I don’t know who this guy is either.

I think I agree with most of what he was saying, but man he was hard to listen to.
He doesn’t leave much room for joy in the Christian life. Joy does have an OBJECT.

It’s obvious that sinful living is bad (and indeed can lead straight to hell), but he almost gave me the impression that the call to holiness may even be a worse proposition.

He is a walking commercial for the fact that “confessionals” were installed in church buildings for a very good reason.

Any good we do is simply a reflection of the righteousness of God, therefore I shouldn’t derive that righteousness for myself. It is His mercy and grace which is why Peter (and Paul) responded the way they did when the Lord performed a miracle through them – they pointed directly to the Lord and His saving grace through Christ.

Very well said Paul C. See, you do make sense sometimes.

I’m not sure I would limit God to using us simply as “reflections” though. Maybe he can use us as magnifying glasses too.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior – Luke 1:46-47

A man or woman can fall away from the faith and end up being lost.

Not according to Calvin.

Good luck repenting well enough to earn your salvation. Hope you don’t miss any sins.

And if that guy is right there’s a whole lot of ADMs that are going to be very warm just after death, after all I don’t see any love, joy peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness or self-control from any of them.

I’m usually pretty skeptical of preachers who are ready to consign whole swathes of humanity to hell because they aren’t as good at avoiding some list of sins as the preachers are.

Bo,

Forgive me, but you seem to enjoy placing people in nice little categories. What is relevant to me is theology that is true. I don’t really know what “most Evangelicals” or “most Catholics believe, but were all sinners saved by Grace.

This guy [not Pastorboy ] does sound arrogant and a little too proud of his video prowess; but I don’t mind overlooking that to notice the merits of what he is discussing.

How shall I give thee up.

BTW – Some saved people’s works will be burned up as wood, hay, and stubble. That contradicts that man’s perfectionist theology.

Bo,

I’ve been labeled as much worse

Or can any sin make us less righteous?

A man or woman can fall away from the faith and end up being lost. Of course, that person can commit a sin, yet repent and ask God for forgiveness and be cleansed. We do this daily.

Paul C.,

So what does it take to become lost-again? Any sin? One of a certain class of sins? An attitude regarding sin? If it is possible for the saved to be lost-again, what does it take for this to happen?

How shall I give thee up.

Fixed it.

Or can any sin make us less righteous?

How can I become unworthy of something given to me by grace?

Paul C., are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

No – just a Christian (non-denominational).

So what does it take to become lost-again? Any sin? One of a certain class of sins? An attitude regarding sin? If it is possible for the saved to be lost-again, what does it take for this to happen?

I think the best way to answer this might be to quote directly from the scriptures.

Matthew 18: unmerciful servant
Matthew 24: the unfaithful servant
Matthew 25: the foolish virgins
Matthew 25: slothful servant
Matthew 25: sheep and goats
John 15: the unfruitful branches
1 Cor 10: Israel being saved from Egypt but destroyed in the wilderness as an example to us
Hebrews 6 & Hebrews 10
Rev 2& 3: “I know your works” with admonitions to repent

There are others as well. But the Lord is the judge – He makes it abundantly clear in His word that we are to endure in faith and not draw back into a sinful lifestyle. If we do sin, we have an advocate with the Father and can ask forgiveness.

But we are weighed according to our works.

” Behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”

No sin can make you lost again

That’s not what the Bible says.

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with apostasy.

And Hebrews 10 doesn’t refer to apostasy either.

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

You see, this is where I think reading the Gospels with the proper eschatological and cultural lens is important.

Phil, if I recall, according to your lens, Jesus has “been returning for the last 2000 years”. In fact, according to Chris L, Jesus actually and physically returned in AD 70…

So yes, there were some Jews who had missed the point, and were in danger of facing judgment.

He was speaking directly to His very own disciples (not just Jews), offering warnings. If the warnings are false, so are the promises.

But I don’t know that we can say that facing judgment equal losing their salvation.

Ask the slothful servant what being bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness means. Ask the unforgiving servant. Or the discarded branch. Ask the people of Matthew 7. I wonder how seriously the churches in Rev 2 & 3 took His warnings?

