "some group of
    	men", yes, I'd prefer to have a doctrine formulated by a
    	prayerful collective over time, than to have each individual
    	creating dogma willy-nilly.  Be that the Bible, and/or the
    	Catechism, and/or the Westminster Confession, and/or the 
    	Torah, and/or etc., I think people are better off following
    	established religion.

.23 POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine"

    now we have bible believers banging at each other.

Patricia,

The one comfort I have if this country does become a Christian nation
is that the true believers will spend most of their time beating on 
variations of themselves before they come after me!

My non-belief has never gotten anyone in this conference as angry or
excited as another believer with a different point of view...

Steve

 I personally have little or no desire to see this become a Christian nation.
 I'd love to see it become a nations of Christians, however.  No amount of
 legislation will take people to Heaven, nor do away with the sin that is
 in people's hearts.  Only Jesus Christ can do that.  




 Jim

    A general rule of thumb that applies here:
    
    If it wasn't practiced by the early church in Acts and taught by the
    apostles in their letters - it's not of God.

.46 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean"

Jim,

Do you have a desire to see legislation passed that would have the
same affect, such as mandatory prayer in schools? Or mandatory 
closings of business on Sundays? Or to illegalize abortion? This is 
what I mean by an officially Christian nation.

Steve

 I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer
 It wouldn't bother me to see mandatory closing of businesses on Sundays,
 nor would it bother me to see abortion become illegal.  I would like to see
 more Christians sharing the gospel of Christ with their neighbors and 
 family (I include myself in this desire) and many of these things that 
 plague our society (not that businesses open on Sundays is a plague)
 will simply become minor issues.




 Jim

	RE: .46


	GREAT note!

    .47
    
    Again Mike,
    
    You allow God no creativity "to do a new thing".
    
                                   Patricia

    Steve:
    
    ZZZ    now we have bible believers banging at each other.
    
    There is a biblical principle in the Old Testament that iron sharpens
    iron.  Call it banging if you want to, I find alot of value in these
    types of discourses.  Alot more value in the substance of discussing
    doctrinal issues than the symbolic gestures of singing Kumbaya around
    the campsfire when you know you aren't in likemindedness.
    
    Mike, your statement is a valid one, but there is more to it.  There
    are practices the churches in the book of Acts practiced that are not
    practiced today.  Does your church proclaim Jesus death and
    resurrection by partaking of communion every day?  Do your church members 
    fast day and night frequently over matters of importance?  Does your
    church meet daily at all for prayer?  Does your church witness in the
    towns of your local area...openly proclaiming the gospel of Jesus
    Christ amongst large groups of citizens?  These were the common
    practices of the church in Antioch in the Book of Acts.
    
    I would still be interested in what you have found out about the
    sealing of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament vs. the Old Testament. 
    Does your belief based on scripture concur with mine on this matter?  
    When we are born again our dead spirit becomes alive through the power
    of Jesus Christ.  It is not I who live but Christ who lives in me.  How
    can a reborn spirit die in sin when it dwells with the Holy Spirit?
    
    -Jack  

.49 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean"

 It wouldn't bother me to see mandatory closing of businesses on Sundays,

Jim,

Why wouldn't it bother you? This is simply legislating the customs of a
religion, it has no secular reason, and it is restrictive of freedom.
Would you be OK with mandatory closings on Friday and Saturday also, as 
some other religions mandate?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.52 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

I don't disagree, I always find value in debate. I was just making an 
observation that it seems that the most, uh, spirited debate is with
someone that agrees with you in principal but not in the details, while 
those that disagree with you completely are considered somewhat less
dangerous.

Steve

    re .39                     
    
    Jack,

    Due to working late last night, I was only able to do a quick study of the
    verses in 1 Corintians 3. Even so, a quick look at a Watchtower article
    from July 15th 1984 "Building With Fire-Resistant Materials" gave me an 
    understanding of what Paul was saying. Now I think verses 1-15 are all
    relevant and should be viewed together.... 

    "And so, brothers, I was not able to speak to YOU as to spiritual men, but
     as to fleshly men, as to babes in Christ. I fed YOU milk, not something 
     to eat, for YOU were not yet strong enough. In fact, neither are YOU 
     strong enough now, for YOU are yet fleshly. For whereas there are 
     jealously and strife among YOU, are YOU not fleshly and are YOU not 
     walking as men do? For when one says: 'I belong to Paul,' but another 
     says: 'I to Apollos,' are YOU not simply men?. What, then, is Apollos? 
     Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom YOU became believers, even as 
     the Lord granted each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God kept 
     making [it] grow, so that neither is he that plants anything nor is he 
     that waters, but God who makes [it] grow. Now he that plants and he that
     waters are one, but each [person] will receive his own reward according to
     his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers. YOU people are God's field
     under cultivation, God's building. According to the undeserved kindness of
     God that was given to me, as a wise director of works I laid a foundation,
     but someone else is building on it. But let each one keep watching how he 
     is building on it. For no man can lay any other foundation than what is 
     laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation of 
     gold, silver, precious stones, wood materials, hay, stubble, each one's 
     work will become manifest, for day will show it up, because it will be 
     revealed by means of fire, and the fire itself will prove what sort of 
     work each one's is. If anyone's work that he has built on it remains, he 
     will receive a reward, if anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss,
     but he himself will be saved, yet, if so, [it will be] as through fire." 
     1 Corinthians 3:1-15 NWT.

    You have a strong foundation, but imagine your distress if your house burns
    down due to using materials such as stubble or hay in building it. One would
    want to build it so that it would have some resistance to fire.

