Are Calvinism and Arminianism Reconciled? [Archive]

Provoker

November 22nd 2005, 12:10 AM

Hello Bernie:
Being a "fundamentalist" in the strict sense of the word, it is my opinion that to discover what the word "saved" refers to, we have to go back to the "first things" from which the need for salvation came.
First, let me point out that while one third of the bible is made up of prophecy, which was given to warn the children of Israel that they were out of favour with God, the children of Israel were never told that they, or anyone else, was under condemnation because of Adam's "sin". In fact, while the the covenant nation of Israel kept God's laws, Israelites were completely justified, and I'm absolutely sure that God would not have made an everlasting covenant, which was dependant upon Israel keeping God's laws, if Israel was already separated from God by Adam's "sin".
If Israel failed to keep God's laws, it broke the covenant, but when Israel then repented, all was well, and Israel was again ***justified with God***.
The last time that covenant Israel broke the covenant, it was when the kingdom became divided against it'self during Solomon's reign, and split into two enemy nations when Solomon died. The reason it was the last time that Israel broke the covenant, is because since the two enemy nations remained enemies until both went to their respective, national destructions, the covenant nation of Israel, which had not existed since the **fall** of the covenant nation of Israel, Israel never repented.
If we read the conditions of the everlasting covenant between God and Israel, we find that if Israel kept God's laws, God would make Israel into a great nation, through which all the peoples of the world would be blessed, so when covenant Israel **fell**, all the peoples of the world fell, because their blessing from God is
dependant on covenant Israel becoming a great nation.
With the fall of Israel, the whole world entered a fallen state, but...the old covenant is everlasting, and salvation for Israel, and by extension, the whole world, requires that the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel is resurrected to repentance, so that God can again turn His face toward Israel, and all the peoples of the earth.
Now since the everlasting old covenant requires Israel to be keeping God's laws, before God can make Israel a great nation, then it is up to those who have the kingdom of Israel in their hearts and minds, to resurrect the kingdom on their own, before Israel can repent, and before God can become involved again with Israel.
While the former subjects of Judah were captive in Babylon, a prophet **predicted** that a child will be born, who who will receive the kingdom of his father David, and upon hearing this "gospel of the kingdom", all those Jews who accepted this gospel of the kingdom into their hearts and minds, became messianic("christian" in first century Greek), and began to watch and wait for the prophesied messiah, who will be the first king on David's throne, since Solomon.
The Jews who returned to Judea after the captivity ended, expecte the messiah to come soon, but after being allowed, by their foreign rulers, to govern themselves just as if their kingdom existed, they lost interest in kingdom resurrection, and became the backslidden lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus came re-proclaiming the "gospel of the kingdom", which had first been proclaimed by prophets in Babylon, 500 to 600 years earlier, and he was bringing the lost sheep(backslidden Jews) back into the fold of the kingdom resurrection movement.
When Jesus raised Lazarus from the tomb, so many Jews began to follow Jesus, that the chief priests and Pharisees feared that Jesus would make an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Rome and resurrect the kingdom, and then the Roman army would come and kill all the Jews. They saw that the solution was in killing Jesus before he could move against Rome, so Jesus would die to save all the Jews, and the whole world.
The chief priests and Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus, captured him, and turned him over to the Romans for execution.
In summary: Salvation for Israel, and by extension, for the whole world, is in the resurrection of the kingdom of Israel to repentance, so that God's plan to bless all the peoples of the world, can continue.
God knows that even after Israel is resurrected and repented, that it will break the covenant again, so He will make a new everlasting covenant with resurrected Israel, not to replace the old everlasting covenant, but to write God's laws on the hearts and minds of resurrected Israel, so that all will know God, and forever do by nature the things contained in the law.
When resurrected Israel forever does by nature the things contained in the law, the old covenant will then be fulfilled forever, and all of God's promises will have been fulfilled. His promise to Abraham that his seed would inherit the land between the Euphrates and the Nile forever, and His promise to David and Solomon that He would establish their kingdom forever.
So Israel's salvation will be made everlasting by the new covenant between God and resurrected Israel.
Personal salvation of the individual, is spiritual, and occurs when whosoever will accept the gospel of the kingdom, becomes a true Jew...an **Israelite in spirit**(spiritual Israel/the spiritual kingdom) and receives **Israel's everlasting salvation in spirit**. "Spiritual" meaning having something in one's heart and mind, which is yet to literally come to pass.
Sorry for the length of the post, but the context of the whole story is necessary to show what "salvation" is, because it cannot be shown with just a bunch of selected single verses.
What do you think?

Evangelist

November 22nd 2005, 07:41 AM

Revelation 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=2&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Provoker

November 22nd 2005, 01:55 PM

Hello Paul:
Would you care to debate any particular points in my post?
Remember the statement at the top of the page..."we debate theology...seriously"
The simple quoting of an individual verse, without it being qualified with context, means nothing to anyone but the quoter...LOL

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Bernie

November 22nd 2005, 06:06 PM

Hello Provoker,

Glad to see you made it over.

I've copied and printed your initial post for reading tonight and [hopefully] response tomorrow, though with the holidays coming due I might not get back to you for a couple days....doing some travelling. I'd like to respond to the post you made in evangelist's thread first, though.

To see if I'm understanding you correctly....re your view on those who possess the 'spirit of the kingdom of Israel in their hearts' and God's promises thereto, would you say that God's promise to Abram in Gen 22:17-18 has only a spiritual significance?

When you speak of a "body of true Jews who will watch and wait for the messiah to come and resurrect the covenant nation/kingdom", are you suggesting that only those who hold to a premillenialist eschatology are of God's spiritual kingdom?

What, in your view, are the doctrines created by the Roman empire to cover up/deceive the notion of the true kingdom (am I interpreting you correctly?), which you see as creating the false premise of current soteriology?

Final note, unlike you, I have a great amount of respect for the theology of some of those who "lived when the earth was flat". Descriptive [scientific] truth and prescriptive [spiritual] truth are of a different nature. To err in the former due to limited knowledge of the world at that time has no bearing on the legitimacy of the latter....in fact, even the distinction bewteen descriptive and prescriptive truth, revealed to the Greeks by God and carried over into Christianity by the early fathers and scholastics seems largely lost today. I don't think moderninity is a guarantee of validity.

Looking forward to some honorable dialog.

Provoker

November 22nd 2005, 11:07 PM

Hello Bernie:
First let me say that it is obvious when one reads the bible, that much of it is metaphorical, and the fact that it is common to find Christians speculating on the meaning of metaphores in the books of Daniel and Revelation, indicates that most bible believers recognize the fact of metaphores in scripture.
How to recognize a metaphore may be debatable, but to me there is a simple rule that I apply, and that is; If a recorded event is impossible within my knowledge and experience, than I expect that it is probably metaphorical, and if a recorded event is probable within my knowledge and experience, then I expect that it probably took place.
This does not stop me from believing that an omnipotent God can do absolutely anything He chooses to do, but I tend to think that a righteous and holy God, will probably operate within the logical physical rules He has placed all mankind under.
In other words, just because God could, does not mean that He did.
Another point which is necessary to make, is that whenever something good happens, the religious always say; "God did it!", and whenever something bad happens, the religious always say; "God is teaching us a lesson", or "God had a greater purpose in this that we just don't understand." In other words, those who have God in their hearts and minds, naturally see everything in terms which give God the glory.
It is a nice sentiment, but it is not necessarily the way every event is.
Having said that, I see catastrophic events like those recorded to have taken place in Egypt before the exodus, as natural events which gave the children of Israel the chance to escape from Egypt, and in the later telling of the story, the story tellers simply gave God all the glory for what happened.
Recorded events which could not have taken place naturally, I tend to think of as metaphorical, such as the raising of Lazarus from the dead, after he had been in the tomb long enough to speculate that he might "stinketh". However, what took place could have just been a very elaborate baptism ceremony, which is symbolic death, burial, and resurrection to newness of life. We know from the confession of one of the early church fathers(Clement?), that he edited out the portion of scripture after the raising of Lazarus, because it might have been construed that Jesus was a homosexual. The portion that Clement edited out, according to his own testimony, said that Lazarus, wearing nothing but a sheet, spent the night with Jesus, who taught him the mysteries of the kingdom. We know that this portion of scripture did exist, because it remains extant in "gospels" which were rejected from the canon. In any case, it does sound as though Lazarus' resurrection was an initiatory step before Jesus would teach him the mysteries of the kingdom.
However, these are simply examples of my evidence, and are not the subject of discussion in this thread. Suffice to say that I tend to see the logical answer, rather than go looking for a mystical answer. I use Ocham's razor...LOL
The Hebrew and Greek words which are rendered as "spirit" in English, literally mean "breath of life(normal respiration)", and can also mean "wind". I believe that the metaphorical use of the word "spirit", refers to that which is in one's heart and mind, which is the "breath of life" to his attitudes and actions. If one is inclined towards holiness, he has a holy spirit, and if one is inclined towards evil, he has an evil spirit. If one's spirit of holiness is shared by a whole assembly, it becomes "the" holy spirit because it is specific.
Things, and people, which are no longer with us, but which we have fond memories of, exist in our hearts and minds as "spirits", and things which we watch and wait for, but are not yet here, exist in our hearts and minds as "spirits". When we wax nostalgic about someone or something from our past, that person or thing comes to our heart and mind in spirit.
When someone fondly remembers the stories of the long lost covenant nation/kingdom of Israel, he has the spirit of Israel/the spirit of the kingdom, in his heart and mind. He is part of spiritual Israel. By the same token, when someone anxiously watches and waits for the Davidic covenant nation/kingdom of Israel to be resurrected, he has the spirit of Israel/the spirit of the kingdom, in his heart and mind.
In other words, what one wishes he had, but he doesn't have at present, he has in spirit only.
It is my opinion that to have the spirit of the kingdom in one's heart and mind, is a natural thing, not a supernatural thing, and is the dimplr result of acceptance, by faith, of the "good news" that the kingdom(which has only existed in hearts and minds since it's fall) is really going to be resurrected by the messiah.
Regarding God's promise to Abraham, I see that as literal, however, I see Abram's seed as spiritual, because God can raise up the seed of Abraham from stones if He chooses, and Abraham's seed always included those non-descendants of Abraham, who lived lawfully within the assembled seed of Abraham, and we know that those who have believed in the christ, have become Abraham's seed by imputation(grafted in).
I do not see my scriptural opinions as relative to any man-made, man-named, theological theories, I only see the logical order of events, according to the one story which runs with continuity from Genesis to Revelation.
The way I see it, any question as to the order of events around the millenial reign, only exist because of attempting to determine the order by interpreting single verses, rather than letting the greater context of the whole bible story, show the logical order of events.
Incidently, I too have respect for those who lived "when the earth was flat". They did the best they could with what they had. I have less respect for those who used the superstitions of that era to exert control over the masses.
Regarding the pagan doctrines, introduced by Rome, to take the emphasis off of the goal of resurrecting the Davidic kingdom, the biggest, and most obvious, is the one doctrine which was common in most pagan religions of the time and place...The doctrine of "the virgin born, dying-rising, god-man, saviour". Virtually every pre-christian pagan religion contained this doctrine, and when introduced to Christianity, it turned Jesus, the martyred messenger of messianic Judaism, into "a king", and his followers into loyal subjects of an imaginary kingdom, after Jesus' death.
The spiritual kingdom had already existed for 1000 years when Jesus died.
This is not a criticism of orthodoxy, and no offense is intended. It is simply an explanation of my honest opinion regarding what scripture teaches.

==============================================
= = = Original message = = =

To see if I'm understanding you correctly....re your view on those
who possess the 'spirit of the kingdom of Israel in their hearts' and
God's promises thereto, would you say that God's promise to Abram in
Gen 22:17-18 has only a spiritual significance?

When you speak of a "body of true Jews who will watch and wait for
the messiah to come and resurrect the covenant nation/kingdom", are
you suggesting that only those who hold to a premillenialist
eschatology are of God's spiritual kingdom?

What, in your view, are the doctrines created by the Roman empire to
cover up/deceive the notion of the true kingdom (am I interpreting
you correctly?), which you see as creating the false premise of
current soteriology?

Final note, unlike you, I have a great amount of respect for the
theology of some of those who "lived when the earth was flat".
Descriptive [scientific] truth and prescriptive [spiritual] truth are
of a different nature. To err in the former due to limited knowledge
of the world at that time has no bearing on the legitimacy of the
latter....in fact, even the distinction bewteen descriptive and
prescriptive truth, revealed to the Greeks by God and carried over
into Christianity by the early fathers and scholastics seems largely
lost today. I don't think moderninity is a guarantee of validity.

Looking forward to some honorable dialog.
==============================================

John from Ebla

November 23rd 2005, 05:19 AM

Isn’t salvation about partaking in a future resurrection- that is after we die we have the hope of immortality- been saved. Or do we die and just stay dead? What is this man made theology about the Reassertion of a nation? What good is this to anyone if they are dead? Sadducees said no resurrection after death- Pharisees had the hope of a final/last day resurrection. Is salvation about a nation resurrected or people?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Provoker

November 23rd 2005, 11:35 AM

Hello John:
As you know, there are many people who are prepared to die for a cause, even if that cause does not include a promise of everlasting life. Principle is ofter far stronger than the survival instinct.
The way I interpret scripture, and I make no claims of truth, or speaking for God...LOL, the nationalistic fervor of the first Jews(after the prophesy that a messiah would resurrect the Davidic kingdom) is what caused them to return to Judea after the captivity...to be present when the messiah came and the kingdom was resurrected.
After a while, many Jews became either disallussioned, or satisfied, and lost faith, or interest, in kingdom resurrection. This made them the back slidden lost sheep of Israel, which Jesus came to heal(their backslidings).
Sometime before the first century, a split occurred within the Judean Jews, creating a nationalist party called the Pharisees, and an anti-nationalist party called the Sadducees.
Eventually, the nationalist Pharisees wanted kingdom resurrection, but they did not want to go to war to achieve it, so those who were prepared to go to war, split off from the Pharisees and became known as "the Zealots".
When Jesus arrived on the scene with the good news that the prophesied kingdom is coming, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees(including the chief priests), both feared that if Jesus aquired a large enough following, he might launch an unsuccessful attack on Rome(in an attempt to resurrect the kingdom), and the Roman army would come and destroy all the Jews(John 11). The chief priests and the Pharisees had Jesus killed to prevent that from happening, and that is the source of the passage with says that one man would die for the whole world(God's blessing of all the peoples of the world, is inextricably tied, by the terms of the everlasting old covenant, to the resurrection, and repentance, of covenant Israel).
Those who accept the gospel of the kingdom which Jesus and his apostles preached, became committed to the resurrection, and began to watch and wait for the messiah. They received "in spirit", the everlasting salvation which would eventually be received, in fact, by the resurrected covenant nation of Israel, when after Israel's resurrection and repentance, God will make a new everlasting covenant which will make the resurrected covenant nation/kingdom of Israel everlasting, because it will cause all the Israelites, and every generation of Israelites after them, to do by nature the things contained in the law, thus forever fulfilling the everlasting old covenant.
The influence of official Rome while Rome controlled the church, subtly changed the meaning of the "common term, and incomplete sentence...""the resurrection...", in order to suppress the nationalistic zeal, of "apostolic Christians", because that zeal represented a threat to the national security of the Roman empire.
All the legitimate text of scripture supports this "unorthodox but obvious" flowing story, if scripture is read for it's flowing story, rather than for specificly selected single verses.
What do you think?