“No, no… he’s just kidding. He would like us to repent, but guess what? Even if we don’t we’re OK.”

Read 1 Cor 10: After recounting God’s goodness to Israel and their backsliding, Paul admonishes those in the church:

These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!

This guy is a joke.

Besides his very myopic view of atonement (my goodness, to say God smiled as he beat the %&#% out of his Son) and the fear tactics of hell that he employs, he has greatly distorted the character of God. Interesting how he quotes Jer. 15 as his proof-text. Perhaps he never read Hosea 11: 8 – “How can I give you up, Israel?….My compassion grows warm and tender.” And who does this compassion turn to? The same people who in verse 2 he says, “they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and offering incense to idols.” To these people God says, “I will not execute my fierce anger; I will not again destroy Israel…I will not come in wrath.” (11:9).

This is works based salvation through and through. Really God has little to do with any of this. Certainly the incarnation and resurrection are useless dogmas of the church when held up against this guy’s tirade.

Oh, and “hi” everyone. I couldn’t resist.

grace and peace.

Phil,

Thanks, that was good. I agree with every word of your answer I think, but of course I would never do anything to tick off my wife

for those that are in covenant relationship with God, He doesn’t keep track of our sins. He forgets them!

I also agree with that; but if we don’t admit failure and make that trek back towards home (which can be a rough road sometimes) we could end up wallering around in pig slop instead of have daddy run out to meet us to receive the ring and the robe.

Thinking back to the original video, that guy was pretty bad. Preaching that relates repentance to salvation without pointing to the mercy of Christ is not “Good News”.

Any gospel that relies on my degree of repentence is not the gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace is grace.
Mercy is mercy.
Forgiveness is forgiveness.

Christ in me the hope of glory.
The essence of redemption’s story.

A man or woman can fall away from the faith and end up being lost. Of course, that person can commit a sin, yet repent and ask God for forgiveness and be cleansed. We do this daily.

First, how does one “fall” away from the faith? I am as guilty as the next about using Christian-ese, but the word “fall” makes it sound so accidental. I don’t believe it is.

Secondly, yes, I sin and repent often, but that is out of my relationship with Christ and love for Him. In reality, ALL my sins, not just past but also future sins, have been forgiven already. Otherwise I would have to make sure that I had asked forgiveness JUST before I died in order to not leave any sins “unforgiven”, thus casting myself into the “fallen” realm. Believe me, I have worked this scenario out over and over in my head, because I grew up believing this. Not the fault of my parents or church, but it was just never explained well to me, and I was VERY legalistic. I am now recovering from that malady, and on my way to recovery. Thanks for the get-well cards!

But seriously, Jesus’ sacrifice was to cover the sins of the world, past, present, and future.

No one came into the kingdom of God by ceasing to sin, and no one is kicked out because of sin. On the contrary, the Scriptures indicate that the sin of some Corinthian believers were so grevious that God took them home prematurely.

Some of Mike Ratliff’s post are somewhat perfectionist and almost openly deny a “carnal Christian”. Paul refers to many Corinthians as such, and how can you rectify some believers who end up with their works being burned up, but their soul being saved?

However the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches the possibility of a believer, who was sanctified by the blood of Christ, who now contends the blood is an unholy thing. That is serious business.

Hebrews is clear, though, once you deny the faith there remains no more room for repentance.

A man, assuming he becomes born again, can only be lost by denying his faith in Christ. Every believer sins every day, but those who are careless, assuming they belong to Christ, will be chastened.

It was not our labor to quit sinning that brought us into the kingdom, and it will not be sin that escorts someone out. There is such a thing as “easy believism”, however only God knows those that are His.

It was not our labor to quit sinning that brought us into the kingdom

Surely I don’t think anyone at all is arguing this.

Rick: it will not be sin that escorts someone out.

compared with the author of Hebrews:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

only God knows those that are His.

True.

Christians struggle with all sorts of different sins post-conversion.

True as well. I for one rely on God’s goodness and unmerited mercy daily.

And I don’t think anyone is trying to put a quota on how many sins your allowed, which sins are allowable and which are not. My question is in regards to scripture and what it says.