    What building was Paul alluding to that should be built with fire resistant
    materials? "YOU people are God's field under cultivation, God's building".
    So he is likening the Christian minister to a builder. He reminds the 
    wayward Corinthian congregation that the foundation to build on is Jesus, 
    but then  goes onto to reason with them what sort of materials they should 
    use to build in a symbolic sense. If they build with stubble then the 
    result is all to clear. But in what sense does the Christian minister 
    build? He builds people to become a genuine Christians, (verse 16 "You 
    people are God's temple." also compare the great commision with the command
    to teach and make disciples Matthew 28:19,20) Now to lay the foundation 
    the teaching must be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

    Some translations when mentioning the building materials put this verse in
    a different way "Some will use gold or silver or precious stones in building
    on the foundation others will use wood or grass or straw." TEV "On this
    foundation you can build in gold, silver and jewels, or in wood, grass and
    straw." The Jerusalem Bible. So Paul was contrasting two types of 
    buildings. So what Paul is asking the Corinthian brothers is when teaching 
    others and making disciples are you building "palaces" or "huts". For 
    example, in building a "palace" the pupil will have learnt to put his trust
    in Jesus and shown how to develop a close relationship with Jehovah. 
    However, in building a "hut" the pupil would have learnt to follow men 
    (such as Paul, Apollos or Cephas).

    What will the fire entail, well it would be in the pupil keeping their
    Christian integrity in the face of adversity. Satan has many burning 
    missiles at his disposal. How will the pupil fare? will they be like a 
    beautiful palace with fire resistant gold, silver and precious stones and 
    stand firm? or will they be a like hut made with wood, straw and stubble 
    and burn up?.

     So what Paul was admontioning was that the Corinthian congregation build
    each other so as to stand firm and keep their integrity intact.

    What was Paul reward, well it wasn't everlasting life for the building was
    God's temple. His reward was the joy of seeing others become genuine
    Christians. 

    A different interpretation on these verses, Paul's concern was to overcome
    the dissensions in the Corinth congregation illustrating the need to build
    each other up.
    
    My own understanding on verse 15, is that all Christians have to keep
    their integrity that is faithful unto death. What you quoted in reply
    .39 "....He too shall be saved yet as one escaping through the flames."
    is different to the kJV which reads "If any man's work shall be burned,
    he shall suffer loss;" and this is it "but he himself shall be saved;
    yet so as by fire." . Some that are taught will be unfaithful, which would
    be sad to see, but even so one will be be saved that is if one stays fire
    resistant. Christian integrity is a personal thing, well that's my take
    on it with the help of the Watchtower article.
    
    Phil.

 

Z    "If any man's work shall be burned,
Z    he shall suffer loss;" and this is it "but he himself shall be saved;
Z    yet so as by fire." . Some that are taught will be unfaithful, which would
Z    be sad to see, but even so one will be be saved that is if one stays fire
Z    resistant. Christian integrity is a personal thing, well that's my
Z    take on it with the help of the Watchtower article.
    
    I would like to focus on this section of your entry above...
    
    "but even so one will be be saved that is if one stays fire"
    
    At this point, you seem to have made being saved
    conditional...conditional contrary to what Paul was saying in the
    preceding sentence.  "IF ONE MAN'S WORK IS BURNED, Then he shall also
    be saved.  If a man's work is burned, this would infer that the work
    was not fire resistant.  I do agree with you that that which we build
    upon the foundation is the ministry.  But I still see a
    non-reconciliation between what is saved being non fire resistant.  The
    passage in discussion here still infers salvation although your
    ministry was built of wood, hay, and stubble.
    
    -Jack

    |    You allow God no creativity "to do a new thing".
    
    Patricia, your focus and perspective limits God.  God renews me every
    morning.  He's always doing new things in our lives.  Christians are
    new creations.  He also doesn't contradict His Word.
    
    Mike

>    There is a biblical principle in the Old Testament that iron sharpens
>    iron.  Call it banging if you want to, I find alot of value in these
    
    Amen!
    
>    practiced today.  Does your church proclaim Jesus death and
>    resurrection by partaking of communion every day?  
    
    Not all of them, but several of them do.  We have a morning watch at
    our church.  The sanctuary is open from 6am-9am for those that want to
    have devotions/worship/communion/prayer/etc. in the sanctuary of the
    Lord.
    
    >Do your church members 
>    fast day and night frequently over matters of importance?  
    
    Yes.  And it's always announced to the congregation when these matters
    are approaching.  It happened recently when Michael L. Brown (a
    Messianic Jew) came to debate a local Rabbi at Arizona State. Univ.
    
    >Does your church meet daily at all for prayer?  
    
    Yes, see above.
    
    >Does your church witness in the towns of your local area...openly 
    >proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ amongst large groups of citizens?  
    
    Yes, once a month we hold services at a local ampitheatre that holds
    over 20K people.  We also have our Resurrection Sunday services there. 
    We also hold city-wide outreaches there, in conjunction with the other
    Calvary Chapels in the metro area, complete with street evangelism.
    Due to God providing where God is guiding, we are currently planning to
    use a larger stadium.
    
>    I would still be interested in what you have found out about the
>    sealing of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament vs. the Old Testament. 
>    Does your belief based on scripture concur with mine on this matter?  
>    When we are born again our dead spirit becomes alive through the power
>    of Jesus Christ.  It is not I who live but Christ who lives in me.  How
>    can a reborn spirit die in sin when it dwells with the Holy Spirit?
    
    I'll try to look into this weekend.  I've placed myself into a position
    where I'm defending Arminianism, which I don't 100% agree with. 
    Neither do I agree 100% with Calvinism.  There are partial truths in
    both, but the Bible clearly indicates to me that both extremes have
    their problems.  
    
    Mike

Steve made a comment a few replies back concerning how disagreement seems
greater between those agreeing in principle than between those disagreeing
in principle.  This makes good sense when you think about the nature of the
debate and what is at stake.