========================Original message===========================

Hello Provoker,

John from Ebla has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to
entitled - Are Calvinism and Arminianism Reconciled? - in the
Unorthodox Theology 201 forum of TheologyWeb Campus.

This thread is located at:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65842&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
==============================================
Isnâ€™t salvation about partaking in a future resurrection- that is
after we die we have the hope of immortality- been saved. Or do we
die and just stay dead? What is this man made theology about the
Reassertion of a nation? What good is this to anyone if they are
dead? Sadducees said no resurrection after death- Pharisees had the
hope of a final/last day resurrection. Is salvation about a nation
resurrected or people?

Kind regards
John From Ebla
==============================================

==============================================
Notice:
Text contained in email notifications has not been subject to
Moderator review thus TheologyWeb cannot warrant that it will fall
within the Campus Decorum. Please forward any emails that contain
items in violation of Decorum to postmaster@theologyweb.com
==============================================

There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more
notifications until you visit the campus again.

Yours,
TheologyWeb Campus team

==============================================
Unsubscription information:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/subscription.php?do=usub&t=65842

To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all

Bernie

November 23rd 2005, 05:20 PM

Hello Provoker,

You claim to be "a fundamentalist in the strict sense of the word", but we must define the word somewhat differently. Although pretty esoteric in my beliefs, I'm also a fundamentalist--probably the world's only esoteric fundamentalist, actually--according to the classical, early 20th century formula...

1. Biblical inerrancy
2. The divinity of Jesus
3. The virgin birth
4. The belief that Jesus died to redeem man
5. An expectation of the Second Coming, or physical return of Jesus Christ to initiate his 1000-year rule on the earth

I adhere to the first four; the fifth's not an essential of the faith, as I see it.

Because I like to know who I'm debating with, and because you've posed several seeming discrepancies in your views, I'd like to know where you stand in relation to the five points above. It would seem from your more recent posts that you would reject all of these, which I find confusing, given your stated fundamentalist standing.

"First, let me point out that while one third of the bible is made up of prophecy, which was given to warn the children of Israel that they were out of favour with God, the children of Israel were never told that they, or anyone else, was under condemnation because of Adam's "sin". In fact, while the the covenant nation of Israel kept God's laws, Israelites were completely justified, and I'm absolutely sure that God would not have made an everlasting covenant, which was dependant upon Israel keeping God's laws, if Israel was already separated from God by Adam's "sin".

I wondered if you were going to create a different arena to pursue this in. Outside the scope of this thread, of course, but can be addressed in another down the road a bit.

As to your first post, I have several questions, but you'll have to forgive me--the covenant and its relationship to the kingdom is an area I have little knowledge of. I've read your post over four or five times and still don't see its significance to the Calvinist/Arminian debate.

You have a very humanist view for a fundie. Some things above seem not to click here, am just trying to find out what it is before we get down to brass tacks.

Provoker

November 23rd 2005, 07:46 PM

Hello Bernie:
By "Fundamentalist", I don't mean that I am a "fundie". I mean that I consider the fundamentals of the bible, in attempting to understand the less easily understood details of the bible...LOL
In pre-first century scripture, God completely defined both the old and the new covenants, and clearly explained the reasons for making both, and when one refers back to what God said about them in the past, he is refering to the fundamentals(first things), and is therefore a fundamentalist.
The significance to the Calvinist/Aminian debate, is that I find it debatable whether either Calvin or Arminius understood the principle of either covenant, so if it can be shown that they didn't, then the age old debate about Calvin and Arminius will have been resolved.
There is only one point to my fundamentalist creed: (1) "Examine all the evidence and come to an honest conclusion, regardless of how it impacts on one's preconceptions".
If you have several questions about my first post, I would be more than happy to explain my opinions, and why I hold them:-)
Email me if you do not want to ask them in this thread...woodeye@mail.com

Evangelist

November 24th 2005, 08:30 AM

1 Corinthians 15

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

God's Word notwithstanding, Provoker dares to write,:flaming:

Regarding the pagan doctrines, introduced by Rome, to take the emphasis off of the goal of resurrecting the Davidic kingdom, the biggest, and most obvious, is the one doctrine which was common in most pagan religions of the time and place...The doctrine of "the virgin born, dying-rising, god-man, saviour".

Moerover God's Word states explicitly,

14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

It is Provoker who is found to be a false witness here, not the great Apostle Paul, not the Holy Spirit of God who spoke through Paul, and not the Holy Bible which contains not just the promise of a Messiah who would die and rise again, but the factual account of this event, and subsequent reams of Scripture giving additional comment/doctrine based on this undeniable historical fact.

Moreover, Provoker continues to deny outright, plain passages of Scripture that disagree with his cultish doctrines, claiming them all to be "Metaphore's". This only goes to show that he is ignorant of the difference between a "Metaphor" (which is merely a word-picture of an established Biblical truth) and an "outright Contradiction"; but that he does not know how to properly spell the term either.:duh:

Paul M. Blackmore

BTW Provoker, why do people like you spend time going around door to door seeking to turn people from the truth of God's Word, when there is no hell to fear and no heaven to gain anyway, according to your doctrines? It seems like a very pointless exercise IMO.:eek: Doesn't the Devil end up being the only real potential winner here?:flaming: I mean of course if by some freak happenstance the Bible turned out to be literally true in the end.

Do you really think that you have a shot at being ressurrected yourself, if the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't really ressurrected?:huh:

Luke 24:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=24&verse=25&version=9&context=verse)
Then he (the Lord Jesus Christ) said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

Bernie

November 24th 2005, 07:13 PM

Hello Provoker,

As things unfold here, I'm trying to figure out if/how we can proceed. The Calvinist/Arminian conflict is a debate between orthodox views of salvation which lie in some measure of tension and resistance to one another. Ironically, it will be found that Rational Esotericism, a view the culmination of which is considered unorthodox [the salvation of all] while based almost entirely on fundamental, orthodox principles, is able to resolve this conflict. The problem here is, you appear to reject the foundational principles that A and C presuppose in their presentations. Because of this, it's unclear to me where/how your view fits in this dialog.

Let's try this...how do you define "salvation", strictly? What specifically is it that human beings are being saved from and to?

You said,
"Personal salvation of the individual, is spiritual, and occurs when whosoever will accept the gospel of the kingdom, becomes a true Jew...an **Israelite in spirit**(spiritual Israel/the spiritual kingdom) and receives **Israel's everlasting salvation in spirit**. "Spiritual" meaning having something in one's heart and mind, which is yet to literally come to pass."

...but this begs the question. What is it that saves according to this view? Knowledge? If so, what specific knowledge is salvation? How does one obtain it?

How is your understanding of salvation met in Matthew 1:21, "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins."...if you consider Jesus to be not-God?

Also, does salvation lie in the power of the one who accepts (A) or in He who choses for man (C)?

Provoker

November 24th 2005, 08:01 PM

Hello Paul:
I guess you are not aware that the subject of this board is "unorthodox theology", and it is extremely poor etiquette to continuously make statements of accusation and inuendo about another participant who is attempting to discuss "unorthodox theology".
However, I would like to offer some more evidence for you.
The Greek word "Baptiso" actually means "to bury", and the death, burial, and resurrection, of Lazarus, and of Jesus, may have both been elaborately staged baptism ceremonies.
The very night after Jesus apparently raised Lazarus from the dead, he stayed the night and taught Lazarus the mysteries of the kingdom, so Lazarus appears to have reached a new plateau in his learning, which was accompanied by an act of baptism.
The message of Jesus was the good news that the dead and buried kingdom, was going to be resurrected, and when Jesus' mission reached the point, where execution by the Romans was his likely fate, he may have staged his death, to avoid arrest, and staged his burial, and resurrection, as a sign representing the kingdom resurrection message that he proclaimed.
One of the gospels implies that Jesus' "crucifixion" took place in the private garden of Joseph of Arimathea, for it records that Joseph of Arimethea's tomb was in the place where Jesus was crucified.
Actually, some of the gospels which were rejected by the canonizers, actually state that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that the whole thing was staged.
One of the most interesting pieces of evidence for Jesus having survived his crucifixion and burial, is found in Matthew; "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonas, for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."
I'm sure you noticed that there was no mention of anyone's death in the sign of Jonas, and all those who claim to receive signs from God, should be aware that no sign will be given but the sign of Jonas, and it is up to them to recognize what is meant by the one and only sign which is given: Jesus and Jonas are compared to show that Jonas and Jesus both **appeared** to die, but both remained **alive** in the tomb/whale's belly for three days, and were both resurrected, not from the dead, but the appearance of death, to continue to serve God. The Ninevites, who Jonas preached to after his "baptism by whale", are a judgement on all those who refuse to recognize what the sign of Jonas reveals.
I daresay, that for some unknown reason, most Christians are not even aware of the sign of Jonas...LOL

It is Provoker who is found to be a false witness here, not the great Apostle Paul, not the Holy Spirit of God who spoke through Paul, and not the Holy Bible which contains not just the promise of a Messiah who would die and rise again, but the factual account of this event, and subsequent reams of Scripture giving additional comment/doctrine based on this undeniable historical fact.

Moreover, Provoker continues to deny outright, plain passages of Scripture that disagree with his cultish doctrines, claiming them all to be "Metaphore's". This only goes to show that he is ignorant of the difference between a "Metaphor" (which is merely a word-picture of an established Biblical truth) and an "outright Contradiction"; but that he does not know how to properly spell the term either.:duh:

Paul M. Blackmore

BTW Provoker, why do people like you spend time going around door to door seeking to turn people from the truth of God's Word, when there is no hell to fear and no heaven to gain anyway, according to your doctrines? It seems like a very pointless exercise IMO.:eek: Doesn't the Devil end up being the only real potential winner here?:flaming: I mean of course if by some freak happenstance the Bible turned out to be literally true in the end.

Do you really think that you have a shot at being ressurrected yourself, if the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't really ressurrected?:huh:

Provoker

November 24th 2005, 10:36 PM

Hello Bernie:
In as short a space as I can, I will relate my synopsis of the basic bible story as it relates to Christianity and "salvation", and you can decide if you want to continue our discussion:
A mixed assembly of people exodused Egypt, becoming a nomadic people.
Since it owed no allegience to any nation, God offered to be it's government, and make it into a great nation, but only if the nation would keep God's laws. The covenant would be everlasting, and if kept it would be a blessing, and if broken it would be a curse.
All the peoples of the world are dependant on this covenant, because the great nation of Israel is to be a blessing to all the peoples of the world, and presumably, if it is broken, Israel will be a curse to all the people of the world.
Whenever Israel broke the covenant, God turned His face away, but when Israel repented, God always received Israel back into His favour.
During the reign of king Solomon, the kingdom became divided against it'self, and when Solomon died, Israel split into two enemy nations as the result of a civil war.
Obviously the covenant was broken, but the difference this time, is that because Israel no longer existed as "a" national assembly, it would not be so easy to repent.
Both enemy nations(which obviously did not love God because they did not love one another) went down to their respective destructions without repenting.
While captive in Babylon, the former subjects of the southern kingdom, received a prophesy that a messiah would come and resurrect the kingdom of his father David, which was extremely good news, because it meant the eventual repentance of Israel, and a return to God's plan to make Israel into a great nation, and a blessing to all the peoples of the world.
Salvation for Israel, and by extension, the world, will happen when Israel repents, and that can only happen when Israel exists, and Israel will only exist when the messiah resurrects Israel(the Davidic kingdom), so the first order of business for those who have the spirit of the kingdom of Israel, in their hearts, is to watch, wait, and prepare for the messiah, by enlarging the body which watches for the christ, so that there will be a large enough force for the messiah to lead successfully into the battle of Armageddon, conquering the promised land.
When the final trump sounds, indicating that the battle for the promised land has been won, then, in the twinkling of an eye, those who were Israel in spirit, will all be changed into literal Israel, resurrected from the dead. The messiah will make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and resurrect the kingdom by ascending David's throne.
Since God knows that resurrected Israel would break the covenant again, He will, by His grace, requiring nothing in return, make a new everlasting covenant with Israel, which is completely defined by God, as writing His laws forever on Israel's hearts, so that all will know God.
From then on, every generation of resurrected Israel, will forever do by nature the things contained in God's law, thus fulfilling the everlasting(old) covenant forever.
All of God's promises will be fulfilled. Abraham's seed will have inherited the promised land forever, and David's kingdom will have been established forever.
All those who chose to accept Jesus' gospel of the kingdom, became Abraham's seed, and inheritors of the promise, regardless of their genealogical or national origins, and that is the way it always was with Israel. The one and only requirement for being an Israelite, was always simply to live within the law, within the nation, and one's bloodline had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Personal salvation is spiritual. When "whosoever will" become part of the body of christ, he is prepared to follow the christ into battle for the promised land, and he has his part(in spirit) in the future salvation of the nation/kingdom of Israel, and by extension...all the peoples of the world.

= = = Original message = = =

Hello Provoker,

As things unfold here, I'm trying to figure out if/how we can
proceed. The Calvinist/Arminian conflict is a debate between
orthodox views of salvation which lie in some measure of tension and
resistance to one another. Ironically, it will be found that
Rational Esotericism, a view the culmination of which is considered
unorthodox [the salvation of all] while based almost entirely on
fundamental, orthodox principles, is able to resolve this conflict.
The problem here is, you appear to reject the foundational principles
that A and C presuppose in their presentations. Because of this,
it's unclear to me where/how your view fits in this dialog.

Let's try this...how do you define "salvation", strictly? What
specifically is it that human beings are being saved from and to?

You said,

...but this begs the question. What is it that saves according to
this view? Knowledge? If so, what specific knowledge is salvation?
How does one obtain it?

How is your understanding of salvation met in Matthew 1:21, "And she
will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who
will save His people from their sins."...if you consider Jesus to be
not-God?

Also, does salvation lie in the power of the one who accepts (A) or
in He who choses for man (C)?
==============================================

Bernie

November 25th 2005, 05:43 PM

Provoker, I appreciate your efforts, but instead of actually answering my questions, you sidestep virtually all of them, and recount the same story in response. As I'm inadequate in knowledge of God's promises to national Israel and all the nuances associated with them, material or spiritual (and haven't the time to research this right now), I depend on your answers to see if we can establish enough common ground to go forward.

Salvation, as I see it, exists in a dual structure, temporal and eternal. It appears that you might be describing, in your own terms, what seems to me to be the eternal aspect of salvation. It's pretty clear that you reject the temporal aspect, the gospel of Christ Jesus, which having its way in time, plays by time/space rules; i.e., it's subject to mutability (one can fall from grace and lose this salvation). But the temporal is subject to God's eternal decrees--some of which you seem to expound--where those who choose to not be restored the easy way (sanctification/imputed righteousness of Christ), will end up forcibly cleansed in the lake of fire, the second death (death of false information; evil). The material/mutable always bows in deference to God's sovereignty in the cosmic/universal. The C/A controversy is resolved here; God's sovereignty wins outside time, volition works (in limited sense) within it.

We seem to not be 'clicking' here, bro, enough to continue. God bless you in your walk. I hope you find Christ/Christ finds you before you reach the end of the trail.

Sheepdog

November 25th 2005, 09:30 PM

this might have been better in Theo201.

actually, Arminius himself was a Reformed pastor and teacher before he became imfamous. it should be noted that Classic Arminianism has a lot to share with Calvinism (not to mention Lutheran theology, in fact).

it's the differences, of course, that get all the attention :wink:

unfortunately, i don't see how you can have reconciliation of the two without some sort of redefinition of classic termonology, or by causing an incoherency. for instance, Calvinists believe that regeneration must come before faith, while Arminians believe it comes after. Calvinists hold that God elected people to salvation prior to any foreseen faith, while Arminians hold that God's election is based on faith. Calvinists believe that grace draws the elect irresistibly. Arminians believe God draws all but it's resistible.

these are three points i can think of offhand where Calvinism and Arminianism are mutually exclusive.