I put together a few verses above, such as 2 Peter 2, but no one has really interacted with these and I am curious as to why.

Sorry about the formatting – someone can fix it if necessary.

But the wound could be self-inflicted.

BINGO!

But I am curious as to why the scriptures aren’t engaged… such as this one (and others mentioned above):

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Where are we getting this concept of ‘once saved always saved’?

Where are we getting this concept of ‘once saved always saved’?

Well, I don’t believe in this concept, either. I do believe someone can stop believing in Christ.

But I don’t think people “lose their salvation”. I guess the main thing is I have a problem speaking of salvation as something we own in the first place. I think it makes a lot more sense to speak in terms of relationship. I think of salvation in terms of knowing God and being known by Him. That’s why in Matthew 7, the ones who Jesus tells to depart are the ones who He says He doesn’t know.

Sin is what happens when we stray from God and do our own thing. So I don’t think it’s our sin that cuts us off from God, at least directly. But rather it can prevent us from having a relationship with Him. But even when we do sin, I believe God does not just let us go easily. He is looking and waiting for us to turn back so He can run to us.

Guys like that video guy take great delight in being doctrinally pure, and magnify sin in a way that attacks those who do not rather than reach out to the lost.

This is an addiction that once it puts a person into its bondage, that believer is consumed with shallow and false teachers. I have heard them teach truth, not as a cleaning agent for them and their listeners, but many times as a award ceremony among themselves.

#50, but I don’t the discussion is as much about this gentleman on the video as much as addressing the questions posed by Eugene. Rick, how would you actually address the scriptures pointed to?

Phil, how would you address the scriptures specifically that I pointed to?

Well, in Romans 12, prior to Paul talking about Israel being “cut off” he says that they have not stumbled so far as to fall beyond recovery. It seems they were cut off with redemptive purposes in mind – meaning they would become jealous of the Gentiles’ new found relationship with God and turn back.

2 Peter 2 is talking about false teachers who are pretty much in open rebellion against God. It isn’t saying anything about Christians who somehow fall into sin or even struggle with sin. So if a person calls himself a Christian but outright denies Christ is Lord, he is obviously trying to serve two masters, and there is a problem.

I honestly find this conversation not that useful anymore. Like Zan, I grew up in an environment where I was in constant fear about “losing my salvation”. I remember speakers telling groups of teenagers to make sure they confess all their every night in case they died overnight. There was really no assurance of salvation. I almost consider it a form of spiritual manipulation at best and abuse at worst. It reduced the Gospel to being simply about sin neutralization and made it seem like the only reason Jesus was so we would stop sinning and ticking God off. That’s really just a caricature of the Gospel, and I honestly wonder how many of those speakers actually knew God now. They certainly didn’t do a good job of representing Him.

Anyway, I don’t find it very useful to spend a whole lot of time talking about how one loses his salvation. I find it more useful simply encouraging others to stay close to God simply because God loves them and will keep them.

I pledge allegiance…

2 Peter 2 is talking about false teachers who are pretty much in open rebellion against God. It isn’t saying anything about Christians who somehow fall into sin or even struggle with sin.

That is incorrect. The first part of 2 Peter warns about these false teachers, BUT the part that I quoted speaks of the impact they have on the individuals who accepted Christ, but then fell into sin and are “again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.”

Notice they had escaped through Christ – only to be entangled again, and now worse off (aka Hebrews 6).

Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

These are serious scriptures.

I find it more useful simply encouraging others to stay close to God simply because God loves them and will keep them.

it’s a shame that Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John and others didn’t think the same way. It’s a balance Phil (like Acts 20 and Paul’s warning there).

Romans 11 tells us that we stand by faith.

And we do. I think there is confusion over what we might be arguing. A couple points:

1. I am not in constant flux between whether I am saved or not
2. No is advocating if we do enough for God we will warrant/earn salvation, neither am I saying that if you pass you ’sin quota’ you’re a goner

But when we overlook scripture wholesale because it doesn’t mesh with a doctrine, aren’t we doing the same thing Rick accused this man represented of the video of?