Steve, for example, being an admitted agnostic (who was only recently an
atheist ;) is less dangerous to a debate on Christianity  by virtue of his 
relative ignorance of the subject.  Even though Steve does not presume that
he can participate meaningfully in such a debate, if he did, his comments
would be almost meaningless and easily dismissed because of his disbelief
and obvious indifference.  Patricia, on the other hand, presumes to represent
Christianity using Christian language and symbols yet contradicting in
principle both herself and the clear teaching of the standard of Christianity, 
the Scriptures. She is more dangerous than Steve due to the simple fact of the 
confusion created when equivocation is the rule.  However, she too is less
threatening to truth than the actual Christian who is strongly convicted but 
ignorant of the Scriptures who ends up spreading error among the church and 
causing real pain for real Christians.  No less a threat is the nonChristian 
who adheres to orthodoxy in words and outward lifestyle, and is highly 
opinionated.

The Bible is full of warnings and admonitions about false teachers.  Many of
the epistles have significant portions devoted to the subject.  And always the
greatest threat came from those closest to the church, those actually 
considered a part of her but who were actually imposters - "wolves in sheeps
clothing".

Now, having said all of that, there is another matter and that is the manner
in which error is addressed and troublemakers warned.  It is easy to be harsh
and sparse in this medium.  It is difficult to express gentleness and 
liberality.  And I have failed many, many times to accurately express myself 
fully.  It's pretty easy to get a raw point across.  It's infinitely harder to
both get the point across and add all of the words which would express feeling
and intent.  This, at least in my case and I suspect in many others', also
gives the impression that debate is less healthy and productive than it might
actually be.  Nevertheless, I personally will continue to try to express in
notes more gentleness.

I'll also take this opportunity to apologize to Mike Heiser for the way I
responded to a recent entry (to which I am building a suitable reply, in case 
you were wondering, Mike) and to Patricia for the manner in which I have 
responded to many of your notes.  I am in fervent disagreement with you,
Patricia.  But I must treat you better.  I'm sure you'll give me a chance.

jeff

    Re: Paul's fire in 1 Corinthians
    
    being saved through the fire is talking of our heavenly rewards being
    tried by God's fire at the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ.
    
    Mike

    Jeff, thanks for the apology - the feeling is mutual.  I apologize if
    you felt I was antagonizing you.

    in Christ,
    Mike

    Mike:
    
    The scripture specifically states that a man's work will be tested by
    fire, not the reward.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, thanks for the clarification.  The works that are being tested
    (or what is left of them) is what the rewards are based on.
    
    sorry,
    Mike

      Hi Jeff,
    
        Ya know, your words just don't ring a bell with me.  You say
        I'm rejecting this or that, but one thing I know is that
        wine (doctrine) accompanies the latter rain.  Mike said
        (to which I'll assume you probably agree) the apostles
        basically had it right.  Well, if they had it right, why did
        Ephesus lose her first love?
    
        If they had it right, why didn't they finish the work and
        Isaiah 5 clearly says that God has done all that He can to
        finish the work.  He cannot FORCE us to receive.
    
        And I am well aware of your propensity for critiquing SDA
        and Ellen White.  Well, I believe she said that she was given
        to lead people to the Bible and I can attest to that in my
        own experience.
    
        This morning, on my ride to work, I did not quote a single
        line of Ellen White, but I did recite, by memory, Hebrews
        Chapters 1 through 8.   It is my hope to memorize all of Hebrews
        and after that, my desire is not to memorize some text of Ellen
        White, it is to memorize Romans.
    
        I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back, I am saying this
        to defend what Ellen White's writings and what some of SDA has
        done for me.  As a generalization, I know Christians from several
        denominations, but I have never known any that thirst for the word
        as SOME Adventists I know.  (And I emphasize *some*.)
    
        I reject the confession from the standpoint of it being the 
        'end-all' of all Christian thought.  I don't believe in 
        'catechisms' because (as I said) they too easily become the
        means by which fresh truth is rejected.
    
        I have offered what I consider to be scriptural support for
        an endtime transition of covenant.  
    
        And like it or not, it will be accompanied with fresh light.
    
    						Tony

    If Ellen White is a prophet, then her writings have to be infallable. 
    If they are not infallable, then Ellen White must be put in the company
    with theologians and not prophets.
    
    -Jack

      Hi Jack,
    
        This isn't about Ellen White, but I did interject a little
        bit about her because she was attacked all the while she
        had not been brought up until then.
    
        My wife is a nondenominational Christian who happens to believe
        in the 7th day Sabbath and in the conditional immortality of
        man.  She had always believed in the 7th day Sabbath (she recently
        told me) and as a young Catholic always wondered why anyone went
        to church on the 1st day.
    
        Anyway, Carol is being much blessed by a book by Ellen White
        titled 'Steps to Christ' and I asked her to simply read it for 
        the content and to consider the possibility that she was a 
        godly woman; no more no less.  Thats about what you said Jack
        when you said theologian.
    
    							Tony

    
    re .55
    
Jack,
    
    It would be really helpful if you can tell me which translation you are
    using and if you could give the full verse, this would help me comment
    further on the point your making in 1 Corithians 3.

However, salvation is conditional, as Paul put it "What! Do YOU not know that
unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who
lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU
were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU
have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the 
spirit of God." 1 Corithinans 6:9-11 NWT  Here Paul warns those anointed with
holy spirit NOT to be misled with false reasoning, for fornicators etc 
*whomever* they are will NOT inherit God's kingdom.