Bernie

November 26th 2005, 12:27 PM

Hello sheepdog,

I believe you're right that this thread should relocate to the theology section and considered beginning there, but because I see an end to the C/A struggles using mostly orthodox fundamentals to arrive at a somewhat unorthodox methodology I call Rational Esotericism, I assumed this view wouldn't be well received and I'd probably get placed back here anyway. So.....will try another approach here, first.

"unfortunately, i don't see how you can have reconciliation of the two without some sort of redefinition of classic termonology, or by causing an incoherency."

Then I hope you'll find time to participate in my next attempt here. Rather than causing an incoherency, I believe I can eliminate the existing incoherency between the warring sisters.

Provoker

November 27th 2005, 01:39 PM

John from Ebla

November 27th 2005, 10:15 PM

(Provoker, I appreciate your efforts, but instead of actually answering my questions, you sidestep virtually all of them)

Hello Bernie:
Sorry...I was not trying to sidestep your questions, and I tried to answer them directly, but I felt that my answers should be accompanied by a synopsis of the context from which I got my hypothesis...LOL

Let me answer your questions without a lot of commentary:

Everlasting salvation, will be literally received by the covenant nation of Israel when it is resurrected, repented, and received God's everlasting new covenant which will cause every generation of covenant Israel to do by nature the things contained in the law, thus forever fulfilling the everlasting old covenant.

Personal salvation, is salvation in spirit only. When one accepts the gospel of the kingdom(becomes committed to kingdom resurrection), the shares, in spirit, the everlasting salvation which will be received by Israel in the day of the Lord.

Is that direct and clear enough???

No it is not clear.

What about death? Do Jews still die after your so called resurrection of nation, if you answer is Yes- then what is the point of Israel having a nation and still dying (What kind of salvation is that? (Any Political leader can give them a nation) If you answer is No- then you don’t believe in the promised resurrection of the dead (immortality)

Sadducees did not believe, the Pharisees believed in a final day resurrection. Paul was a Pharisees and he taught accordingly.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Provoker

November 28th 2005, 03:35 PM

No it is not clear.

What about death? Do Jews still die after your so called resurrection of nation, if you answer is Yes- then what is the point of Israel having a nation and still dying (What kind of salvation is that? (Any Political leader can give them a nation) If you answer is No- then you don’t believe in the promised resurrection of the dead (immortality)

Sadducees did not believe, the Pharisees believed in a final day resurrection. Paul was a Pharisees and he taught accordingly.

Kind regards
John From Ebla
Hello John:
It is appointed unto man, once to die, so every man who is born will die.
Salvation is not about the everlasting life of individuals, but the everlasting life of Israel, and the everlasting salvation of all the nations of the world.
The point is not just to give the Jews a nation, the point is to resurrect God's chosen nation, which is key to God's one and only plan to save all the nations of the world.
God's chosen people/nation can be defined as a national assembly, sovereign on the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, and made up of whosoever will live according to God's laws(Love God, and love one another), to be an example to all the peoples of the world, bringing about global savation through God's laws.
The Pharisees were the nationalist political party, and they were for the resurrection of the kingdom.
The Sadducees were the anti-nationalist political party, and they were against the resurrection of the kingdom.
The resurrection from the dead, which is prophesied in the bible, is the resurrection of the kingdom, and it will take place in the twinkling of an eye. At the instant that the land, between the Euphrates and the Nile, has been taken by the assembly of "Israel in spirit", all will be changed to "Israel in actuality" resurrected from the dead.
All the individuals who are instantly changed from Israelites in spirit, to Israelites in actuality, at the resurrection, are still appointed once to die, just as everyone who ever lived, and everyone who ever will live, will die, but when God makes His everlasting new covenant with the resurrected nation/kingdom of Israel, the nation(not the individuals) will continue to be God's chosen nation forever.
Peace on earth, good will to all men, swords beaten into plowshares, and the lamb lying down with the lion, is a far more important principle than the life or death of individuals.
Salvation for the sake of one'self, is not even close to the principle of scriptural salvation.
This is only my opinion of course. Would you care to discuss how I arrived at this position through scripture?

John from Ebla

November 30th 2005, 10:34 PM

Hello John:
It is appointed unto man, once to die, so every man who is born will die.
Salvation is not about the everlasting life of individuals, but the everlasting life of Israel, and the everlasting salvation of all the nations of the world.

l have never read of such a thing and don't care about your theology on nation been a nation for everlasting.

If you live once and die- then live as you please and do as you please for it's the only short life you have. What a miserable theology you have- living for a peace of dust (land) to have name and have it for everlasting, but people will not be around for everlasting because they die and there is no ressurection fo the dead.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

.Mr.White.Socks

December 1st 2005, 02:42 AM

Would you care to discuss how I arrived at this position through scripture?

Would it happen to be from investigating the meaning of words such as ethne, ethnos, laos, etc?

Maverick

.Mr.White.Socks

December 1st 2005, 10:42 PM

Salvation is not about the everlasting life of individuals, but the everlasting life of Israel, and the everlasting salvation of all the nations of the world. The point is not just to give the Jews a nation, the point is to resurrect God's chosen nation, which is key to God's one and only plan to save all the nations of the world.

Provoker,

I understand where get your focus on national Israel, but I see something in Scripture that expands itself to include much more. It’s true that pre-exilic Hebrew prophets made many distinctions between good and evil, but weren't dualistic. There was no mention of "this world" versus "another." Their concern was with the world, and the profane did not appear as a force in its own right. However, most of those exiled to Babylon chose to remain, forming a large community, including great scholars. There was a major Jewish presence in Persia, where Persian Zoroastrianism conceived the cosmos in terms of a struggle between light and darkness. Around the time of the Maccabean revolt, the Parthians expelled many, who went back to Palestine. I believe it was then, that Persian dualism became part of the mental and spiritual atmosphere of Palestinian Judaism. With the Greek and Roman conquests, Plato's dualism of spirit and matter also entered the mix. Thus two dualistic systems had converged with the Hebrew Scriptures to form the ideas circulating at the time of Jesus. This is evidenced by the Essenes, who preceded the Christians by more than 150 years. They already laid stress on the priestly distinction between sacred and profane, and were especially open to dualism, contrasting the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light. They thought of themselves as the true Israel, and they expected God to renew the covenant. The Essenes must have viewed the revolt against Rome as the war they had been waiting for. They went into it expecting God to intervene. He did not. The disappointment did not prevent other Jews, sixty years later, from starting an even less feasible revolt under the false Messiah, Bar Kokhba. What were these poor Essenes and Jews missing? I think it was because they were looking back to prophesy, while the answer can be found in the writings of Paul.

When Paul came onto the scene, something was changing. They were no longer dealing with merely Hebrew prophesy, but also with what he termed Mystery. Dispensationalists are very good at pointing this out. However, because of their preference for literalism, they end up with a dichotomy instead of dualism. I tried being a dichotomist, but am now coming to view the New Testament as distinctly dualistic. When the Evangelist John says, "the Word became Flesh," he is speaking the philosophical language of dualism, asserting that, through the coming of Jesus, a division is now broken. Paul also speaks in such terms, as uniting heaven and earth, etc. I agree with Clement of Alexandria when he said that the Law of Moses was the schoolmaster to lead the Jews to Christ, and that philosophy was the schoolmaster to lead the Greeks to Christ. I also take note that the wise men who came to worship Christ were probably Persian Zoroastrian Magi. It takes the combined experience of humanity as a whole, including Hebrews, Greeks, Persians, etc., to see the big picture of what God is doing in the cosmos. All three families of mankind, Shem, Ham, and Japheth have parts to play, but that leads to a totally different discussion. It suffices to say that just because the Hebrew prophets originally only referred to an earthy Davidic kingdom does not prevent later revelation of a Mystery, which I think is best understood through the tool of dualism.

P.S., Without going into too much detail here, I believe that God's plan to save the nations of the world through Israel was achieved by sewing the tribes of dispersed Ephraim into the ethne/nations of the world where they intermarried, especially in areas where the descendants of Japheth lived, represented by the Greeks/Hellenes. That is why Jesus spoke in parable of buying the field of the world to get His treasure, and why Paul's ministry centerd mostly around certain areas of the dispersion, such as Galatia, Antioch and Ephesus. Jesus had to purchase all of us nations of Shem, Ham and Japheth and make us His own, in order to re-unite the two sticks of the Houses of Judah & Lo-Ami/Israel, which was a blessing for the world. The spread of Christianity by the Japhethite Greeks, Romans and Western Europeans probably relates to the prophesy that Japheth would dwell in the tents of Shem, but again, that is a long discussion of its own.

Also, I've read an in-depth study that details how Jesus "repeated" the history of Israel, and thereby is the New"Israel", overcoming where the nation of Israel had failed. Paul explains that Abraham's seed does not refer to "many," seeds, but to "One, which is Christ." Paul opens my mind to the prospect that what originally applied to the nation of Israel is now applied to Jesus Christ. The Messiah is now the "seed." Therefore, Jesus Christ is "Israel."

Maverick

Provoker

December 2nd 2005, 09:55 PM

Provoker,

I understand where get your focus on national Israel, but I see something in Scripture that expands itself to include much more. It’s true that pre-exilic Hebrew prophets made many distinctions between good and evil, but weren't dualistic. There was no mention of "this world" versus "another." Their concern was with the world, and the profane did not appear as a force in its own right. However, most of those exiled to Babylon chose to remain, forming a large community, including great scholars. There was a major Jewish presence in Persia, where Persian Zoroastrianism conceived the cosmos in terms of a struggle between light and darkness. Around the time of the Maccabean revolt, the Parthians expelled many, who went back to Palestine. I believe it was then, that Persian dualism became part of the mental and spiritual atmosphere of Palestinian Judaism. With the Greek and Roman conquests, Plato's dualism of spirit and matter also entered the mix. Thus two dualistic systems had converged with the Hebrew Scriptures to form the ideas circulating at the time of Jesus. This is evidenced by the Essenes, who preceded the Christians by more than 150 years. They already laid stress on the priestly distinction between sacred and profane, and were especially open to dualism, contrasting the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light. They thought of themselves as the true Israel, and they expected God to renew the covenant. The Essenes must have viewed the revolt against Rome as the war they had been waiting for. They went into it expecting God to intervene. He did not. The disappointment did not prevent other Jews, sixty years later, from starting an even less feasible revolt under the false Messiah, Bar Kokhba. What were these poor Essenes and Jews missing? I think it was because they were looking back to prophesy, while the answer can be found in the writings of Paul.

When Paul came onto the scene, something was changing. They were no longer dealing with merely Hebrew prophesy, but also with what he termed Mystery. Dispensationalists are very good at pointing this out. However, because of their preference for literalism, they end up with a dichotomy instead of dualism. I tried being a dichotomist, but am now coming to view the New Testament as distinctly dualistic. When the Evangelist John says, "the Word became Flesh," he is speaking the philosophical language of dualism, asserting that, through the coming of Jesus, a division is now broken. Paul also speaks in such terms, as uniting heaven and earth, etc. I agree with Clement of Alexandria when he said that the Law of Moses was the schoolmaster to lead the Jews to Christ, and that philosophy was the schoolmaster to lead the Greeks to Christ. I also take note that the wise men who came to worship Christ were probably Persian Zoroastrian Magi. It takes the combined experience of humanity as a whole, including Hebrews, Greeks, Persians, etc., to see the big picture of what God is doing in the cosmos. All three families of mankind, Shem, Ham, and Japheth have parts to play, but that leads to a totally different discussion. It suffices to say that just because the Hebrew prophets originally only referred to an earthy Davidic kingdom does not prevent later revelation of a Mystery, which I think is best understood through the tool of dualism.

P.S., Without going into too much detail here, I believe that God's plan to save the nations of the world through Israel was achieved by sewing the tribes of dispersed Ephraim into the ethne/nations of the world where they intermarried, especially in areas where the descendants of Japheth lived, represented by the Greeks/Hellenes. That is why Jesus spoke in parable of buying the field of the world to get His treasure, and why Paul's ministry centerd mostly around certain areas of the dispersion, such as Galatia, Antioch and Ephesus. Jesus had to purchase all of us nations of Shem, Ham and Japheth and make us His own, in order to re-unite the two sticks of the Houses of Judah & Lo-Ami/Israel, which was a blessing for the world. The spread of Christianity by the Japhethite Greeks, Romans and Western Europeans probably relates to the prophesy that Japheth would dwell in the tents of Shem, but again, that is a long discussion of its own.

Also, I've read an in-depth study that details how Jesus "repeated" the history of Israel, and thereby is the New"Israel", overcoming where the nation of Israel had failed. Paul explains that Abraham's seed does not refer to "many," seeds, but to "One, which is Christ." Paul opens my mind to the prospect that what originally applied to the nation of Israel is now applied to Jesus Christ. The Messiah is now the "seed." Therefore, Jesus Christ is "Israel."

Maverick
Hello Maverick:
There are a couple of important points which are necessary to understand, to know where I am coming from...LOL
The terms of the **everlasting** old covenant which God made with Israel are; If Israel keeps God's laws, God will make Israel into a great nation which will be a blessing to all the peoples of the world. That is the blessing of the covenant. However if Israel fails to keep God's laws, God will not make Israel into a great nation, and Israel will not become a blessing to all the peoples of the world. That is the curse of the covenant, and salvation is in Israel's repentance, which will result in Israel's national greatness, and blessing for all the peoples of the world.
It has been prophesied that a messiah would come and resurrect the kingdom of his father David, but one must recognize that because a prophesy is a statement about something which will definitely happen, but it does not mean that God will cause it to happen.
The reason that I say this, is because according to the terms of the everlasting old covenant, God cannot help Israel become a great nation until national Israel repents.
This means that God cannot send the messiah, and He cannot be the messiah, because that would be breaking His word in the everlasting old covenant, and God cannot lie. The old covenant is an everlasting legal document, and God is a just God.
Those who have a fond memory of long dead national Israel, and a hope for it's resurrection from the dead, are "Israel in spirit(spiritual Israel)", and they are naturally watching, waiting, and preparing for the messiah, by enlarging the body of people who watch for the messiah(the body of christ), so that the messiah will have a ready force with which to take the promised land, thereby resurrecting national Israel.
I should mention that there is not, and never has been, a bloodline requirement, for being an Israelite, and the only requirement ever, was "whosoever will" accept the everlasting old covenant.
Now, while covenant Israel only exists in spirit, it is the same for being an Israelite "in spirit", the only requirement for which, is a heartfelt committment to living within the law within the resurrected nation of Israel, or as Paul put it...having a circumcised heart. You will remember that circumcision of the flesh was the sign that one had accepted the everlasting old covenant and would live within the law within the nation, so circumcision of the heart, is the sign "in spirit", that one has made a heartfelt committment to the everlasting old covenant, and is prepared to live within the law within the resurrected nation of Israel.
The focus of scripture, if read in proper sequence, is to resurrect covenant Israel so that it can carry on to national greatness, teaching all the nations of the world to love God and love one another.
In order to understand scripture, we must follow the story chronolologicly from one scriptural event to the next, considering the ramifications of each event in the context of the events which have gone before.
It is improper methodology to interpret pre-first century events in the context of first century events, which have been interpreted without due consideration for the pre-first century events leading up to them.
Remember, pre-first century scripture was the only scripture that Jesus and the apostles used to convert people to christianity.