If we can overcome the 2 points I mentioned, then the discussion is not about the do’s and don’t’s and fear of losing salvation.

That is incorrect. The first part of 2 Peter warns about these false teachers, BUT the part that I quoted speaks of the impact they have on the individuals who accepted Christ, but then fell into sin and are “again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.”

No it doesn’t. Here’s the whole paragraph:

17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”[f]and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

That whole paragraph is speaking of the false teachers themselves. Peter is comparing them to Balaam who knew what he was supposed to do but didn’t do it. So it seems Peter is saying these false teachers somehow know what they are preaching is false, but they still continue teaching a lie. In essence, they are mocking God. Certainly they can be dangerous to people, but why would someone who is ignorant and believes a false teacher somehow be better off for never hearing about Christ?

Peter’s argument is that teacher’s who deliberately disobey would be better off because they wouldn’t have had a chance to disobey had they not actually known the truth at some time. It seems that a person’s accountability has to somewhat with what he actually understands.

#61: “Why don’t you agree with me?”

Not really Rick. There is not a scriptural basis that supports that works (or your response to God’s grace is unimportant or immaterial).

On the other hand there are dozens (see the scriptures mentioned above) of instances where Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude and James saw a response to the word of God as absolutely critical.

When Jesus returns He will not be looking for talents buried in the ground – rather He is looking for a response to the grace He invested in us as evidenced in how we lived. No response? No eternal life.

Anyone who preaches ‘once saved always saved’ is promoting a false gospel. Anyone who supports the fact that I can accept Christ, continue to live like the devil all my days and still receive eternal life is a deceiver.

Again there is confusion here: works is not a bad word. Paul did not condemn works, but the Judaizers who maintained that adherence to ceremonial laws as the path to salvation.

James 1: Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.

Would you condemn James?

Sorry #64 – the beginning part should read:

There is not a scriptural basis that supports that works (or your response to God’s grace) are unimportant or immaterial.

Paul,
I don’t think anyone is saying that striving to live for God is a bad thing or even not part and parcel to salvation.
There is a paradox throughout all of scripture, however, that insists that God saves entirely apart from anything we can do, are doing or will do with the idea that once one is saved they will grow in stature and be more and more conformed to the image of Christ, and doing so ensures their salvation.

I do not think the assurance of salvation is from God’s perspective. That is where, perhaps, the disagreement lies here. It is not God that needs to be convinced of our acceptance into the Kingdom. That has already been done in Jesus, who reconciled ALL things to God and has gathered up “all things.” Our good works, while not necessary to put us in any better standing with God, are what give us confidence to stand boldly before the throne.

It is a mistake to think that our individual sins (especially the venial, arbitrary ones listed by this quack on the video) undo everything Jesus has already done. If it were the case, where do you draw the line? According to this guy, if I am in a car wreck and my last dying word is F&#K!, then I am, well, f*&$ed.

Chad, you are basically advocating the same thing – no matter what we do or how we live, we still attain eternal life. That is wrong.

Wrong.

You are right only if you reduce “eternal life” to life after death in some heaven or hell. That isn’t what “eternal life” is (although it includes that).
You cannot have “eternal life “and live however you want because eternal life means a life today, now, with God. For every act done outside of God you are becoming less and less human – you are becoming less than the human God created you to be and are thereby not having what Jesus called “abundant life” (life in God).

This isn’t about what happens to you after you die. It’s about today. As Paul said, “TODAY is the day of your salvation.”

I agree, Rick. I would also add that God’s judgment always has an end in mind: To bring about repentance. God is not out to slap us down or smite us just to prove God’s self right.

I think the entire video is off balance because it stands on a faulty understanding of atonement. When you are convinced that violence, and at that, child abuse, is the means by which God brings about reconciliation to God’s self, than everything is out of whack. It is only fitting that people who espouse PSA would think of God as some angry grouch who can’t wait to smite those who screw up – I mean, if he beat the crap out of his own son and did it with a smile, what chance do we have?

it’s sick, really.

Those of us who believe in the penal view do not consider God in the caricature you portrayed Him.

Sure you do, Rick. Of course no one ever says they view God in this way because it sounds so heinous. But it is the de facto portrait of God whether those who claim PSA own it or not. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck – it’s a duck.