One of the major parts where we differ is that salvation is not instantaneous:
 
"Consequently, my beloved ones, in the way that YOU have always obeyed, not
during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep
working out YOUR own salvation with fear and trembling;" Philippians 2:12 NWT

"Not that I have already received it or am already made perfect, but I am
pursuing to see if I may also lay hold on that for which I have also been
hold on by Christ Jesus. Brothers, I do not consider myself as having laid
hold on [it]; but there is one thing about it: Forgetting the things behind
and strecting forward to the things ahead, I am pursuing down toward the 
goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Crist Jesus."
Philippians 3:12-14 NWT

"And YOU will be objects of hatred by all people on account of my name, but
he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved." Matthew 10:22
NWT

As pointed out in other notes, partakers of the holy spirit can fall:

"For it is impossible as regards those who have once for all been enlightened,
and who have tasted the heavenly free gift, and who have become partakers of
holy spirit, and who have tasted the fine word of God and the powers of the
coming system of things, but who have fallen away, to revive them again to
repentance, because they impale the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose
him to public shame. For example, the ground that drinks in the rain which
often comes upon it, and that the brings forth vegetation suitable to those
for whom it is also cultivated, receives in return a blessing from God. But if 
it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected and is near to being cursed,
and it ends up being burned." Hebrews 6:4-8 NWT

"But I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, that, after I have preached to
others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow." 1 Corinthians 9:27 NWT

Peter, mentions that those who turn back are considered worse than if they
had not heard the good news at all. 

"Certainly if, after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an
accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved
again with these very things and are overcome, the final conditions have
become worse for them than the first." 1 Peter 2:20,21 NWT

To me Jehovah is a righteous judge and will pay accordingly to those who
willfully practice wrong doing especially those who have had an accurate
knowledge of the truth.
    
     
Phil.

    

    Phil:
    
    You bring up these viable passages as a precondition to being the
    elect.  In the context that you are using them, I would assume you
    believe that one would have to maintain their own righteousness before
    a Holy God.  This begs the question, By what measure can we maintain
    this righteousness in order to be of the elect of God?  When we accept
    Jesus as savior, we die to our old selves and take upon us a new
    creation...old things are past away and all things become new.  By the
    way you present this, one would have to maintain perpetual
    righteousness on their own merits.  This contradicts Romans chapter 3.
    
    In order to inherit eternal life, sinless perfection must be obtained.  
    Since there is a constant battle between the flesh and the Spirit,
    sinless perfection of our own merits would be impossible.  This is why
    the grace we receive as mentioned in Ephesians 2 is of the utmost
    importance.  Without it, we are stripped of any righteousness
    whatsoever.  Any work done in order to maintain salvation was done on
    Calvary 2000 years ago.  I could provide a multitude of New Testament
    passages to support this.
    
    -Jack 

>    In order to inherit eternal life, sinless perfection must be obtained.  

I thought it was a gift and that there was no way to "earn" it?

TTom

    Hi Jack,
    
      "sinless perfection of our own merits."
    
      You aren't suggesting that sanctification is "of our own merits"
      are you?  Acts says we are sanctified by faith.
    
      I'm just trying to point to something you inferred.
    
      1)Sinless perfection in Christ.
    
      2)Sinless perfection by our own merits, i.e. which we agree is
        an impossibility.
    
      3)Inferred.  No other sinless perfection conceivable.
    
      To which my response is, what about sanctification?
    
      Didn't Jesus say, "Be ye therefore perfect EVEN as your Father in
      heaven is perfect"?
    
    						Tony

ZZ    I thought it was a gift and that there was no way to "earn" it?
    
    Correct...and as I wrote in a later sentence, sinless perfection on our
    own intervention.  Romans 3 clearly states that in our own humanity,
    there is none righteous.  However, when accepting Jesus as Lord and
    Savior, we take upon ourselves his righteousness...his sinlessness.   
    
    To lose ones salvation presupposes one would have to maintain it
    through works.  This is contrary to Old and New testament passages and
    themes.
    
    -Jack

      Hi Jack,
    
        To lose one's salvation can presuppose that one simply is
        required to continue to desire the gift.
    
        People can throw away free gifts - even after receiving them.
    
        We must have faith.
    
    						Tony

    >                          -< Her Writings Can Bless >-
    
    Problem is that you don't know if they're hers or stuff she
    plagiarized.

      re: .41
    
      I read .41 again and have more to say about it.
    
      First, truth is extremely important to me.  Jeff, you erred
      when you stated what you did after I said "even if it be truth."
      My point was not to place truth as less important than anything,
      but to uphold yet unrevealed truth and for that reason I care
      not for 'catechisms' (as I believe they suppress).
    
      Secondly, I do not believe in OSAS.  So I guess I don't agree
      with all of the Westminster Confession.
    
      Jeff, much of what you wrote is based on misconceptions you have
      about me.  There is much I believe that SDA _does not_.
    
      But, you have stated that I have a problem with the confession
      because it doesn't agree with SDA.  You have stated something
      about myself that isn't true.  (How can it be true if I already
      hold to things SDA does not?)
    
      Now, how could you have done that?  How can you criticize a
      person about things that aren't even true?
    
      Thats why only God should judge for only He really knows the
      heart.
    
    				   		Tony

    ZZZ        People can throw away free gifts - even after receiving them.
    
    Agreed...the sower and the seed comes into play here.  Any seed
    scattered that is received joyously and then is dryed up in parched
    soil or is choked to death by thorns and thistles...dies.  It is only
    seed planted on good soil that takes root.
    
    If you are, as it says in Psalm 1, like a tree firmly planted by rivers
    of water, then you are firmly rooted in Jesus Christ.  Colossians 2:7
    also refers to being built up and rooted in Him...strengthened in the
    faith as you were taught and overflowing with thankfulness.  
    
    I believe one can make an intellectual decision to accept Christ, and
    yet never have eternal life.  A true conversion must stem from the
    heart of an individual and not from the intellect.  
    
    Consider John the Baptist, the greatest of all the prophets.  And yet
    while in prison, he sent one of his disciples to Jesus to ask that
    faithless question, "Are you the one or should we look for another?"
    Jesus answered appropriately, the lame walk, the deaf hear, and the
    blind see.  Now had John continued to inquire, at what point would he
    lose the Holy Spirit?  
    