Provoker

December 3rd 2005, 10:55 AM

l have never read of such a thing and don't care about your theology on nation been a nation for everlasting.

If you live once and die- then live as you please and do as you please for it's the only short life you have. What a miserable theology you have- living for a peace of dust (land) to have name and have it for everlasting, but people will not be around for everlasting because they die and there is no ressurection fo the dead.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla
Hello John:
I don't study the bible to find a theology that I like...I study the bible to find bible theology, and let the chips fall where they may. If a personally acceptable theology was my goal, I would not bother to study the bible, I would simply study church dogma.

smaller

December 3rd 2005, 01:25 PM

Since I provided a log to the other thread, I'll place one here as well.

Saved huh? Now what in the world could that mean in the world of "christianity?" Whew! I have searched out this question for some decades now amongst the realm and have found the "gauge" for this to be quite extensive and far ranging from as little as loving ones neighbor as themselves, to constant daily, hourly repentance to assure ones self of their status of being "saved."

I do believe that the good book teaches that all people are God's offspring, and in any casual contemplation it would seem to me that it is impossible for God to lose any of His offspring forever, so the condition of being lost is a temporal one. So basically the only version of "saved" that I have is a lost person becoming a proclaimer of Jesus Christ, and every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord sooner or later.

Somewhat controversial I know. But there is really no genuine consensus on this matter anyway. Jesus spoke of being born again, but if you read John 3:12 He was speaking of "earthly things" to Nicodemus and that birth can just as easily be an earthly birth that is common to every person, and if every person is God's offspring, then they are by virtue of the "Fathership" born then of spirit and we all arrive in a watersac. The next separation would be into the profession of Christ, but a lack of confession should not logically eradicate their eventual eternal birthright.

enjoy!

smaller

Provoker

December 3rd 2005, 09:55 PM

smaller

December 4th 2005, 11:30 AM

Hello smaller:
I think that the reason there is no consensus, is because every Christian sect interprets the bible according to the single verses, doctrinally selected and explained by it's founding fathers, and is too closed minded to give any consideration to the story(context) which flows with amazing continuity from Genesis to Revelation.
What do you think?

I think the Bible teaches very clearly that sin is of the devil and his messengers and that these entities are over layed upon mankind therefore causing severe confusions (among other things.) It's the only logical explanation, but it is a rather strange contemplation. We are not used to seeing in terms of spiritual and anti-spiritual. What is an anti-spirit spirit anyway? Strange stuff.

So we all flail about in these various disputes nearly oblivious of what really may be going on with these confusions "behind the scenes" and that the cause really is of the devil and the devil active in the church deluxe.

I think Jesus showed the reality that satan can and does move between bodies of men beyond any denial. Two Apostles were openly singled out to show this fact. Two others were upbraided for not knowing which spirit they (mankind) were of. Various encounters with demonic entities are contained on nearly every page of the Gospels. It's an ugly picture. How do we fight such things?

Bernie and I are very very close on how we view this reality, but he still can't quite put his finger on it because to accept the premise one must accept it's a personal reality and that's a hard thing. No Christian wants to admit that their thought life is assailed daily by some other entities. They think it's only them.

I say it's not them and I make this conclusion from Word revealing. It's not my conclusion.

Consider that Paul stated that the sin that indwelt him was "no longer I" twice in Romans 7 and he also stated that evil was present with him. Consider that God Himself tagged Paul with a personal demonic entity to torment him because of the revelations he received to keep him humble.

John takes this conclusion beyond question. I have yet to find any traditional scholar that has a coherent explanation of 1 John 3:6 for example. It's impossible without separation between mankind and devilkind yet acknowledging this condition exists together in the flesh of all men.

It's quite startling IMHO.

enjoy!

smaller

Provoker

December 4th 2005, 01:25 PM

Hello smaller:
What the bible teaches is not "very clearly" when you consider the number of doctrinally opposing denominations...LOL
A conclusion which is "revealed in the bible", is usually the conclusion of some long dead denominational bible scholar...when you consider my first statement above...LOL
Everything covered in one's indoctrination, seems to be the only conclusion one could possibly come to, but that principle applies equally to those of every doctrinally disagreeing denomination and sect.
Our English bible is basicly a doctrinally biased paraphrasing of other doctrinally biased paraphrasings of copies of copies of original documents, so one should not become too dogmatic over the tenses, genders, etc, of particular words or phrases.
The only thing which survives intact after a couple thousand years of this, is the basic history which maintains chronological continuity from Genesis to Revelation...but there is good news...That basic history is reliable context, and can reveal the meaning of all the details which are currently being used to prove the opposing doctrines of thousands of denominations..LOL
If we are going to approach the bible with preconceptions, let them be the truth about our bible, not doctrines which were twisted out of it...LOL

smaller

December 4th 2005, 01:37 PM

Hello smaller:
What the bible teaches is not "very clearly" when you consider the number of doctrinally opposing denominations...LOL

But you see that is our present contemplation. What is the real cause of that problem? I say scriptures present that it is not man, but the devil and his messengers who are presently upon mankind.

A conclusion which is "revealed in the bible", is usually the conclusion of some long dead denominational bible scholar...when you consider my first statement above...LOL

And I say few people factor in the present temporal cause and instead beat each other. This is the sad part, but it is what the devil and his messengers in men do everyday.

Everything covered in one's indoctrination, seems to be the only conclusion one could possibly come to, but that principle applies equally to those of every doctrinally disagreeing denomination and sect.

You can connect the dots however your temporal controller allows.

The devil has sinned from the beginning. Sin is of the devil. All have sin. Sin is no longer I. Evil is present with all. etc etc. This is all testimony to what casues these problems. It is too easy for me to blame mankind. If I desire blame there are other logical places to apply it that have been provided by the scriptures.

Our English bible is basicly a doctrinally biased paraphrasing of other doctrinally biased paraphrasings of copies of copies of original documents, so one should not become too dogmatic over the tenses, genders, etc, of particular words or phrases.

Let's take the principle of the flawed handler in hand and say that the results of thousands of years of flawed handlers have produced a testimony to the scriptural facts...heh heh heh

The only thing which survives intact after a couple thousand years of this, is the basic history which maintains chronological continuity from Genesis to Revelation...but there is good news...That basic history is reliable context, and can reveal the meaning of all the details which are currently being used to prove the opposing doctrines of thousands of denominations..LOL

And I say that the light is only cause to arouse the darkness and to eventually bring that judgment to darkness and finish.

If we are going to approach the bible with preconceptions, let them be the truth about our bible, not doctrines which were twisted out of it...LOL

I would generally agree. So what does that mean to you? Should any of our determinations be devoid of the obvious existence of other entities that overlap the flesh of mankind? And if so how right is our present judgment. I say all denominations that commit their fellow man to burn alive forever in fire are a reflection and testimony to that darkness and the temporal cause, the devil and his messengers.

Apart from that desire I begin to see Love to others and proper judgment in a much clearer light.

enjoy!

smaller

.Mr.White.Socks

December 5th 2005, 12:27 AM

The terms of the **everlasting** old covenant which God made with Israel are...

Provoker,

If I understand you correctly, you are equating the everlasting covenant with the old covenant, while I equate it with the new covenant. That must be why we are talking past each other on this issue. Also it seems you are focusing on the four main elements of the Davidic Covenant.

1. House - God promised to continue the line of David;
2. Kingdom - Involved the people and the dominion over whom the king would rule;
3. Throne - Suggested that the king had power and authority; and
4. Forever - That David's family will never cease to rule over Israel.

Please bear with me, but before I try to clarify my thoughts on the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, I would like to question the meaning of everlasting as applied to covenants directly involving humans. Genesis 17:13-14 says that, “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” Is the circumcision made with hands still in effect because it uses the term everlasting covenant? Rather than take English words at face value regarding time/chronos, I use what is called the “forever-until” principal. I apply it to everything except God Himself, who is outside time. Please notice how the terms, everlasting, perpetual and forever are used in the following Scriptures.

Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting", until they "were shattered" Hab. 3 3:6).

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), until it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16), until Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8), until in the New Covenant, the first was "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever", until the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);

Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jer. 30:12), until the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17).

The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Mic. 1:9), until the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Samaria." (Ez. 16:53).

The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be "perpetual", until Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for sins, and we now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13).

Christ must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet (1 Cor. 15:24-25).

I currently believe that what is termed everlasting is actually “age-lasting”, when applied to that which exists in time/space creation for a specific purpose leading to the consummation of the aions, and eventually comes to its fulfillment (pleroo), fullness (pleroma), and end (telos). The Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants each have a reference in some way to "heavenly celestial bodies". The Noahic covenant involves a rainbow as the token and seal. The Abrahamic covenant used the stars to demonstrate and bear witness to God's promise of a nation. The Davidic covenant used the sun, moon and stars to be its sign and seal (Ps 89:34-37; Jer 32:35). I see all of these temporal elements fulfilled by Christ, leaving only an internal seal on the heart and spirit as its sign and symbol (Rom. 2:24-29; Col. 2:11-12; 2Cor 3; Heb 8-10). The "everlasting inheritance" of the Abrahamic Covenant, the "everlasting priesthood" of the Mosaic covenant, and the "everlasting throne and kingdom" of the Davidic covenant are all summed up in Christ. I agree that Scripture starts out focusing on a peculiar nation of God “goy/ethnos”, but more important stress is laid on the formation of a people “am/laos” of God. It starts out with temporal law, rule, government and division, but ends with sons, daughters, reconciliation, relationships and unity that is indestructable (akalutaton) and lasts past the telos/end of the eons.

The idea of Kingdom is linked with both the New Covenant and the Everlasting Covenant (Hebrews 13:20,21). However, there has never been a time when the kingdom of God itself has not been in existence. From what I read, the word for kingdom is the same word that can simply be translated reign. Speaking of kingdom makes it sound like it has to be geographical. The psalmist proclaims in Psalm 145 verse 13, "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations." This is not true because someone of the Davidic line is currently sitting on a throne in Jerusalem, but because the King Himself is "eternal, immortal, invisible" (1 Timothy 1:17). He created and transcends all the aions/ages.

Also, the blood of Jesus is the blood of the New Covenant (Revelation 12:11; Hebrews 9), and also that of the Everlasting Covenant (Hebrews 13:20). It is the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19, 20). It is the blood of God's own Son (Acts 20:28). Shouldn’t it then be called the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant? It seems that some covenants are actually included within other covenants. In the opening verses of Matthew's Gospel, the Son of Abraham and the Son of David linked together in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the covenant which God made with David may be included in that made with Abraham. As I see it, the main promise of the covenant was that the seed of David, Christ, would take the throne of David and rule and reign upon it as a righteous king until all enemies are subdued, and He turns over the kingdom to the Father. Whichever eschatological position this is applied to, it still ends up being the same kingdom/reign of God that has always existed, yet temporally manifested various ways in time/space creation.

Finally, I see that which is truly the Everlasting Covenant being made between the Father and the Son, rather than between God and mankind. Genesis 15:17 - And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. Notice that it is not Abraham and God passing through the covenant pieces, but the furnace and lamp, which I believe represent the Father and Son. The conditions of this covenant were that if the Great Shepherd would lay down His life for the sheep, the Father would raise Him from among the dead. "And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross." "But God raised Him from the dead." He was "raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Phil. 2:8; Acts 13:30; Rom. 6:4). The Everlasting Covenant was fulfilled at the resurrection. It is a New Covenant in respect to TIME (Calvary), and it is new in respect to KIND, i.e., between God the Father and God the Son, rather than God and men. It is the fulfillment of Galatians 3:20: "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is ONE." Jesus IS the Covenant - Isaiah 42:1-7 - I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations. All those who are in Christ, share in the covenant blessings that He receives.

Again, I may be wrong, but the way I currently see it, it goes something like this: The covenant of David was placed within the Covenant of Abraham. The covenant of Abraham was placed within in the New Covenant. The New Covenant was placed within the Everlasting Covenant, which was always between the Father and Son, and from which all other covenants draw their power and efficacy.

Even if we must agree to disagree, thanks for taking the time to read my final thoughts.

Maverick

Bernie

December 5th 2005, 09:54 AM

Mr White Socks,

"I currently believe that what is termed everlasting is actually “age-lasting”, when applied to that which exists in time/space creation for a specific purpose leading to the consummation of the aions, and eventually comes to its fulfillment (pleroo), fullness (pleroma), and end (telos)."

This is the first coherent explanation of the forever/age lasting view I've heard. The more I delve into the Scriptures, the more it brings into clarity in a dualistic structure the orthodox truths that have weathered time's test. Do you have other writings along these lines you can lead me to?

I appreciate Provoker's attempts to simplify and look for the 'big picture', but too much is left out in rising too high above the detail by which the big picture is formed, IMO. I.e., the mechanic who knows in detail how the car works is better off than the little old lady who merely knows how to put in gas, start the engine and drive.

Provoker

December 5th 2005, 07:19 PM

Hello Mr. White.Socks:
The covenant between God and the nationally assembled children of Israel, is everlasting(whatever that means), but I agree that the new covenant will also be everlasting. I guess it depends on the usage, as to which one is meant by the term "everlasting covenant".
I think first of the everlasting(old) covenant, because the everlasting(new) covenant only exists in spirit at this point.
I don't usually break the covenants down into elements, but the Mosaic covenant is the most important covenant so far, because it contains God's plan for the everlasting blessing of all the nations of the world, but covenant national Israel has to keep God's laws for that to happen...However, covenant national Israel ceased to exist at the end of Solomon's reign, and every national requirement, and promise, God made to national Israel, ceased to exist until covenant national Israel exists again.
None of the laws which God gave to the national assembly of Israel, apply to any nation but covenant national Israel, and while covenant national Israel is non-existent in fact, it only continues to exist in spirit, in the hearts and minds of those who fondly recall the stories of the fallen nation, and look anxiously forward to it's resurrection. In other words, in the hearts and minds of those who are "Israelites-in-spirit"(spiritual Israel).
Judaism did not exist until the Babylonian captivity, and it was a "kingdom resurrection movement" formed after it was prophesied that the messiah would resurrect the Davidic kingdom(the only prophesy which is without doubt messianic). So the first Jews were "Israelites in spirit"(spiritual Israel), and they were messianic as they watched and waited for the messiah, and "messianic" in 1st century Koine Greek, is "christian".
That is why Paul refered to his gentile converts as "True Jews", with circumcised hearts(spiritual circumcision...acceptance of the everlasting old covenant in spirit)...until covenant national Israel is resurrected, and everything that God gave to Israel in the first place, will be fact again.
It is my opinion that all the elements, of all the doctrines, of all the denominations, have become red herrings that divert attention away from the actual story of the bible...LOL
Of course we agree to disagree. It goes without saying on a theological discussion board...LOL I'm not here to convince you, but I am here to be convinced, by an arguement which is better than my current opinions.

Provoker,

If I understand you correctly, you are equating the everlasting covenant with the old covenant, while I equate it with the new covenant. That must be why we are talking past each other on this issue. Also it seems you are focusing on the four main elements of the Davidic Covenant.

1. House - God promised to continue the line of David;
2. Kingdom - Involved the people and the dominion over whom the king would rule;
3. Throne - Suggested that the king had power and authority; and
4. Forever - That David's family will never cease to rule over Israel.