And I would disagree with your view that God has actively “killed children.” But that is for another time perhaps.

Rick, just out of curiosity, humor me for a second…

Can you paint me a picture of Jesus killing a child?

That isn’t an answer to the question, Rick.

Can you paint me a picture of Jesus killing a child? I’ll make it even easier: Can you paint a picture of Jesus torturing or abusing a person of any age?

Well, if you satisfied that is all that matters.

Some things never change.

lol Paul. Yeah, you rooted me out once again

No chance at all that the questions I ask are meant to engender deeper conversation or to help bring to light potential inconsistencies in the doctrines people seem to cherish, but I am actually satan, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, seeking to destroy your faith by placing cunning stumbling blocks (or holes) in your path.

I’m actually typing this with my pitch fork.

So, Rick, how would interpret the parable of the talents – specifically the man who buried it in a napkin?

Or how would you explain the unfruitful branches and the consequences they face in John 15?

What would you say about Jesus’ introduction to each of the 7 churches in which he opens, “I know your works”?

Can you address these specifically to add some clarity as I’d like to understand how you see this.

Regarding the scripture you quote, here’s the context:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Notice that Paul is saying the work began in us irrespective of any works. In other words, no one can say, “God started a work in me because I was so good and warranted His attention.” It is solely grace. But once we have received this grace, we do have a responsibility to live for God. As Peter said beautifully, we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God.”

A steward has a duty indeed.

I agree Phil. Paul, I need not reiterate my views on the plave parables have in interpreting doctrine.

We are created to do good works, and we will be judged by our work or lack thereof, but that judgment isn’t a matter of one’s eternal state.

Can you elaborate a little on this? We will be judged, but that judgment has no bearing eternally?

I need not reiterate my views on the plave parables have in interpreting doctrine.

Rick, it’s not just the parables – it’s the epistles and Rev as well. Can you not shed light on how you would look at the parables discussed though?

Phil, I believe Jesus was speaking specifically of personal salvation – see the parable of the servant at the end of Matthew 24, the parable of the virgins and the parable of the sheep and goats. I believe these are not indicating Israel – he is speaking to the disciples.

The talent is the grace of God that is deposited in each of us – all at varying degrees (5 talents, 2 talents, 1 talent, etc). All of the virgins received grace, but not all activated it.

In 1 Cor 10, Paul recounts how Israel received marvelous grace, but because of their response, many died in the wilderness – a warning to us.

I think you’re reading too much of a modern individualist mindset back into the Disciples’ worldview. You have to remember that as Jews, they believed there was no salvation apart from being associated with the Jewish people. So they would only be saved as long as Israel was saved. They may have had some idea that God would keep a remnant of faithful Jews as He had in the past, but the phrase “personal salvation” would seem odd to them.

I think the Disciples were still thinking of salvation in terms of God vindicating Israel at the point when Jesus was telling these parables. They were thinking of Yahweh keeping His promise to Abraham. So perhaps they were thinking that judgment would come, and some would be spared and Israel would somehow pull through as it always had. But I don’t think they were thinking that Jesus was talking of a way that individuals would be saved in the afterlife. In a Jewish worldview, salvation is more a process that one can take part in.

I guess I would think of it like this. When the Allied forces freed Europe from Nazi control, a citizen living in the occupied territory could choose to help them, resist them or be neutral. In the end, though, the liberation was going to happen regardless of their help. Those who resisted and who were neutral didn’t necessarily reap the benefits of the liberation in the same way those who aided did. That doesn’t mean that some who didn’t take part weren’t also freed at some point, though, too. Although there were some who died while resisting.

#93 – That seems to indicate, when taken within the context of the entire New Testament, that if a sinner does not believe the gospel and continues in his sinful life there will be consequences.

Every believer sins willfully.

“Maybe our idea of paradise being a perpetual Caribbean vacation or worship service plays into this as well.”

Yea, we all know the New Jerusalem will be in South Bend.

But it is us – you and I – who can leave this covering in pursuit of this world, in pursuit of sin, in pursuit of error. When we do so (as per Hebrew 10, 1 Cor 10) there are eternal consequences if we don’t repent.