    -Jack

      re: .72
    
      Mike,
    
        I listened to all of the tapes you sent me and I believe I 
        can succesfully refute most, but not all, of it.  I don't
        have all the answers.
    
        But, if you want to attack plagiarists, WHY DON'T YOU START
        WITH LUKE?  I don't see him crediting Mark or Matthew.
    
        The content of Steps to Christ blesses...whether or not its
        plagiarized (although in this case I don't think it is).
    
    						Tony

>    I believe one can make an intellectual decision to accept Christ, and
>    yet never have eternal life.  A true conversion must stem from the
>    heart of an individual and not from the intellect.  
    
    Jack, if this is what you mean by OSAS then we may be closer to
    agreement.  Neither do I believe a true heart change can turn from God.
    
    Mike

>        I listened to all of the tapes you sent me and I believe I 
>        can succesfully refute most, but not all, of it.  I don't
>        have all the answers.
    
    I didn't send you any tapes.  However, I do think you would be interested 
    in the EGW testimony that is supressed by the SDA church.
    

      Well, Mike, I think you know the tapes I mean.  Perhaps the 
      church sent them?
    
      I don't really see the need Mike.  When a group fully comes
      to the truth of the endtime transition of covenant, they will
      look back on her and it'll be like she was in diapers.
    
      Its all in the Bible.  When a group comes to the fulness of the
      gospel, she'll not be needed.  It will be seen in its entirety
      in the scriptures.
    
      She merely scratches the surface.
    
      We've discussed things before.  But, the more I learn, for myself,
      the less scriptural much of your positions become.  I'll give you
      two examples.  You have kept on quoting Romans 6:23.  Now, given
      that verse and assuming condemnation is to something above and
      beyond that which is inherent to sin, the only ones to die the
      wages of sin can be Christ and the lost.
    
      Do you follow?
    
      What I mean is this.  Assuming this belief system, the saved do
      not die that death for they are exempted from it on the basis of
      receiving the gift of Christ dying that death for them.
    
      So read Romans 7.  It speaks of the same theme.  It mentions the
      law OF SIN AND DEATH.  It mentions the body OF SIN AND DEATH.
    
      But, notice another thing...
    
      WHO IS DYING????
    
      PAUL!!!
    
      Paul is the one that is dying the death of Romans 6:23 and that is
      unacceptable for your position.
    
      One other example.  Where does scripture explicitly give the
      *reasons* for a Christian's right standing before God when one 
      first has faith?
    
      If you are willing to supply the scriptures, I think they would 
      tell us much regarding just what we are delivered from.
    
      Mike, we can agree to disagree, BUT, without scripture to show
      me otherwise, I believe all the condemnation is inherent to sin.
      And I believe that is a fundamental part of the transition in
      covenant.
    
      Its a wide fork and its one that (I believe) Ellen White only
      scratched the surface of.  Though if one looks, they can see it
      in her writings.
    
      But, I got it from the Bible (and AFTER, I looked for it in 
      White).
    
      After I saw it in the Bible.
    
    				  		Tony

 ZZ    Neither do I believe a true heart change can turn from God.
    
    Bingo.  I believe somebody could have prayed to receive Christ
    intellectually without the slightest idea of what they were truly
    doing...or had done it for the wrong reasons.  It is those who 
    may continue to live in sin, thinking grace may abound when they never
    had grace in the first place...simply because they didn't really have
    faith!
    
    -Jack

      re: -1
    
      Did Lucifer have grace in his heart before he fell?
      Granted, he was not a human being, but he was a creature 
      whose reason for service to God must have been "the love
      of Christ constraineth me."
    
      It must have been faith working through love.
    
      And yet Lucifer fell.
    
      How could that be?
    
    						Tony

    Well, this is my take on it mind you...
    
    Lucifer was a perfect angelic being; therefore one may conclude he was
    set apart from sin just as Adam was set apart from sin.  
    
    Since he was in a condition of holiness just as Adam was, then I would
    conclude that he did not have grace in his heart since he had not
    needed redemption at that time...nor had he transgressed any law before
    the fall.
    
    To reiterate, as believers we become children of God through
    inheritence, not by right.  We are an adopted son of God and all we
    receive is by grace.  We inherit righteousness as well...we take upon
    ourselves God's righteousness.  Lucifer did not need to take on anybody
    elses righteousness before the fall.
    
    Just an opinion.  Never thought of that one before!
    
    -Jack

    >               -< Mike: Our Main Differences Are Not With White >-
    
    sure they are.  It's the Investigative Judgment that forces you to
    defend your position as you do.
    
>      Well, Mike, I think you know the tapes I mean.  Perhaps the 
>      church sent them?
    
    I posted the address and number, you called for your own copy.
    
>      I don't really see the need Mike.  When a group fully comes
>      to the truth of the endtime transition of covenant, they will
>      look back on her and it'll be like she was in diapers.
    
    That's an awfully condescending way to look at it.  
    
    >  Mike, we can agree to disagree, BUT, without scripture to show
>      me otherwise, I believe all the condemnation is inherent to sin.
    
    One of these days...
    
    sigh,
    Mike

    re .67
    
    Jack,
    
    Ofcourse one is declared righteous by faith, so that no man can boast.
    However, as you are well aware James tells us that faith without works
    is like a lifeless corpse....
    
    "YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by
    faith alone. In the same manner was not also Rahab the harlot declared
    righteous by works, after she had received the messengers hospitably
    and sent them away? Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, also
    faith without works is dead." James 2:24-26 NWT
    
    For this reason, Jesus said that his disciples would be identified by
    their fruit (John 13:34,35). For they would be excerising faith in
    their Chief Agent of salvation. 
    