Please bear with me, but before I try to clarify my thoughts on the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, I would like to question the meaning of everlasting as applied to covenants directly involving humans. Genesis 17:13-14 says that, “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” Is the circumcision made with hands still in effect because it uses the term everlasting covenant? Rather than take English words at face value regarding time/chronos, I use what is called the “forever-until” principal. I apply it to everything except God Himself, who is outside time. Please notice how the terms, everlasting, perpetual and forever are used in the following Scriptures.

Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting", until they "were shattered" Hab. 3 3:6).

The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Ex. 40:15), until it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16), until Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:8,9).

The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8), until in the New Covenant, the first was "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:11,13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever", until the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);

Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jer. 30:12), until the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jer. 30:17).

The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Mic. 1:9), until the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Samaria." (Ez. 16:53).

The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be "perpetual", until Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for sins, and we now have a better covenant established on better promises (Lev. 6:12-13, Heb. 8:6-13).

Christ must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet (1 Cor. 15:24-25).

I currently believe that what is termed everlasting is actually “age-lasting”, when applied to that which exists in time/space creation for a specific purpose leading to the consummation of the aions, and eventually comes to its fulfillment (pleroo), fullness (pleroma), and end (telos). The Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants each have a reference in some way to "heavenly celestial bodies". The Noahic covenant involves a rainbow as the token and seal. The Abrahamic covenant used the stars to demonstrate and bear witness to God's promise of a nation. The Davidic covenant used the sun, moon and stars to be its sign and seal (Ps 89:34-37; Jer 32:35). I see all of these temporal elements fulfilled by Christ, leaving only an internal seal on the heart and spirit as its sign and symbol (Rom. 2:24-29; Col. 2:11-12; 2Cor 3; Heb 8-10). The "everlasting inheritance" of the Abrahamic Covenant, the "everlasting priesthood" of the Mosaic covenant, and the "everlasting throne and kingdom" of the Davidic covenant are all summed up in Christ. I agree that Scripture starts out focusing on a peculiar nation of God “goy/ethnos”, but more important stress is laid on the formation of a people “am/laos” of God. It starts out with temporal law, rule, government and division, but ends with sons, daughters, reconciliation, relationships and unity that is indestructable (akalutaton) and lasts past the telos/end of the eons.

The idea of Kingdom is linked with both the New Covenant and the Everlasting Covenant (Hebrews 13:20,21). However, there has never been a time when the kingdom of God itself has not been in existence. From what I read, the word for kingdom is the same word that can simply be translated reign. Speaking of kingdom makes it sound like it has to be geographical. The psalmist proclaims in Psalm 145 verse 13, "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations." This is not true because someone of the Davidic line is currently sitting on a throne in Jerusalem, but because the King Himself is "eternal, immortal, invisible" (1 Timothy 1:17). He created and transcends all the aions/ages.

Also, the blood of Jesus is the blood of the New Covenant (Revelation 12:11; Hebrews 9), and also that of the Everlasting Covenant (Hebrews 13:20). It is the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19, 20). It is the blood of God's own Son (Acts 20:28). Shouldn’t it then be called the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant? It seems that some covenants are actually included within other covenants. In the opening verses of Matthew's Gospel, the Son of Abraham and the Son of David linked together in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the covenant which God made with David may be included in that made with Abraham. As I see it, the main promise of the covenant was that the seed of David, Christ, would take the throne of David and rule and reign upon it as a righteous king until all enemies are subdued, and He turns over the kingdom to the Father. Whichever eschatological position this is applied to, it still ends up being the same kingdom/reign of God that has always existed, yet temporally manifested various ways in time/space creation.

Finally, I see that which is truly the Everlasting Covenant being made between the Father and the Son, rather than between God and mankind. Genesis 15:17 - And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. Notice that it is not Abraham and God passing through the covenant pieces, but the furnace and lamp, which I believe represent the Father and Son. The conditions of this covenant were that if the Great Shepherd would lay down His life for the sheep, the Father would raise Him from among the dead. "And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross." "But God raised Him from the dead." He was "raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Phil. 2:8; Acts 13:30; Rom. 6:4). The Everlasting Covenant was fulfilled at the resurrection. It is a New Covenant in respect to TIME (Calvary), and it is new in respect to KIND, i.e., between God the Father and God the Son, rather than God and men. It is the fulfillment of Galatians 3:20: "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is ONE." Jesus IS the Covenant - Isaiah 42:1-7 - I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations. All those who are in Christ, share in the covenant blessings that He receives.

Again, I may be wrong, but the way I currently see it, it goes something like this: The covenant of David was placed within the Covenant of Abraham. The covenant of Abraham was placed within in the New Covenant. The New Covenant was placed within the Everlasting Covenant, which was always between the Father and Son, and from which all other covenants draw their power and efficacy.

Even if we must agree to disagree, thanks for taking the time to read my final thoughts.

Maverick

.Mr.White.Socks

December 5th 2005, 11:05 PM

Do you have other writings along these lines you can lead me to?

Bernie,

It sounds like you have not yet done much research regarding the word "aion" and its cognates. I can forward some web pages via private message. If that sounds like too much reading to wade through, at this time, I can try to post a condensed version based on the best resouces. However, that may take a day or two to compose. Just let me know.

Maverick

Bernie

December 6th 2005, 10:34 AM

Hello Mr. White Socks,

"It sounds like you have not yet done much research regarding the word "aion" and its cognates. I can forward some web pages via private message."
I've actually heard the arguments many times over, mostly on bulletin boards, have two or three articles downloaded and have read them at one time or another, so your offer isn't necessary, thanks. I've not researched it deeply because the way the argument has been used is irrelevant to my [admittedly narrow] understanding. Seems that in debates I've watched, too many universalists commit the weight of their arguments on the 'forever doesn't mean forever' point of view, which in RE is nearly irrelevant.

To me, duration doesn't apply to the punishment of individuals. Esoterically, it applies to the length of time false information or evil will be removed from human spirit and all creation. In the duality of Scripture, God speaks both to and past individuals, as I see it...to them in the literal sense, and past them to the universal and eternal sense. The latter is the strength and fulfillment of the former. To argue that individuals are only punished for an 'aion' I can agree with at base, but this is a peripheral issue to the topic of eternal salvation and carries little strength in the overall picture that I can see. You happened to frame the idea in a way that made sense to me.

smaller

December 6th 2005, 11:17 AM

Hello Mr. White Socks,

I've actually heard the arguments many times over, mostly on bulletin boards, have two or three articles downloaded and have read them at one time or another, so your offer isn't necessary, thanks. I've not researched it deeply because the way the argument has been used is irrelevant to my [admittedly narrow] understanding. Seems that in debates I've watched, too many universalists commit the weight of their arguments on the 'forever doesn't mean forever' point of view, which in RE is nearly irrelevant.

To me, duration doesn't apply to the punishment of individuals. Esoterically, it applies to the length of time false information or evil will be removed from human spirit and all creation. In the duality of Scripture, God speaks both to and past individuals, as I see it...to them in the literal sense, and past them to the universal and eternal sense. The latter is the strength and fulfillment of the former. To argue that individuals are only punished for an 'aion' I can agree with at base, but this is a peripheral issue to the topic of eternal salvation and carries little strength in the overall picture that I can see. You happened to frame the idea in a way that made sense to me.

I agree with you completely here Bernie. Many URists just have a baby form of ETism (temporary burning) which is easily refuted on multiple fronts and I have also seen URists get their theological socks handed to them in this matter. They are off base on that presentation. It was one of the reasons I did not accept UR initially because that view does not work.

The questions I have posed to URists from that camp on this matter remain unaddressed though we may somewhat agree on the final picture, God all in all. Most temporal ETers (heh heh) also believe in the salvation of the devil and his messengers. I do not and can therefore keep all the eternal torture texts intact without tampering. It's a much cleaner approach.

.Mr.White.Socks

December 6th 2005, 07:58 PM

It's a much cleaner approach.

I beg to differ with my esteemed colleagues.

For me, it is a stereological necessity to preserve a clear distinction between the creature of time and the timeless realm of the Creator. I believe it was Eriugena who suggested that God, foreseeing the fall, created both men’s physical bodies and time/space itself as a way to contain sin. It is like placing a deadly virus in a Petrie dish, so that it may be handled without spreading past the temporal cosmic laboratory, bounded on both sides by true eternity. God did not forgive Adamic sin, but the "body of sin," the totality of Adamic sin, was condemned and crucified (Rom. 8:3, Rom.6:6). Since in all of history, only two men have ever really existed ontologically (first and last Adam), God’s wrath is directed toward the first man, that body of sin summed up in the first Adam. Even then, it is directed toward the disease of sin and the resultant works of the flesh, and not the sinner. Jesus as the Great Physician tasted death for every man so that he could provide us with "antibodies" to overcome the futility we were subjected to in this pedagogical age-lasting containment field. Jesus is the vaccine against sin, and the disease of sin dies out when it can find no more hosts, like a virus that cannot live outside the human body. As a little leaven leavens the whole lump, ultimately, there will be no place in the cosmos left for evil to manifest itself, and Christ will fill everything Eph 4:10. Perhaps this makes the case for the necessity of sin brought about through the first Adam. If we had never been "exposed", we would have been temporarily safe, yet forever vulnerable. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were rather like the Native Americans before smallpox arrived with the Europeans. Once having been exposed to a virus that has been destroyed, killed, nullified through Christ's death and resurrection, mankind will achieve an immunity that remains after the consummation and telos of the aions. Even if the world appeared free from smallpox because there were no more documented cases, there would always be the possibility of the virus potentially lying dormant somewhere in mankind. However, if everyone in the world actually experienced smallpox and were eventually cured, they would all be immune forever. I believe that is why our Father wanted all who are in Adam to be sickened and healed before being given incorruption and immortality, and why time plays an important part in this plan. Eternity is not a continuous rolling of successive ages, as if God creates blocks of time for stepping stones into a linear future. By nature, eternity is devoid of time. It is timeless. If one blurs the definition of time and timelessness, it lets sin loose to exist along side the uncreated God in a Zoroastrian dualism. It destroys the ontic unit of mankind by suggesting that two kinds of humanity may exist forever, composed of those who have achieved theosis, and those perpetually locked in a non-divinized state. Technically, there is no such thing as eternity past or eternity future. Past and future belong to the temporal sphere. It is a contradiction in terms. It is attempting to lay the definition of ateleutetos on top of aionios to make the words synonymous. Vines cleverly provides ET-ers ammunition by conveniently creating definitions of aion that project it’s essential character of time backward and forward into an uncreated past or future, thereby seeming to blend the temporal and eternal. It may sound theological, but to me, it is entirely illogical. Therefore, I feel that whether one wishes to emphasize aionian/aionios as meaning limited quantity of time or a divine quality of time, it should always be clearly understood as relating to the realm of created time where sin is being dealt with, and never mistaken for uncreated timeless eternity.

Maverick

Bernie

December 6th 2005, 08:56 PM

Hello Mr. White Socks,

"God’s wrath is directed toward the first man, that body of sin summed up in the first Adam. Even then, it is directed toward the disease of sin and the resultant works of the flesh, and not the sinner."
This seems to be about the same thing I see in God speaking "past" the literal to essence or spirit.

"Jesus is the vaccine against sin, and the disease of sin dies out when it can find no more hosts, like a virus that cannot live outside the human body"
I'd be interested in an elaboration. Specifically, what do you see as the conditions that must exist, or circumstances take place, to accomplish the state in creation in which evil no longer has a foothold in man? What are the 'antibodies'?

"As a little leaven leavens the whole lump, ultimately, there will be no place in the cosmos left for evil to manifest itself, and Christ will fill everything Eph 4:10. Perhaps this makes the case for the necessity of sin brought about through the first Adam. If we had never been "exposed", we would have been temporarily safe, yet forever vulnerable."
Interesting take. How does regeneration/spiritual birth play a role in this view?

"It is attempting to lay the definition of ateleutetos on top of aionios to make the words synonymous. Vines cleverly provides ET-ers ammunition by conveniently creating definitions of aion that project it’s essential character of time backward and forward into an uncreated past or future, thereby seeming to blend the temporal and eternal. It may sound theological, but to me, it is entirely illogical. Therefore, I feel that whether one wishes to emphasize aionian/aionios as meaning limited quantity of time or a divine quality of time, it should always be clearly understood as relating to the realm of created time where sin is being dealt with, and never mistaken for uncreated timeless eternity."
This makes sense to me. I haven't heard this argument made in quite this way, but then, as admitted above, the base concept doesn't play all that hard into my own theology.

Provoker

December 6th 2005, 09:25 PM

Hey guys:
Regarding words which have both a secular meaning, and a religious meaning, there was never a common religious language, just religious things defined in common terms. When those words fell out of common usage, the church continued to use them. Eventually their common meanings were forgotten, and they came to connote religious principles. However, we have to remember that their original usage in religious writings, was not religious, but common.
If the choices for aionian/aionios, are; "limited quantity of time", and "divine quality of time", I suggest that the most honest choice is the first one.
However, that's just my opinion, because I don't even know what language it is...LOL

.Mr.White.Socks

December 6th 2005, 09:58 PM

What are the 'antibodies'?

While I have a moment, I'll post a quick answer to this one question. I think the answer can be varied, depending on whether one uses the Satisfaction Docrtrine or the Christus Victor model to understand salvation. From a Western forensic point of view, it would probably be the merits of Christ which are applied in a judicial manner to the sinner. From an Eastern Orthodox ontological point of view, it might be the uncreated energies of God in which we are to participate in order to acheive theosis. In Esotericism, it is perhaps the injection of the light of the Mind of Christ into the darkness of misinformation. Perhaps it is the lifting of veils clouding the minds of humanity, line upon line, precept upon precept, as we ascend from glory to glory, each in his own appointed time, season, rank and order.

The Resurrection Hymn of the Eastern Church says that, "Christ has trampled death by death, bestowing life to those in the tombs" Therefore, perhaps it can be said that that death is itself the antibody to death and sin. I remain open to various possibilities and welcome any suggestions from those who may read this in the future.

Maverick

.Mr.White.Socks

December 6th 2005, 09:59 PM

Regarding words which have both a secular meaning, and a religious meaning, there was never a common religious language, just religious things defined in common terms.

That seems entirely reasonable.

Maverick

smaller

December 7th 2005, 12:35 AM

I beg to differ with my esteemed colleagues.

For me, it is a stereological necessity to preserve a clear distinction between the creature of time and the timeless realm of the Creator. I believe it was Eriugena who suggested that God, foreseeing the fall, created both men’s physical bodies and time/space itself as a way to contain sin. It is like placing a deadly virus in a Petrie dish, so that it may be handled without spreading past the temporal cosmic laboratory, bounded on both sides by true eternity. God did not forgive Adamic sin, but the "body of sin," the totality of Adamic sin, was condemned and crucified (Rom. 8:3, Rom.6:6).

I have no problem with some renderings of aion as pertaining to an ages or ages but of course not even the URist will say this is the case in all uses, so it remains an ambiguous position. What is worse is when URists take this application to the Lake of Fire wherein death and hell are "eternally" destroyed and they try to make a case that people will come out but not death and hell. I hate selective eisegesis. It doesn't work and when they do this no ETer in his right mind (chuckle) can accept it.

Regarding your statements on the death of sin, there is still that pesky little problem that sin still exists. I also do not believe sin has been forgiven, even less yet "eternally terminated." Sin at this time is not held against mankind but it remains held against the "real" cause, the devil and his messengers. Bernie seems to want to lay that charge to mankind and not upon the devil. I don't know why. He'd be spot on if he did. The devil and his messengers are clearly overlaid upon the flesh of mankind and he who sins is of the devil. But of course believers don't like to hear that. They'd rather blame themselves and their fellow man.