I guess to me, the whole argument is sort of a red herring. I don’t see anyone, even the biggest defenders of “once saved, always saved” encouraging Christians to live however the heck they want. I kind of think it’s a bit of propaganda that people use against people to some degree.

I can’t say I’ve ever met a Christian who really thinks they should just continue sinning. At least not someone who wasn’t simply a nominal Christian.

How is it that the man living with his father’s wife, a sin so serious that it was not even committed by the unbeliever, did not lose his salvation??

How is it that the man living with his father’s wife, a sin so serious that it was not even committed by the unbeliever, did not lose his salvation??

Because that wasn’t the end of the story.

Paul rebuked the brethren at Corinth for being “puffed up” and directed the man who was in sin to be delivered “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The result of the action of the church as Paul instructed was the man repented and joy filled the saints at Corinth. (2 Corinthians 2:3-11).

The reason the brethren were “puffed up” was because sin was among them and they chose to do little about it. It might have because they felt “covered by grace” as some would argue.

“Nothing you can do can separate you from the salvation offered through Christ!”

Initially, sin was not viewed as serious nor important to purge out. But, again, the story was not over:

2 Corinthians 7:9-11 – “Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter.”

Paul, so am I.

What kind of sinfull life necessitates someone being turned over to Satan and yet Paul says he still could be saved?

I consider that handing a man or woman over to Satan is a little above my pay grade. Apostolic authority carries significant weight here. I don’t know if Paul was setting a precedent here – remember, he was dealing with a specific problem, not formulating a doctrine on how to deal with things.

But do you get the point? He repented and was restored. No repentance? No restoration.

This is a virtual replica of the prodigal son being played out in real life.

I am not against doctrine and firm theological truth. What is disconcerting and blinding is when pre-formulated teachings lock out plain truth.

The only problem with this is that to you “plain truth” seems to mean the way you see things. I don’t think most people will believe something that is obviously proven false, but there are some things where there is room for debate on either side.

This is really the same argument you fell back on when we were discussing eschatology. The way you read the text it was saying something that in your mind was obvious and should have been obvious to everyone. However, the fact is that what seems obvious to isn’t necessarily obvious .

It’s not that people are trying to obfuscate things with theories, but rather simply trying to take the facts and tie them together in a way that makes sense. That’s not simply theorizing for the sake of theorizing. It’s simply trying to harmonize the facts. I liken it to a police officer trying to put together an accident report after listening to several witnesses. A lot of times witness will prevent things that are seemingly contradictory or offer different timings. It’s obvious that something happened, but there are gaps that have to filled through logical deduction and recreation of the event.

I do believe the Holy Spirit plays a big role in Scriptural application, but I also think we need to be careful in taking a Scripture which speaks to us in a certain and universalizing it for everyone. I do think that in general a Biblical text has one meaning, but perhaps many applications.

Sorry:

re 109: Now if something doesn’t fit that doctrine, we are UNwilling to abandon what might otherwise be plain because there might be too much of a cost involved with reorienting our position.

There’s only a handful of commenters here who have attended seminary as far as I know.

Phil, I’m not throwing off on any commenters here specifically. Again, these are just observations in general. But we do discuss “theories” here quite often: some truthful and some not so truthful.

If something is true, it’s true regardless if a seminary professor or truck driver says it.

Wonderful in theory… But when I start seeing as many quotes from “Buck the Driver” I’ll be more convinced

In some ways I think the characterization of all academics as useless theorists is quite annoying.

Again, you are missing the point of the comment in #107.

I guess the other thing I find amazing is that you seem to be willing to summarily write off whole swaths of scholars without actually reading what they have written.

Think you’re taking things a bit far here Phil. Believe it or not I do read.

The only problem with this is that to you “plain truth” seems to mean the way you see things. I don’t think most people will believe something that is obviously proven false, but there are some things where there is room for debate on either side.

QFT

Others? Who besides Rick? My apologies for taking the traditional stance on eschatology for the first 1850 years of the church rather than the pipe dream of a snake-oil salesman and an adolescent girl with a “vision”.