    In contrast, in "the last days" there would be those "having a form of 
    godly devotion but proving false to its power," 2 Timothy 3:1,5 NWT. 
    Jesus warned about such ones "Not every saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will 
    enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of
    my Father who is in heaven will." Matthew 7:21 NWT Many will identify
    themselves as Christians but Jesus here tell us only those doing the
    will of my Father will be acceptable. It's that important, one who 
    professed to be Christian wouldn't want to be rejected by Jesus would 
    they?.
    
    Jesus likens the opportunity to become a Christian to that of a
    journey....
    
    "Go through the narrow gate, because broad and spacious is the road
    leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through
    it, whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into
    life, and few are the ones finding it." Matthew 7:13,14 NWT 
    
    Now what I get from this illustration is that one must take the
    opportunity of service to God in being a dedicated Christian, that is 
    go through the narrow gate which would take effort. In turn, one has
    to walk the path that leads to life, that is continue to put on the
    Christ like personality. Now what if at sometime, a Christian strays
    and takes the broad road, that is willfully goes back to his old 
    personality discarding the Christlike one. Well Jesus' illustration
    leaves us in no doubt of where this journey will lead him to.
    
    
    Jack, regarding 1 Corinthians 3:15 please could you let me know which
    translation your are using. Also could you cite the full verse.
    
    Thanks
    
    Phil.
    

      Investigative Judgment (in a nutshell)...
    
      God's love searches the heart.  (For the word of God is living
      and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword piercing even
      to the division of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow and
      is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.)
    
      In the endtimes, there are two groups.
    
      One group will have allowed that WORD in their hearts.  That word,
      progressively, will have investigated ("search my heart and see if 
      there be any evil thing within me") their hearts and this group will
      have let go of sin in this process.  The time eventually comes when
      this group has been enabled to view the WORD unveiled and to let go
      of all sin (which sin that word has fully revealed).
    
      The other group refused to behold the mirror (perfect law of liberty
      - same thing).  Eventually God forces them to behold it.  It is the
      exact same WORD that searched out the hearts of the above group.  
      But, because the word was not received in the heart, the word will
      arouse a full revelation of their sin which will destroy them.
    
      Thats why Jesus says that in the last days He will not judge, but the
      WORD would judge.  That is, there is no condemnation in the heart of
      God.  This is a reality He cannot circumvent.  Sin destroys in the
      presence of an unveiled revelation of God's love (the word).
    
      This is the investigative judgment.  And I have no problem with it
      because it is entirely scriptural.   (For example, check out PSALM
      7:8-16.  What do you think the sword is that is sharpened?  Why
      is it an instrument of death?  "For the commandment came, sin revived
      and I died."  Notice that what befalls the unsaved is 100% INHERENT.)
    
      By the way Mike, I don't see how what I wrote was condescending.  I
      don't claim to be part of the last generation.  Its not conceit to
      believe that the last generation will come to such a fulness of truth
      that previous persons, from their perspective, will be as spiritual
      children.
    
      Knowledge will increase.  The final scenes will be rapid ones.  The
      latter rain which is a revelation of truth will be like the flood
      of Noah.  The light will be like a fiery furnace made 7 times hotter.
    
      I don't place myself in this category and its not conceit to believe
      the last generation will be blessed with this exp.  for the path of
      the just is like a shining light that shines brighter and brighter 
      unto the perfect day.
    
      And finally, Paul is the one in Romans to be dying the death of 6:23.
      That is, if you want to be true to context.  So what does that make
      of a position whose main support is a scriptural verse wrested from
      its immediate context?
    
    
    						Tony

      re: .81
    
      Hi Jack,
    
        My point was to remove the support that our reasoning might 
        give.
    
        I think we might differ on what it means to have grace in
        the heart.  The Bible speaks of Christ in you, of being filled
        with the Spirit, of receiving the word, of being washed by the
        word.
    
        I believe that the result of the grace within us is simply
        a revelation of God's character.  In matters of the heart, the
        entire process is perceptual.  His grace is His character.
    
        Given that, Lucifer certainly had God's grace in his heart.
        Within his consciousness, he was filled with a revelation of
        God's love and it is this which motivates one to serve for "the
        goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" and "the love of
        Christ constraineth us" and by beholding we are changed.
    
        Lucifer beheld.  He saw.  He perceived.  He was a covering cherub.
        He saw so much love that when Isaiah had a taste of it (ch. 6), he
        fell as a dead man and said "Woe is me!"
    
        Lucifer beheld the glory of God and yet he (somehow) departed.
    
        Because of the above, I think it should eliminate any surmising
        that if we have his love in our hearts, we cannot possibly choose
        to leave God.
    
        Lucifer stands as a testimony of one who did just that.
    
    						Tony

>    Ofcourse one is declared righteous by faith, so that no man can boast.
>    However, as you are well aware James tells us that faith without works
>    is like a lifeless corpse....
    
    funny how people forget James wrote that to Christians who were already
    saved (i.e., past tense).
    
    Mike

    re .86
    
    Mike,
    
    It's also funny that persons ignore Jesus' words on the need to display
    the quality of endurance to be saved.... "And YOU will be objects of
    hatred by all people on account of my name, but he that has endured to
    the end is the one that will be saved." Matthew 10:22 NWT
    
    Though Christians are in a "saved" state, they need to endure and
    continue excercising faith, and therefore James' admonition to his
    brothers and sisters. 
    
    Also Jude 20-23 NWT reads "But YOU, beloved ones, by building yourselves,
    on YOUR most holy faith, and praying with holy spirit, keep yourselves
    in God's love, while YOU are awaiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus
    Christ with everlasting life in view. Also, continue showing mercy to
    some that have doubts, save [them] by snatching [them] out of the fire.
    But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while YOU
    hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh."
    
    Phil.

      Hi Mike,
    
        I'm just curious.  How did you come to the conclusion that
        "its the investigative judgment that forces me to defend the
        position as I do"?
    
        Where did this 'insight' come from?
    