Since in all of history, only two men have ever really existed ontologically (first and last Adam), God’s wrath is directed toward the first man, that body of sin summed up in the first Adam.

I find it somewhat interesting that anyone who dies is released from sins (Romans 6:7.)

Even then, it is directed toward the disease of sin and the resultant works of the flesh, and not the sinner.

I agree that the sinner is not the offspring of God, but the sinner does reside in the flesh of that offspring. It's hard to see that the disobedience that God has bound all men to does not require that disobedience to be the same as His offspring. Romans 11:32.

Jesus as the Great Physician tasted death for every man so that he could provide us with "antibodies" to overcome the futility we were subjected to in this pedagogical age-lasting containment field. Jesus is the vaccine against sin, and the disease of sin dies out when it can find no more hosts, like a virus that cannot live outside the human body.

I consider that the disobedient darkness that we find ourselves engaged with (sin indwelling the flesh, evil present with us) are the corruption that all Gods offspring are planted into. They are the darkness that we are commanded to shine from. They are the cause of our present humility that we will arise from in strength. They are the tools that form Gods offspring for their eternal habitation. They are the cause of our present longsuffering that we may learn the lessons of our God prior to the inheritance of eternity. In all of these things evil and its temporal cause, the devil and his messengers, are Gods servants. When He has completed His Work with them, they will be set aside as the temporary fashioners they are. There is no truth, no life there in that tool, but I'm OK with that.

As a little leaven leavens the whole lump, ultimately, there will be no place in the cosmos left for evil to manifest itself, and Christ will fill everything Eph 4:10. Perhaps this makes the case for the necessity of sin brought about through the first Adam.

We know from the scriptures that God is invisible. Yet God has formed in the Son, The Living Word. I don't think for a moment that Adam, as Gods son was slated to spend eternity encased in a body of wet dust that was formed from dirt taken from outside the Garden. Not for a moment was this Gods longterm plan for Adam and I don't believe that it was His Plan for any of His Creation. God Himself shall be all in all and there we will find our complete and neverending joy without limits. Even the Son will subject Himself unto God. That will be on the Spiritual Eight Day, when the skin of form will be cut away and God will enjoin us all.

I think you and I and Bernie all have this hope in ourselves, and it is somewhat right that we see the way we do presently. If we saw too clearly we'd have nothing left to form hope...;)

If we had never been "exposed", we would have been temporarily safe, yet forever vulnerable. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were rather like the Native Americans before smallpox arrived with the Europeans. Once having been exposed to a virus that has been destroyed, killed, nullified through Christ's death and resurrection, mankind will achieve an immunity that remains after the consummation and telos of the aions.

We will get new bodies that are not "subject to" the corruption of decay or of sins presence. Bodies of Light.

Even if the world appeared free from smallpox because there were no more documented cases, there would always be the possibility of the virus potentially lying dormant somewhere in mankind. However, if everyone in the world actually experienced smallpox and were eventually cured, they would all be immune forever. I believe that is why our Father wanted all who are in Adam to be sickened and healed before being given incorruption and immortality, and why time plays an important part in this plan.

Death is our servant, as all things are. God has a firm grasp on evil. It is right that we have our exposure to it as well.

Eternity is not a continuous rolling of successive ages, as if God creates blocks of time for stepping stones into a linear future. By nature, eternity is devoid of time. It is timeless.

I believe only God Inhabits Eternity and He would be likened to nothing that will cross our lips. No thing can describe Him. No thing can contain Him. Time is certainly His servant as well. There may well be other ages for His offspring. I cannot say other than that God has "prepared" or made for us things that have not entered our minds.

If one blurs the definition of time and timelessness, it lets sin loose to exist along side the uncreated God in a Zoroastrian dualism.

You're right and I don't believe that evil, sin and death have any "eternal" qualities. A friend of mine likes the devil and his messengers to robots. I liken them to pieces of anti-spiritual exercise equipment that God uses for a time. As such there is no need to 'save' them

It destroys the ontic unit of mankind by suggesting that two kinds of humanity may exist forever, composed of those who have achieved theosis, and those perpetually locked in a non-divinized state.

I certainly could not agree with two kinds of humanity. Many in UR have speculated that unsaved mankind will burn in the Lake or be idled in soul sleep while the believers party with Jesus for a few ages. I don't buy that one either. Christian exclusivism at the expense of other people is not my bag.

Technically, there is no such thing as eternity past or eternity future. Past and future belong to the temporal sphere.

Fully Agreed.

It is a contradiction in terms. It is attempting to lay the definition of ateleutetos on top of aionios to make the words synonymous. Vines cleverly provides ET-ers ammunition by conveniently creating definitions of aion that project it’s essential character of time backward and forward into an uncreated past or future, thereby seeming to blend the temporal and eternal. It may sound theological, but to me, it is entirely illogical.

God is surely apart from "time markers" as it pertains to Himself and His Eternal Working. Contemplation of "eternal attributes" is one of my favorites.

Therefore, I feel that whether one wishes to emphasize aionian/aionios as meaning limited quantity of time or a divine quality of time, it should always be clearly understood as relating to the realm of created time where sin is being dealt with, and never mistaken for uncreated timeless eternity.
Maverick

Generally agreed again. I have not seen much of this around here Maverick. It's rather pleasant...;) Sorry to hijack your thread with out little aside here Bernie.

enjoy!

smaller

.Mr.White.Socks

December 7th 2005, 03:14 AM

Regarding your statements on the death of sin, there is still that pesky little problem that sin still exists.Indeed, Hebrews 2:8, "But now we do not yet see all things subjected to Him."

When one is recovering from an illness, there still may be nasty symptoms until the cure takes full effect, or in this case is fully manifested. Sins (pleural) are the footprints, reverberations, echos, vestiges of the now dead sin (singluar) principal. The symptoms are certainly not pleasant, but they will not kill you as will the disease itself if left unchecked. Perhaps sin is still dying out while remaining quaranteened from eternity.

Sin at this time is not held against mankind but it remains held against the "real" cause, the devil and his messengers.Do you perhaps view Satan as the scapegoat sent into the wilderness?

I consider that the disobedient darkness that we find ourselves engaged with (sin indwelling the flesh, evil present with us) are the corruption that all Gods offspring are planted into.While you seem to view it in terms of being planted into something (perhaps like the trees in the Garden of Eden?), I view it is being handed over to something, Romans 11:32 "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all", and as being subjected to something, as Romans 8:18 "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly", and as being darked in the mind, as carnal mindedness is death. What are all the terms we can use to describe God's plan to heal, restore and perfect fallen mankind? Planting, transplanting, implantation, injection, infusion, configuration, transfiguration?

Yet God has formed in the Son, The Living Word. I don't think for a moment that Adam, as Gods son was slated to spend eternity encased in a body of wet dust that was formed from dirt taken from outside the Garden. We will get new bodies that are not "subject to" the corruption of decay or of sins presence. Bodies of Light. I am not sure what our spiritual bodies will be like, except that when we see Him, we shall be like Him. There are no details given regarding the state or condition of the material universe, after the ages have run their course, when Christ has subjected all to Himself, and has turned everthing over to the Father, Who becomes All in All. For all I know the end result could be a collapsing back into the mind of God, as some have imagined, although, I prefer to believe we keep our individuality.

Many in UR have speculated that unsaved mankind will burn in the Lake or be idled in soul sleep while the believers party with Jesus for a few ages. I don't buy that one either. Christian exclusivism at the expense of other people is not my bag.Please remember that resurrection (anastasis), and vivification (zooopoieoo) are not the same thing, and not always bestowed at the same time. Jesus raised Lazarus after three days, giving him anastasis, but did not raise him incorruptible and glorified. He had to die again. Those who believe in age-lasting correction (aionion kolasin), therefore, do make a valid point that it is possible to raise someone unto (aionios zoe) age-lasting life for the purpose of purification, without them being given the power of (zois akataluton) indestructible life (Hebrews 7:16). It may be that restoration of the fallen creature happens in the twinkling of an eye, once freed from the material body. However, if there are indeed two different gifts of life given to men according to their spiritual progress (aionios and/or akataluton), I cannot rule out possible temporal modes of purification in future ages.

Maverick

Aletheia

December 7th 2005, 02:54 PM

:thumb: Wow, great conversation. Looking forward to reading more.

Bernie

December 7th 2005, 06:36 PM

Hello Provoker,

"Regarding words which have both a secular meaning, and a religious meaning, there was never a common religious language, just religious things defined in common terms. When those words fell out of common usage, the church continued to use them. Eventually their common meanings were forgotten, and they came to connote religious principles. However, we have to remember that their original usage in religious writings, was not religious, but common.
If the choices for aionian/aionios, are; "limited quantity of time", and "divine quality of time", I suggest that the most honest choice is the first one.
However, that's just my opinion, because I don't even know what language it is...LOL"

Well I'll be da.... uh, darned. This is some of the first common ground I've found with you, re the last part. The first doesn't click with me, though....I'm pretty sure you would reject the distinction made by the Greeks and medieval Christians between prescriptive and descriptive truth...?? While there's certainly a lot of crossover, I don't think the issue here is secualr vs. religious meaning, but two aspects of or prescriptive meaning by virtue of its application to religious or spiritual concepts.

Hello Mr. White Socks,

"From a Western forensic point of view, it would probably be the merits of Christ which are applied in a judicial manner to the sinner."
I don't see how a judicial application can assume the role of spiritual "antibiotic". To me, the real antibiotic, or that which dismantles the evil of falsity, is nothing more or less than regeneration, the death of 'death' and bringing forth of new life.

As to your thoughts, "From an Eastern Orthodox ontological point of view, [the antibody] might be the uncreated energies of God in which we are to participate in order to acheive theosis. In Esotericism, it is perhaps the injection of the light of the Mind of Christ into the darkness of misinformation." I see these as essentially the same thing. Aquinas, Calvin and a host of others saw the sheer impossibility of man coming to Christ of his own, an idea I agree with completely. But as falsity is gradually destroyed in sanctification and replaced with the property of truth (life), I see volition--as the removal of that which hinders our desire, affirmation, appetite and willingness to participate with God or the good-- play an increasingly realistic role in choosing the good. Thus, God's movement is and must always be first. The will to do righteousness seems to me to be created in intellect as darkness is progressively and fragmentally destroyed, and the 'overall' spirit [and, causatively, intellect] gradually comes to light and life in spiritual birth, leading (in my mind) directly to an affirmation of your comment, "Perhaps it is the lifting of veils clouding the minds of humanity, line upon line, precept upon precept, as we ascend from glory to glory, each in his own appointed time, season, rank and order."

Hello Smaller,

I've come to think that if you take a couple more steps in a particular direction, your theology will mesh very closely with the rationally esoteric view. I use a filter of philosophical (thing/attribute) and theological ([1]good/evil, [2]body/spirit) dualisms to interpret the Bible, which leads to a rationally esoteric view. You stopped short, I think, in only applying #1 to #2, where you see the division similarly to our ET brethren, which (as I'm sure you know) I believe collapses the causative path of sin, spirit>mind>body (matter), resulting in lack of coherence. All you need to do is bring the philosophical dualism into your theology--i.e., instead of dividing #1 according to #2, divide BOTH 1 & 2 according to thing and attribute, and presto! You've got rational esotericism. Universal multiplicity of #1 applied to particulars of #2 in their 'inner structure' or essence, and the rest falls into place.

smaller

December 8th 2005, 01:15 AM

Hello Smaller,

I've come to think that if you take a couple more steps in a particular direction, your theology will mesh very closely with the rationally esoteric view.

I would agree that we are very very close. If I had to describe a possible difference it is in RE blaming the "soul" of mankind and I could somewhat even accept that because of our present defiling by satan and his messengers in that mixed interactive soul arena. Definition of a soul gets difficult but I can agree that is our present (temporal) existence.

I use a filter of philosophical (thing/attribute) and theological ([1]good/evil, [2]body/spirit) dualisms to interpret the Bible,

And I as well, but as you know I cannot deny the anti-spiritual component that exist in the scriptures as well and I say they are not like any of the other components.

which leads to a rationally esoteric view. You stopped short, I think, in only applying #1 to #2, where you see the division similarly to our ET brethren, which (as I'm sure you know) I believe collapses the causative path of sin, spirit>mind>body (matter), resulting in lack of coherence. All you need to do is bring the philosophical dualism into your theology--i.e., instead of dividing #1 according to #2, divide BOTH 1 & 2 according to thing and attribute, and presto! You've got rational esotericism. Universal multiplicity of #1 applied to particulars of #2 in their 'inner structure' or essence, and the rest falls into place.

If you incorporated the anti-spiritual component, didn't blame the captives of same and left the eternal damnation scriptures entirely intact for that anti-spiritual component you'd be spot on, pardon the pun.

I cannot deny that there are anti-spirit spirits. I do not see these entites as the same as mankind. These entities do however dwell in the flesh. As such any system must incorporate them or have a very solid reason not to. Some in UR have taken the position that mankind is the same as devilkind. I can't get there because of the Gods offspring/children scriptures.

Philetus

December 8th 2005, 08:04 AM

Wow! It took some doing but I finally made it through the almost endless tail chasing. This is the first thread I've read through and I must say, lots of good stuff, and lots more stuff. Early on a post was made by SHEEPDOG that seemingly went unnoticed:

"unfortunately, i don't see how you can have reconciliation of the two without some sort of redefinition of classic termonology, or by causing an incoherency. for instance, Calvinists believe that regeneration must come before faith, while Arminians believe it comes after. Calvinists hold that God elected people to salvation prior to any foreseen faith, while Arminians hold that God's election is based on faith. Calvinists believe that grace draws the elect irresistibly. Arminians believe God draws all but it's resistible.
these are three points i can think of offhand where Calvinism and Arminianism are mutually exclusive."

As one raised an Arminian and later accused of having Calvinistic tendencies and now claiming neither camp, I was wondering if anyone might address the three points the big dog raises.

I for one think the thing that keeps us waging is that Jesus died for us and others and there is nothing we can do about it. In his sovereignty he did not ask for our opinion, our permission or our help ... just our acceptance. I thank God that I no longer live and minister in a place where I have to struggle to grasp, let alone resolve some of the many issues that have been raised in this discussion. If one must be either C or A in order to be Orthodox then I"m probably of all men least orthodox.

I do think there is common ground ... go figurer ... but it involves giving up our protesting positions and what are the odds? It doesn’t matter one bit whether you think Jesus died for somebody else or not. But if you are convinced he died for you, then you are likely to mention it and if the information you share rings true with others, let them ask Holy Spirit if he died for them as well. You may find more common ground than you think. I’m always surprised by who God calls and such surprise is making me more optimistic about my own salvation as well as the salvation of others (even Israel). Faith is about trusting and trusting gives hope and hope does not disappoint! As to answering the fabricated questions imposed by the A/C debate ... I elect to share the hope in me with everyone and anyone and let God sort em out. The alternitive (second-guessing the mind of God) is always disappointing ... it leaves me either looking ignorant or feeling ignorant.

Looking forward to the resurection,
Philetus

Any words on the three

Bernie

December 8th 2005, 12:59 PM

Hi Smaller,

"as you know I cannot deny the anti-spiritual component that exist in the scriptures as well and I say they are not like any of the other components."
Can you explain what you mean exactly by 'anti-spiritual component'? I suspect you're talking about Satan and demons, but want to be sure we're on the same page before responding.