Chris, read the thread again if you wish. You made some interesting claims that raised some eyebrows outside of me and Rick, but this one topped them all:

Jesus returned physically in AD70 – that’s precisely what happens when you come up with a theory and then try to squeeze everything into it (round peg, square hole theology).

You also tried to argue, however flimsy, that the man in 2 Thess 2 was either Domitian or Nero, even though that individual – whoever he may be – will be destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming.

There were some other interesting comments as well.

Phil, here’s the context:

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

It requires a significant dose of gymnastics to pull this out of context and apply it to Nero or Domitian.

Here we see a direct confrontation, precisely like Rev 19 which has yet to be fulfilled as well.

But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Again, this is a direct confrontation when Jesus finally returns to establish His kingdom on the earth.

Yes, of course Chad… it’s all poetry. It’s not actual prophesy at all, is it? So clear now.

BTW, how’s your research coming that proves Songs of Solomon was the most-preached from book in the early church?

Feel free to browse my blog for notes on most of this awesome book.

I remember reading an article you put out on Revelation in the past.

We do violence to the text and dishonor the message when we reduce it to some sort of Left Behind novel.

Here we go again… As I told Chris L, I’ve never read the books or seen the video. Sorry to disappoint, otherwise it would be so easy to pigeon-hole.

But prophesy does not mean reading tarot cards that predict some future thousands of years down the road that has nothing to do with the audience at hand.

It’s a wonder the Isaiah saw the coming of the Messiah hundreds of years before His incarnation. After all, it had “nothing to do with the audience at hand.”

John is writing to 7 churches with real needs, concerns and issues. He is their pastor.
He is also a prophet. And a poet.

John wasn’t just sitting on the island, bored stiff and then decided to put together a puzzle for the ages. Jesus is the messenger of the Book of Revelation. John is simply the vessel. The hope of the book is the hope of all who will believe throughout this age until Jesus’ return.

Jesus returned physically in AD70 – that’s precisely what happens when you come up with a theory and then try to squeeze everything into it (round peg, square hole theology).

Actually, if you reread the thread, I said I thought it might be possible that his return was a physical one. My position is the traditional one of the first 1800 years of the church – that the destruction of Jerusalem was (in the very least) the coming of judgment proclaimed by Jesus upon Jerusalem – and whether that return was literal or in consequence is really immaterial.

There are no round pegs in square holes, unless you start venturing into modernist Hal Lindsay (premil dispensationalist) territory.

You also tried to argue, however flimsy, that the man in 2 Thess 2 was either Domitian or Nero, even though that individual – whoever he may be – will be destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming.

Nothing flimsy in that view. Just ask R.C. Sproul…

As for being destroyed by Jesus’ coming, it seems to me that – as Phil notes – in the course of history this is exactly what has occurred. You’re just falling into the same trap as Jesus’ disciples and the zealots of his time – expecting a political, physical kingdom and literal-physical judgment for all prophecy.

Yes, of course Chad… it’s all poetry. It’s not actual prophesy at all, is it? So clear now.

Actually, most scholars (& non-scholars) believe that Revelation is of the apocalyptic genre. (Hence, many translations referring to Revelation as “The Apocalypse of John”) Granted, most Christians have no concept of what “apocalyptic” means when applied to literature. Thus, they inadvertently place “apocalyptic” as synonymous with “(future) prophetic”. This is absolutely not the case.

Apocalyptic literature was used to symbolically convey modern events in a way that described them from a mystical standpoint. Its purpose is to explain – to reveal – how things really work that weren’t previously known before they were revealed in the apocalyptic work.

The modernist/literalist bent has tried to force Revelation into a genre of predictive prophecy – which is not at all. Rather, it is an explanation of the events in progress, recently completed, or very soon to come. The opening letters to the Seven Churches make it quite clear that John’s letter is very current and applicable to its readers. Its readers would understand (especially from the numeric use of 616/666) that John was making numerous references to the Caesars – something the early church also understood VERY well, up until the advent of the printing press, at which point literalism and individualism took hold.

I’m sorry if you’re disappointed in God for not writing a literalist book to people who were not literalists.