    						Tony 

ZZ    funny how people forget James wrote that to Christians who were
ZZ    already saved (i.e., past tense).
    
    I have seen many a married couple told them that marriage without works
    is dead....in which case the couple is still married!  
    
    Phil, where do you fit in scripture to the equation equating our works
    of righteousness as filthy rags?  The Isaiah passage can apply to
    Christians as well...considering it was directed toward apostate Jews
    in Exile yet they were still God's chosen people.
    
    -Jack

re .89
    
    Jack,
    
    Sorry but you'll have to be a bit more specific for me to make a comment.
    Which Isaiah passage would you like me to comment on?, ie chapter and 
    verse(s).
    
    Phil.

      "Faith without works is dead."
    
      I think its just a way of saying that true faith is a faith which
      cannot but produce good works. So good works can testify to the
    	existence of true faith.
    
      So, if there's no works, there isn't really true faith.  A dead
      faith is actually not a real faith.

    Isaiah 64:6
    
    "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our works are as a filthy
    rag.  We do fade as the leaf, and our iniquity like the wind, has swept
    us away."
    
    Works of righteouness are a fruit of true love for the savior.  Works
    of righteousness compelled by motive to maintain ones salvation would 
    require a mindset to maintain ones own righteousness...which is as a
    filthy rag.  This is the bottom line as to what I am pointing out.
    
    A good tree cannot produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good
    fruit....so in that case, I agree that one who is saved cannot live in 
    sin that grace may abound.  Keep in mind the words of 1st John 2:1
    which says, "My dear children, my prayer for you as that you do not
    sin.  But if you do sin, you have an advocate with the Father which is
    Jesus Christ."  This clearly says to me that the motive for no sin must
    be to please God as a spouse pleases another; not as one hoping to
    maintain their electship! (Is there such a word?)
    
    -Jack  

    
    Well Jack, this may surprise you but I'm in full agreement with what
    you have written. You mention 1 John 2:1, Jesus the high priest knows
    exactly how a Christian's heart is inclined. If rightly disposed and
    repentent, he will intercede for a Christian who sins. Notice Paul's 
    warning of a Christian hardening his or her heart .... "Beware, brothers, 
    for fear there should ever develop in any one of YOU a wicked heart 
    lacking faith by drawing away from the living God, but keep on exhorting 
    one another each day, as long as it may be called 'Today,' for fear any 
    one of YOU should become hardened by the deceptive power of sin. For we
    actually become partakers of the Christ only if we make fast hold on
    the confidence we had at the beginning firm to the end," Hebrews
    3:12-14 NWT The end for an anointed one, would be the end of his earthly
    life course.
    
    Phil.

    Well, it would seem that you, Mike, myself, and I believe Tony agree on
    this point.  
    
    I would like to get into the elect issue since I believe it ties in
    with this.  I do not believe that one is of the elect one day then the
    next day is not.  I believe God in His foreknowledge knows who the
    elect are.  I believe when one accepts Jesus as savior, then one IS of
    the elect.  If one does not accept Jesus as savior in their heart, then
    one IS NOT of the elect, at least not yet anyway.  I believe each saved
    individual has an appointed time when they become part of the elect but
    I draw a line between the ones who accept intellectually and the ones
    who accept as a heart condition.  In other words, one may not lose
    their salvation but by their fruit, one may not have really accepted
    Jesus in the first place.
    
    -Jack

      I understand what you are saying Jack.  I presently believe
      that it is possible to have true faith and to choose to leave
      God some time afterwards.
    
      I am not convinced by the argument that it is all God's choice.
      The question (to me) is not what God's choice is, but what our
      choice is.  We have a choice.  God does not deny us our choice.
    
      I understand that you might respond by saying that though we 
      have our choice, we just won't make the choice.  I believe that 
      the day will come when all of those that have chosen God will
      never choose to leave Him because they will have been sealed with
      a revelation of how good God is and how bad sin is such that they
      will never choose sin again (or choose complete rebellion, i.e. 
      a full and final surrender to the ways of sin).
    
      But, outside of a scriptural argument, I believe God wanted Lucifer
      to not reject Him.  But, reject Him he did.
    
      "Many are called, but few are chosen."
    
      This to me means that from God's perspective the entire world is
      called to salvation.  But, few are chosen and really the choice is
      ours.
    
      Anyway, thats how I presently see it.
    
    	   						Tony

    Tony:
    
    I'm still grappling with the sin of the world as you stated it...
    or did Jesus just die for the elect.
    
    -Jack

>        I'm just curious.  How did you come to the conclusion that
>        "its the investigative judgment that forces me to defend the
>        position as I do"?
>    
>        Where did this 'insight' come from?
    
    both of you negate the finished work of Christ on the cross.

      Hi Jack,
    
        Can you give me a pointer to where I said "sin of the world"?
    
        I don't believe Jesus just died for the elect.  Boy, does 
        such a concept ever mar a right conception of His character!
        (To think that He would foreordain some for eternal loss!)
    
    						Tony

      re: .97
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        "both of you"...whats' that mean?  Me and who else?
    
        How is the work negated?
    
        I believe its a finished work, but I also believe Christ is
        still working.  Certainly His sacrificial work is 100%
        finished and is perfect.  Nothing can be added to it.
    
        He is presently interceding, no?  Is not that a work?
    
        There is not a scripture in the world that states that the
        cross is the sum total of the work involved in the plan of
        redemption.  Not one.
    
        The only way to claim as such is to be INCREDIBLY EISEGETICAL
        and to add meaning, outside of any kind of context, to the
        word IT in "It is finished."
    
        I just won't partake in that kind of study of the word of
        God.  I've challenged the entire Christian Conference to show
        me with context how the word IT is inclusive of the entire 
        plan of redemption.  I have NEVER received a reply from a single
        person.
    
        I will base my conclusions on the word and not on orthodoxy whose
        only basis is tradition and nonexegetical/noncontextual
        conclusions.
    