Hello Philetus,

Sheepdog's post didn't go unnoticed. Merely defining the differences is 'talking over' the actual problem. The problem at its root as I see it is logical, because all things being even, both C and A are able to make a reasonable and rational case for their position from Scripture. Most discussion, rather than being spent on trying to define the nature of the problem, continues to argue from the Scriptural proofs, or from what I consider to be a flawed logic, ad infinitum. Nothing is accomplished or has been for some 400 years.

" I was wondering if anyone might address the three points the big dog raises."
The three boil down to the same question: what comes first, faith or grace? When the dust clears, the same logical conundrum lies at the foundation of the disagreement, does God choose salvation or does man?

At base, the attributes or what I call the "second qualities" of God which govern salvation--love, mercy, faithfulness, etc.--are themselves logically governed by what to my thinking is His single, overriding primary quality or property: Perfection. At base, C and A cannot be reconciled because they are mutally exclusive. They meet head on in a logical dead-end, unable in their soteriology to rectify God's perfection with His love, mercy, faithfulness, etc.

To properly resolve the problem, one has to go to the end of the road for each theory, where both at least find agreement that some people are separated eternally from God while others are allowed entrance to heaven. Here, the perfection of love, mercy, faithfulness, etc. is violated. Assuming that there exist in all elements of both good and bad, God is throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this conclusion by condemning those in whom some good exists. This is made worse by forgiving others, who are essentially no better or worse than those condemned. It's a direct molestation of God's perfection to do this, as per Isa 42:3. C and A seem to usually miss this point and argue that God must comdemn some because He is perfectly righteous and can't accept injustice, but resolving the perfection of His righteousness fails to place perfection as the primary, immovable attribute, because justice is not really perfect in this equation. If the perfection of one property is satisfied while others are violated, then the mystery remains and truth is not complete. Truth demands unity, and tension and resistance as the opposite of unity still exist in the notion that some are condemned while others are not, regardless of whether you take the A or C position to get there.

Once this problem is solved, which RE is able to do, then the differences, the tension and resistance, between C and A disappear. Truth finds its perfection.

God designed the universe dualistically, or in a complex system of dualisms. This extends to salvation. Note that dualism as a concept is one of the most orthodox fundamentals of the Christian [and other] faith(s); this is not a 'smoke-n-mirrors' methodology, as some Gnostics/mystics contend for, but is based on very orthodox fundamentals.

Salvation is divided into dual aspects: temporal and eternal. In the perfection of His love, God has elected and predestined all to eternal salvation. Here, God is sovereign, doesn't ask permission and all that happens in time and space bow in deference to His eternal decrees. (There are sites like Tentmaker that supply proof texts re the salvation of all; don't want to drag them all out here, am assuming most reading here have a reasonable familiarity with them) Temporal salvation, as name implies, is the special salvation Paul speaks of in Tim 4:10. This salvation is mutable and can be lost....but only in deference to eternality, where the possession of Christ's righteousness judicially, actually becomes the 'death sentence' for all human beings:

"For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many." (Isa 66:16)
‘A clamor has come to the end of the earth, Because the LORD has a controversy with the nations. He is entering into judgment with all flesh; As for the wicked, He has given them to the sword,’ declares the LORD." (Jer 25:31)
"Because I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore My sword shall go forth from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. Thus all flesh will know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath. It will not return to its sheath again."’ (Eze 21:4-5)

Esoterically, God is speaking life into all humanity here, in the midst of death. God's wrath, overseen by His perfection, becomes to humanity His love, mercy, justice and faithfulness.

The mystery is solved applying over the theological dualisms a simple philosophical dualism [thing/attribute], in that in matters of eternality, God speaks past individuals to the multiplicity of components within each human--what I call the fragmented spirit. Here, good and evil exist as the property "true" and "false" in one's informational makeup. When God's sword descends in time and space, it falls upon humans as individuals...re the historical sacking of both Israel and Judah, each in their own time. Here, God's decrees have their descriptive dimension. But in universal, eternal and prescriptive reality, His sword (and hail, plague, fire and wind) fall upon the stain of evil or falsity which exists in every human spirit. Perfection is satisfied on all levels.

When seen through a dualistic filter, all literal interpretation which falls on man as an individual can be seen to descend 'behind the scene' upon man's essence or spirit, which has a causative effect on mind. When Scripture says, "For My people are foolish, They know Me not; They are stupid children, And they have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, But to do good they do not know." (Jer 4:22), it speaks to the relationship between spiritual darkness and intellectual darkness. Watch a few episodes of Cops on TV to see this principle in action. This also provides the technical explanation for why God allows disasters of all types: evil is a stain which, if left unchecked, results in the destruction by those who have too much of it by their own hand. Practicing moral constraint corrects this, but when we are unwilling, God's love rules the day in the midst of all forms of destruction.

When God's cutting off from among His people of the righteous and the wicked (Ezek 21:3) falls on human spirit rather than on individuals, all the Bible can be seen in its rationally esoteric sense: goats/sheep, wheat/tares, wicked/righteous are elements dealt with in their deepest sense, internally. Here, perfection is restored to salvation and C and A dissolve. When God effects the eternal and sovereign aspect of His decrees against evil, only that which is truly and completely evil and stands in rebelliousness and enmity toward Him is destroyed.

Temporal or time/space salvation is just God offering to us the opportunity to do things the easy way (by sanctification to true faith, not the blab-it-n-grab-it superficial Christianity so prevelant today), rather than the hard way in the lake of fire after physical death. He's in effect saying to mankind, "You're already loved and found spotless, which means you've been found simultaneously filthy and condemned to die: I give you each and every one a measure of eternal life (Jn 1:9)--[what our A brethren call prevenient grace]--providing 1) the assurance of eternal salvation, and, 2) and a measure of ability to enter belief of the truth: go forth and believe. It won't be easy (sanctification), but it also won't be that hard. If, after hearing [which is primarily an internal operation, not external] you refuse me, you'll die....up to and including, if you insist in your enmity on being stubborn to the end, coming into fellowship with Me the hard way, by my loving embrace, where My pure, true Information is a roaring lake of fire to the kindling of falsity which remains in the unprotected human spirit. Righteousness hath no fellowship with unrighteousness, and you are condemned to live according to my perfect love, [i]and live you shall![/] (God's eternal and unchaning decree to all mankind).

The impossibilities which embrace C and A dissolve because mercy, love and faithfulness is accomplished in absolute perfection. Choice is established in this dualistic structure as God's soverignty in eternality, human volition in choosing to what degree we're willing to follow Christ's voice to the establishing of faith. The believer who falls may or may not be allowed to fall all the way back to final cleansing in the lake of fire, but I think not. Rather, I see Heb 6:4-8 and similar passages referring to "destruction events" in the life of the believer, that is, regenerational events designed to reclaim the faith that has fallen...thus, God's decrees again find perfection, in that the stain or evil which prevents belief is destroyed rather than the individual, and the fellowship of faith restored, by Jesus' perfect faithfulness ([b]2Tim 2:13), yet 'so as through fire' (1Cor 3:11-15)

"Jesus died for us and others and there is nothing we can do about it. In his sovereignty he did not ask for our opinion, our permission or our help"

Agreed.

Provoker

December 8th 2005, 01:37 PM

Re: "This is some of the first common ground I've found with you, re the last part."

Hello Bernie:
We both read the same bible Bernie. Why do you suppose we don't have any common ground?

smaller

December 8th 2005, 02:00 PM

Hi Smaller,

Can you explain what you mean exactly by 'anti-spiritual component'? I suspect you're talking about Satan and demons, but want to be sure we're on the same page before responding.

Of course. I find this component largely void in RE.

How did I arrive at the determination of anti-spiritual? Follow the math here Bernie:

Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, The Life, God in Flesh, God is Love, God is Spirit.

The spirit of the anti-Christ, the devil and his messengers, are that anti or opposed to all of those things that Jesus IS. Very much like Matter to anti-matter. A force or opposition to all of what Jesus is, and thereby ANTI-SPIRITS. They have the power of death, the power of sin, the power of evil etc etc.

And these powers were clearly showN by Jesus to reside in mankind. RE seems devoid of the obvious in this matter IMHO, though RE does touch on the fact that resistance is there, in men. RE does not provide a specific identification upon that very large component, the devil and his messengers who are at work in the flesh of all mankind.

This type of duality is not a duality of mixture. It is a position of TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT entities existing in the flesh of mankind. Sometimes more than one entity in the case of LEGION for example.

The vessels of destruction (satan and his messengers) bound into the same lump as the vessels of honor (all mankind.)

I believe if you incorporated this reality our determinations would be identical, but without that component I am forced to blame only variations of accusations against Gods offspring and none of those solutions work for me on a multi-scriptural basis.

There are two edges to God's Sword. One edge is against satan and his messengers to condemnation and eternal damnation. The other edge is to mankind, His offspring unto eternal life and love.

It is a mistake to apply the wrong edge to the wrong entity. RE postulates that is the faulted soul of mankind. I think scriptures make a clear case for the two separate vessels that current comprise mankind in the flesh. This position is exceedingly more viable.

I might also add that there is a very good rift within UR on this matter (as if rifts are a surprise.) There is a vast amount of confusion that results in mixing these two positions. For example, Mr. Whitesocks exemplifies what has evolved in the belief that all are saved including the devil and his messengers, in that everyone and everything is being tossed into the LOF. In this presentation that camp mistakes the fate of the devil and his messengers for the fate of all mankind and all of creation, and then have some non-existing transformation or change coming for everyone and everything. It's quite an absurd presentation IMHO. Death will be no more. Hell will be no more. Sin, evil, death, tears, sorrow will all be eradicated. There will be no change or transformation for these things. They will be permanently gone. So their position is rather disingenuous on that basis alone. Death will not be coming back as a transformed piece of life. What's the point? That power will simply find its ending in the LOF and that's the end of it.

His Life will remain and for His Intendeds, His offspring, Mankind, formed and prepared by their exposure to temporal evil and temporal death, a couple of "tools" that are in Gods Arsenal and that are therefore also His servants.

God is justified by the use of those tools, the devil and his messengers, sin, evil, and death as their temporal grantings and overlayed upon His Children.

Hope and the demonstration of Divine Mercy by direct application to His Own offspring and the longsuffering quality of Love in part developed because of that dross, the devil and his messengers, the anti-spirits. They get permanent storage in anti-heaven (the LOF) and eventually wink out by the temporal forces of their own core, death by imploding upon themselves. The logical permanent fate of anti-Love.

When RE laps this position it will be deadly accurate. It's rational and it's knowledge for us who understand. It also happens to be the presentation of the scriptures and no man will take credit for the pre-written facts.

enjoy!

smaller

Bernie

December 8th 2005, 06:11 PM

Hello Provoker,

I don't think we don't have any common ground, just seems to be not much. Why? Your position, as you've formulated it here, doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure that if we spent several hours in a face-to-face discussion, my understanding of your theology would improve and we'd doubtless find more common ground. You just seem to circle too high above what to me is the essential stuff. We just operate on different levels, it seems...but life goes on, regardless, yes?

Hello Smaller,

You're right, my theology is mostly Satan/demons absent. I believe external false data exists...what kind of fundamentalist would I be to reject what the Lord Himself taught, and I am, after all, the world's only esoteric fundamentalist. My primary pursuits have left my thinking about external evil in a closet, though recent posts in other threads have piqued my interest. Not finding much time to research this now, as I'm trying to get my new website up and running. I noticed years ago that Paul's use of the terms flesh and spirit held a significance for him that I failed to understand. I think you're taking "flesh" too literally here, though, which seems to me to lead naturally to the implausable 'devil made me do it' mindset which, to work properly, necessarily overlooks practially all the realm of moral responsibility.

You may not understand RE all that well at this point: I see all human beings as the very apple and perfection of God's eye--and simultaneously wretched sinners in whom evil as the property of falsity in spirit's informational fabric is fragmentally scattered in a complex pluralistic state. The former is the death warrant for the latter; wrath is found in the end to be love, actually.

We've probably already covered the main issues in our disagreements. Sorry, but to come over to your 'side' I'd have to erase some fundamental truths that I've come through hell to find. Can't give those pearls up.

On the other hand, should you ever decide to abandon the egregious inconsistencies you've fallen prey to, it's just a short, small step from where you are to RE! Come on over.

God bless you in your walk.

Philetus

December 8th 2005, 07:30 PM

Hey Bernie,
Don't throw in the towel just yet. And thanks for your reply,

"The impossibilities which embrace C and A dissolve because mercy, love and faithfulness is accomplished in absolute perfection. Choice is established in this dualistic structure as God's soverignty in eternality, human volition in choosing to what degree we're willing to follow Christ's voice to the establishing of faith. The believer who falls may or may not be allowed to fall all the way back to final cleansing in the lake of fire, but I think not. Rather, I see Heb 6:4-8 and similar passages referring to "destruction events" in the life of the believer, that is, regenerational events designed to reclaim the faith that has fallen...thus, God's decrees again find perfection, in that the stain or evil which prevents belief is destroyed rather than the individual, and the fellowship of faith restored, by Jesus' perfect faithfulness (2Tim 2:13), yet 'so as through fire' (1Cor 3:11-15)"

Agree!

Faith or Grace? Who chooses?

If you are correct in that the issue is all head then yes its beyond resolve and we will continue “talking over” the actual problem. But what if God’s ways are really, really above our ways? Say, about 18 inches. Maybe we need to restrict our conversation to ‘talking under’ the ‘real problem’. The real problem seems to be that we can’t even begin to grasp the concept of God’s perfection. The instant we think we know what divine perfection looks like, God throws grace at us and we think his ‘immutable perfection’ is compromised and we start dividing the spoil in to layers like first and second degree attributes. Sorry, but I think that’s the real problem.

Who chooses? What part of gift is so hard to understand? Somebody chooses to give me a necktie for my birthday. They choose the style and the color. I know something about their taste in fashion and leave the gift unopened on the table for weeks. It’s the thought that counts anyway. Right? Months pass until I am desperate and need a tie. Then I unwrap the thing and choose to either wear it or not. I choose not to wear it ... ever! Then they bury me in it. Whose tie is it? Regardless of my thinking on whether or not God is just in doing so, God chooses to give a gift and what ever I think of that gift, I’ll be damned if I’m not buried in it.

As for throwing the baby out with the baptistry ... If I understand your argument ... Either the gift of God informs my living in the temporal or it doesn’t and it’s in the hear and now that I’m working out my own salvation. But in eternity the sovereignty of God reigns supreme anyway. If the conclusion of the C and A is that the only way for God to remain perfect, as we assume he must, is to either condemn or rescue everyone alike, then the flaw is not in the ending points of C and A as you suggest, but in their beginnings.

Who chooses?
I’ll just call it a covenant agreement and approach the whole matter from an “I don’t know about that” humility, and focus on what we know and not on all we choose to disbelieve. So you are saying, God makes an offer that ‘I can’t refuse’ and that offer either impacts me in a positive way in the here and now or it doesn’t and to a greater or lesser degree my life is saved in the midst of death. The more I yield the easier it is. As for the hereafter, well, even though we will all be saved ... it is the hard way; the lake of fire. If that’s a second boat is it not one I choose? And if (God forbid) I end up in the third boat ... so evil I’m destroyed in the lake of fire and condemned to eternal punishment or ex- created ... who chose? I’m not sure your approach resolves anything of the rift between A and C, but it is full of interest and I like it. It's thought provoking and I'll give it more attention later. I’ll wear the tie for now and see how it plays out in eternity.

By the way, who are the REs you refer too so often?

Thanks,
Philetus

Bernie

December 8th 2005, 09:44 PM

Hello Philetus,

"If you are correct in that the issue is all head then yes its beyond resolve and we will continue “talking over” the actual problem."

Assuming the word "head" is either a typo or by head you mean a logic puzzle [to be resolved thus in one's 'head'...???], I'll opt for the latter and say I don't really think this is a logic puzzle at all. It's just a bunch of human beings [....yes, I know I'm usually considered to be sub-human, but humor me here] trying to figure out with the minds God's given us what's going to happen when we die. Salvation. I didn't mean to sound like I believe that once some logic puzzle is figured out we can all turn out the lights and go home. Not a bit. Like many others, I'm just fighting to find the 'path of least resistance', whether that path lies along logical, Scriptural or experiential lines. I believe truth finds unity with truth, and until we can overcome the natural tension and resistance that pops up between contraries, we can't say we have the truth. Does this seem incorrect to you? If so, how?

"Who chooses? What part of gift is so hard to understand? Somebody chooses to give me a necktie for my birthday. They choose the style and the color. I know something about their taste in fashion and leave the gift unopened on the table for weeks. It’s the thought that counts anyway. Right? Months pass until I am desperate and need a tie. Then I unwrap the thing and choose to either wear it or not. I choose not to wear it ... ever! Then they bury me in it. Whose tie is it? Regardless of my thinking on whether or not God is just in doing so, God chooses to give a gift and what ever I think of that gift, I’ll be damned if I’m not buried in it."

Sorry, I'm not following you here. Sounds like you're making the case for human volition as the final arbiter. Do I misunderstand you?

"But what if God’s ways are really, really above our ways? Say, about 18 inches. Maybe we need to restrict our conversation to ‘talking under’ the ‘real problem’. The real problem seems to be that we can’t even begin to grasp the concept of God’s perfection. The instant we think we know what divine perfection looks like, God throws grace at us and we think his ‘immutable perfection’ is compromised and we start dividing the spoil in to layers like first and second degree attributes. Sorry, but I think that’s the real problem."

Of course God's ways are above ours. I don't think I said anything to suggest I don't believe this, did I? Not sure about 'talking under the problem'. If by this you mean that it's wrong to pursue a thing to its highest logical conclusion--which I've been led to understand is a valid means of testing truth claims--then this seems to me not a proper approach. I find I can only paint what I see. Probably don't paint a very clear picture sometimes, but I see through a glass darkly, like everyone else.

It seems you're saying that I sound too much like a know-it-all and need to back off and admit we don't know how God operates. If so, I heartily agree; I'm an arrogant SOB by nature, always have been and probably always will be till my dying day. We all have our demons. But I think I try to be an arrogant SOB who isn't afraid to test the waters with my theology. All who post on theology boards realize they stand the chance of being whacked with a 2x4, and if it happens to me, I'll gain some much needed humility. I post as I do because I feel confident in my position. I feel confident in my position for reasons I don't care to go into here. Sorry if I come across too harshly. Tact is not a close friend of mine. My only other option is to stay off theology boards, and this sounds great, since I don't much like other human beings, but I have other compulsions to serve for the time being, so here I am.

The best way to teach me humility is to show me where I'm wrong, Philetus. I try to be honest in considering the criticisms of others. Honest. Let's take the case with my [i]"dividing the spoil in to layers like first and second degree attributes". Don't make an emotional plea--tell my where this concept is wrong. I only used the terms 'first and second degree attributes' as a language tool to make what I believe to be a valid distinction, that certain attributes of God normally thought to pertain to salvation, like mercy, love, forgiveness and justice are merely human unless they abide in an overriding perfection. Perfection is itself a quality or attribute, and to make a proper distinction between human and divine, perfection seems to me primary or that which God's other attributes need necessarily conform to in order to establish His divinity. Where is this logically wrong?

You needn't apologize for anything...you seem like an honorable correspondent, and honorable men and women may disagree honorably. It's the guys who make smart-arsed comments then diappear into the mist on these boards who I don't have patience with.

RE is short for Rational Esotericism, what I call my pet belief system.

Bernie

December 8th 2005, 10:34 PM

Hello again, Philetus,

You know, you sure sound a lot like Provoker and shunyadragon.

I forgot to respond to your last paragraph in your last post....
"So you are saying, God makes an offer that ‘I can’t refuse’ and that offer either impacts me in a positive way in the here and now or it doesn’t and to a greater or lesser degree my life is saved in the midst of death. The more I yield the easier it is. As for the hereafter, well, even though we will all be saved ... it is the hard way; the lake of fire. If that’s a second boat is it not one I choose? And if (God forbid) I end up in the third boat ... so evil I’m destroyed in the lake of fire and condemned to eternal punishment or ex- created ... who chose?"

God first quickens, then offers temporal salvation through the 'portal' of truth He establishes in human spirit (Jn 1:9). Volition is necessarily impotent due to a great deal of the informational structure in human spirit (and causatively, intellect) as well as in material reality, consisting in a state of falsity or imperfection.

YOU: "offer either impacts me in a positive way in the here and now or it doesn’t"
It always does, regardless of how one chooses, because to refuse Christ's call inevitably leads to death: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Ro 1:18) and "for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom 8:13) God's perfect love dictates that death always results in life (Jn 12:24).

YOU: "and to a greater or lesser degree my life is saved in the midst of death."
No, to a perfect degree. We're saved fragmentally and progressively, IMO. The 'greater of lesser' applies only in time, where volition has a meager power to resist, but I believe that even resistance to affirmation of truth results in cleansing fire (regeneration), even though that particular bit of cleansing doesn't provide illumination to the truth one has been called to, some other area is healed. God can't help but heal, Christian, atheist and Hindu alike. It's His nature.

YOU: "As for the hereafter, well, even though we will all be saved ... it is the hard way; the lake of fire."

Only for those who refuse Christ's call to walk with Him in belief to sanctification. Those who benefit from the temporal salvation of forged faith are changed in an instant, according to Paul's testimony (1Cor 15:51-52). For these, Jesus' imputed righteousness is a shield of protection against the burning lake of fire, which is God's pure, perfect True essence.

YOU: "If that’s a second boat is it not one I choose?"
Yes. Temporal salvation provides for volition.

YOU: "And if (God forbid) I end up in the third boat ... so evil I’m destroyed in the lake of fire and condemned to eternal punishment or ex- created ... who chose?"
Not sure how a third boat got in here, but you missed an all-important point earlier: literally ALL burning is destruction, resulting in new life. Eternality pertains to the extent to which evil is removed, not a measure of the length of time of one's punishment. In Rev 14:11, it is the smokeof one's torment that goes up forever and ever, not the tormentee. This mystery is given space by God in Ezek 15:4-8, where after noting that the charred remains of the wood of the vine (the vine or vineyard in esoteric language is always a reference to God's chosen (Isa 5)), a charred remnant remains. This is a common type--a remnant--in the OT. God destroys, but not completely (Jer 30:11). This speaks to the work He performs in man's spirit in the Bible's esoteric sense.

Point is, He always brings life (restoration to a true state) from death. There is no 'eternal punishment' of humans; it is the punishment of falsity from spirit and all creation which garners eternality. We can choose to enter lake of fire: we cannot chose to be destroyed or punished eternally: God has already chosen all to live, and to live perfectly. Removal of falsity/evil is simply the removal of humanity's war against God's authority, which in the end is all one could ever want, anyway.

Philetus

December 9th 2005, 12:15 AM

Bernie,
Don't apologize. You’re the nicest sobitelectualsubhuman I’ve met on line in a long time. Just kidding. In fact, I was thinking just the opposite, you have opened the door to an area I had not considered in dealing with the issue of the final destruction of all evil and ‘saves’ the apples of his eye … every wretched human being. The ‘Third Boat’ was a misunderstanding on my part of what you were saying.

This helps a lot. You: "No, to a perfect degree. We're saved fragmentally and progressively, IMO. The 'greater of lesser' applies only in time, where volition has a meager power to resist, but I believe that even resistance to affirmation of truth results in cleansing fire (regeneration), even though that particular bit of cleansing doesn't provide illumination to the truth one has been called to, some other area is healed. God can't help but heal, Christian, atheist and Hindu alike. It's His nature.”

AMEN!

You: Sorry, I'm not following you here. Sounds like you're making the case for human volition as the final arbiter. Do I misunderstand you?

No, I misunderstood you. The necktie thing was more distraction than help. Augh! My bad. I’m leaning toward the position that human violation tips the equation as to how much one’s salvation influences his or her life here and now but little as to how it affects one’s status in eternity. (Sounds a little Calvinistic … oh, dear me.) Your position seems to reserve even my most deep seated conviction that “God is for us and not against us, now and always.” All of us … without exception … Baptist, Buddhist, Methodist and Muslim. This has such implications for resolution to more than just the A/C impasse that I find my head spinning. I simply confess that neither the A nor the C position satisfies my desire to know God and follow Jesus and love my neighbors … all of them.

I’m going to have to bone up on Rational Esotericism.

Thanks ever so much,
Philetus

Bernie

December 9th 2005, 11:04 AM

Hello Philetus,

"I’m leaning toward the position that human violation tips the equation as to how much one’s salvation influences his or her life here and now but little as to how it affects one’s status in eternity."

My position exactly.

Provoker

December 9th 2005, 11:20 AM

Re: "Hello Provoker, I don't think we don't have any common ground, just seems to be not much. Why? Your position, as you've formulated it here, doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure that if we spent several hours in a face-to-face discussion, my understanding of your theology would improve and we'd doubtless find more common ground. You just seem to circle too high above what to me is the essential stuff. We just operate on different levels, it seems."

Hello Bernie:
If one has no grasp of, or interest in, the majority of scripture which comes before the small portions of scripture which are doctrinally interpreted to be "essentials", he can only discuss, what he perceives to be the essentials, from memory, not from understanding.
If no one in the discussion is prepared to think, or discuss, outside of the "doctrinal preconceptions box", the discussion becomes the equivalent of the proverbial, "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin" arguement.
When the discussion for the resolution of two "orthodox" positions, which have been unsuccesfully debated by the "orthodox" for centuries, finally reaches an "unorthodox theology" forum, where it has a chance of resolution, don't you think that some unorthodox theology should be considered?

Bernie

December 9th 2005, 10:53 PM

Hello Provoker,

"When the discussion for the resolution of two "orthodox" positions, which have been unsuccesfully debated by the "orthodox" for centuries, finally reaches an "unorthodox theology" forum, where it has a chance of resolution, don't you think that some unorthodox theology should be considered?"
Yes. I'm providing some. I don't think the discussion lies as far outside orthodoxy as you seem to want to take it, however. It would only be necessary to think outside the 'doctrinal preconceptions box' as far as you do if one believes the lion's share of what lies inside the box is invalid. I happen to think there's a great deal of value there which has been arrived at by the blood, sweat and tears of a lot of Godly men and women.

Provoker

December 10th 2005, 10:41 AM

Re: "Yes. I'm providing some. I don't think the discussion lies as far outside orthodoxy as you seem to want to take it, however. It would only be necessary to think outside the 'doctrinal preconceptions box' as far as you do if one believes the lion's share of what lies inside the box is invalid. I happen to think there's a great deal of value there which has been arrived at by the blood, sweat and tears of a lot of Godly men and women."

Hello Bernie:
I'm not suggesting that the discussion lies outside of orthodoxy, but that it should.
Is the value in rightly dividing scripture, or is it in the assumption that Godly men and women have already rightly divided scripture?
The very fact that there is a conflict between the doctrines of these two Godly men, is proof positive that we cannot simply assume that any preconceptions can be assumed to be correct.
Some like to say that we build on the shoulders of the giants who studied the bible before us, and we definitely do, but if that means that we must arbitrarily select a preconceived doctrine to build on, or to use scripture to reconcile two preconceived doctrines, then contrary to the advice of scripture, we have put our faith in the traditions of men.
With so many "orthodox" differences, it means that the giants who came before us did not assume that the giants who came before them had it right.
Shouldn't we attempt to be the giants for future generations, by appealing to the fundamentals of scripture, rather than appealing to preconciptions in order to reconcile two conflicting preconceived opinions?
Whether or not Calvinism and Arminianism can be reconciled to one another, means very little if neither can be reconciled to scripture.
Scripture was not written with either of these giants of orthodoxy in mind, and if scripture is used simply to select one preconception over another, or to reconcile the two, without appealing to the greater context of scripture, it is using scripture out of context.

.Mr.White.Socks

December 11th 2005, 05:05 PM

For example, Mr. Whitesocks exemplifies what has evolved in the belief that all are saved including the devil and his messengers, in that everyone and everything is being tossed into the LOF. In this presentation that camp mistakes the fate of the devil and his messengers for the fate of all mankind and all of creation, and then have some non-existing transformation or change coming for everyone and everything.

I saw my screen name, and just wanted to say that technically, the word I use is not transformation, it is transfiguration resulting in a complete restoration "apokatastasis". First, there is the "hupotage" subjection, of all things, the "pleroma" filling of all things, then the "metamorphosis" transfiguration of all things, according to the working of His "energeia" activated by His "dynamis" power.

Maybe people talk past each other because Scriptures of the O.T. and N.T. seem to contain:

HELLENISM-JUDIAISM
REASON-WILL
WISDOM-TORAH
theoría (vision)-praxis (halakhah)
noëtic/mystical-concrete experience
thoughts-proof texts
ontological-judicial
energy-knowledge
objectivity-positivism

There also appear to be three different theological views of union with God to choose from:

Orthodox Union with God - ontic (energetic) union with God
Latin Unity with God - conceptual likeness of ideas with God
Protestant Unity with God - moral (i.e. volitional) unity by covenant

Maverick

Bernie

December 13th 2005, 11:58 AM

Hello Provoker,

"I'm not suggesting that the discussion lies outside of orthodoxy, but that it should. Is the value in rightly dividing scripture, or is it in the assumption that Godly men and women have already rightly divided scripture?"

To me, the answer is fairly obvious: the rightly dividing is a fragmented thing. Incomplete. You seem to suggest that because divisions still exist, the answer lies outside. I reject this and operate under the assumption that the puzzle has been partially solved, that God continues to work in mankind toward its final resolution.

It's fine with me that you reject orthodoxy....herein lies the freedom one has. But to suggest that orthodoxy has failed makes no sense to me because I see a tremendous amount of unity within the orthodox structure. At base, truth and falsity are both in unity with themselves, and contrary to one another. That contrariety exists in part is no reason to throw out the truth.

I'm curious, though, at your unceasing attempts to find a foothold where none exists. I see a searching mind behind the scenes. While I tip my hat to your attempts to reconcile Christianity with your views, I just don't see much connection.

Hello Mr. White Socks,

"There also appear to be three different theological views of union with God to choose from:

Orthodox Union with God - ontic (energetic) union with God
Latin Unity with God - conceptual likeness of ideas with God
Protestant Unity with God - moral (i.e. volitional) unity by covenant"
I don't see these as truly different, but different aspects of the same thing. To me, the simple notion of true and false as properties of human spirit satisfy, at least foundationally, the interconnectedness of all three.

Ontological by means of actual restoration of human spirit to original true state, likeness of Idea with idea [living information], or unity of man and God, by same means, and a corresponding, progressive and fragmental change re unity of intellect with absolute truth. Ratio of true/false has direct relationship to this unity and all its associated concepts...i.e., illumination, moral capacity as right desire, etc.