        Just show me out of the word Mike.  Be true to the word.
    
    							Tony 

    Actually, you didn't say it.  I've just heard of it and am not
    concluded on that matter.
    
    -Jack

    Tony:
    
    you made me miss the redemptive snarf!!!! :-)

>        "both of you"...whats' that mean?  Me and who else?
    
    Ellen White.
    
>        How is the work negated?
>    
>        I believe its a finished work, but I also believe Christ is
>        still working.  Certainly His sacrificial work is 100%
>        finished and is perfect.  Nothing can be added to it.
    
    The work of atonement is done.  
    
>        He is presently interceding, no?  Is not that a work?
    
    Intercession <> atonement.
    
>        There is not a scripture in the world that states that the
>        cross is the sum total of the work involved in the plan of
>        redemption.  Not one.
    
    If you understood Yom Kippur, you'd feel differently.
    
    Mike

      Atonement means at-one-ment.
    
      I agree that the atonement is not yet finished.  And yes,
      Ellen White and I are agreed on that.
    
      What is the atonement Mike?
    
      I believe atonement is reconciliation.  I don't believe it
      will be finished until the lost are destroyed.  After this,
      all of the universe that chose God will have seen two things
      to a certain fulness.
    
      1)They will have seen how good agape is.
    
      2)They will have seen how bad sin is (when they see sin destroy
        the lost in the presence of God's unveiled love.)
    
      These two revelations will have the effect of sealing the
      saved universe, i.e. they will know how good love is so much and
      how bad sin is so much that they will never choose sin again.
      The universe will be eternally safeguarded from sin.
    
      But, I agree that we disagree on when the atonement is finished.
    
      Where does scripture say the atonement is already finished?
      (And please don't tell me that context shows that the IT in "It
      is finished" refers to the atonement - without scriptural proof
      that is.)
    
      Atonement is reconciliation and reconciliation certainly is not
      complete until after sin is removed.
    
      Look at the sequence of the O.T. feasts.  Atonement way at the
      end AFTER Pentecost for example (which is after the cross).
    
      Mike, we understand our differences.
    
      You believe we are delivered from God.  Hence the cross equates
      to satisfying the payment He requires.
    
      I believe we are delivered from sin.  Hence the cross equates to
      the love revealed which when the High Priest sprinkles it into
      the conscience, cleanses the heart from sin.
    
      We know where the fork is.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

                    <<< Note 1107.103 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>

>      Atonement means at-one-ment.
    
    	I've seen this in several different places.  It seems to me like
    	a cute play on words, but that's about it.
    
    	Does the French (for example) translation of atonement equate
    	to the French translation of at-one-ment?  How about Hebrew.
    	Greek.  Latin.
    
    	Maybe it does.  I'd like to know.

    Joe, I don't even think it's in the Bible.

      Well, Romans (in the KJV) has a place where it says "we have now
      received the atonement" and the NKJV says (instead) _reconciliation_.
    
      Reconciliation sounds good to me.  Thats what I mean anyway.  I
      just happen to believe that the thing that needs reconciliation
      is our hearts and if we sin, then we demonstrate that some enmity
      still exists between our hearts and God.  We are not entirely one
      with God.
    
      Mike, your last several replies have been essentially one-liners
      criticizing things I believe.  I have, at times, offered scriptural
      support, but you seem to prefer to avoid the scriptural tack.
    
      A good example are the psalmist texts I offered on inv. judgment.
      Instead of meeting the scripture head-on, you seemed to drop your
      'critique' of the investigative judgment, and go on to different
      areas for which you can launch your critical one-liners.
    
      Such dialogue doesn't do much for me.  Is there a reason why it
      should especially as the use of scripture doesn't seem to be to
      your liking?
    
    						Tony
                                    

    Those who support justification by faith also have a play on words:
    "just-as-if-I'd never sinned."
    
    Tony, you'll get what you're looking for when the time is right.
    
    Mike

      re: -1
    
        OK Mike.  Whatever that means.  But, you do realize the source
        of the fork, do you not?  That would be the starting point.
        
        Addressing the source of condemnation and going from there.
    
    						Tony

    Re: .27
    
>II Peter 2:20-21
>For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the
>knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled
>therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
>For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,
>than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered
>unto them.
    
    I've been doing some further study on this passage and I feel I need to
    apologize to the brethren for improperly applying the context of this
    passage.  God's Holy Word is precious to me and I don't want to
    misrepresent Him.  After much prayer and examination, I feel that the
    "them" above doesn't refer to believers, but to the false teachers
    mentioned early in chapter 2.
    
    Something new that I feel God is working with me on is this whole idea
    of OSAS.  I believe that God is showing me that 5-point Calvinsim is
    still unscriptural, but there is a point where OSAS still applies to
    the true believer.  There is a spiritual growth pattern that, once
    established, provides tremendous assurance of salvation.
    
    God Bless,
    Mike

    It is kind of neat when God reveals a portion of scripture that is
    misused.
    
    For years I misused Revelation 3:20 I believe...(Behold, I stand at the
    door and knock..."  Always used that verse as an invitation to receive
    Christ as savior.  Finally dawned on me this invitation was to a church
    inviting them for fellowship...derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack, there are still other verses that I need to look further at in
    .27.
    
    Revelation 3:20 can still have the application for salvation as well as
    fellowship - after all that is what receiving the Savior is: a
    relationship.  Not everyone in Laodicea was saved - most were obviously
    far from fellowship with Christ.
    
    Another interesting study/application is the use of the "door" in
    Revelation 3-4.  The door is open for Philadelphia, closed for
    Laodicea, and open again in 4:1.  Since Philadelpha appears to be the
    cream of the crop and is promised a way of escape, I think (and many
    scholars agree) that the door is a reference to the rapture of the
    church through Christ.
    
    Mike