Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
            All right I'll kick it off.  Romans 10:9-13
    
     
             9   That if thou shalt confess
                 with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
                 and shalt believe in thine heart
                 that God hath raised him from
                 the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    
            10   For with the heart man be-
                 lieveth unto righteousness; and 
                 with the mouth confession is made
                 unto salvation.
    
            11   For the scripture saith
                 Whosoever believeth on him shall
                 not be ashamed.
    
            12   For there is no difference
                 between the Jew and the Greek:
                 for the same lord over all is
                 rich unto all that call upon him.
    
            13   For whosoever shall call
                 upon the name of the Lord shall
                 be saved.
    
    
    
    Dave

    Are you saved *from* something (sin, hell, whatever)?
    Or are you saved *to* something (freedom, life, whatever)?
    Or is it always both -- or have you thought about it?

    RE: .2
    
                I see my salvation as a stand (of mine) to serve God.
    Thru that salvation, I will exist, in heaven for eternity.  Since the
    Bible says that God cannot "look upon sin", Jesus becomes our filter
    to God.  That means that Jesus took upon himself my sins.  I feel that 
    its a gift and needs to be accepted.
    
    
    Dave

To me, salvation is the comprehension of the immediate Presence of God.
(Wish I could think of the verse that substantiates this! 8-})

Peace,
Richard

    re. .2
    
    	I think with the verses in .1 there is a very STRONG implication
    that it is both.  If you are not saved 'from' something then what 
    was the purpose of Jesus' death?  We are obviously saved 'to' something
    because in salvation we become 'joint-heirs'  co-inheritors of the 
    promises of God.
    
    	_ed-

    I like what the theologian John Hick has to say about salvation.  He
    describes it as it as a transition from self-centeredness to
    Reality-centeredness.  In that sense, he argues, each of the major
    religions offers its own unique path to "salvation", because each of
    these faiths points a way to Reality-centeredness.  Since I don't
    believe in hell, I don't believe in the idea of being saved "from"
    anything, other than perhaps from the spiritual consequences in this
    life of being separated from the Divine.

    I also tend to see salvation, not as a binary construct (you are either
    "saved" or your aren't), but as a *process*.  I think that perhaps
    Christianity tends to downplay that concept, but it is important to my
    own spirituality because I believe that I am always in a process of
    growth--or at least I ought to be.  Perhaps Eastern religions have an
    insight here that might be valuable for Christianity.  I don't know if
    there is an afterlife or not; but if there is, I suspect that the
    process of growth would continue after we die.  In that sense, whether
    or not there is any validity whatsoever to the doctrine of
    reincarnation, perhaps the Eastern religions do have an insight here
    that Christianity tends to de-emphasize--the idea of salvation as a
    continuing process that is not complete in the course of one lifetime.

    -- Mike

Re:  .6

The process of becoming "righteous" is sanctification, not salvation.
Salvation as presented in the Bible is an event in a moment of time
where the individual puts his faith and trust in God (Eph 2:8,9) and 
God indwells the individual with His Spirit  (I Cor 2:12, 3:16).
Sanctification occurs after salvation and is the maturing of the
person into a more godly person.

Sanctification (becoming a "better" person) is very uplayed in the
churches that I have attended.  In fact, in society in general it is
so uplayed that it is commonly confused with salvation.  The popular
idea is that being good is what matters most to God and that this is
what will make you right with God.

Collis

    I believe that the Quaker view has generally been that salvation and
    sanctification are the same thing.  This is one area where Quakerism
    has tended to differ from most other Christian denominations.  In any
    case, I tend to share this view.  I believe that there is that of God
    in everyone; therefore I view salvation as the process of living up the
    measure of the "Inner Light", which in turn can result in an
    enlargement of that measure over time.  This is a continual process, I
    believe.
    
    -- Mike
    

    After rereading a section of William Cooper's book "A Living Faith:  An
    Historical Study of Quaker Belief", I would like to amend slightly what
    I stated in the previous reply.  Cooper belongs to the Christian
    mainstream of Quakerism, and while I don't always agree with him, he
    does provide some interesting insights.

    In his discussion of salvation, he defines the term as "the reuniting
    of our human wills with God's will in order to experience
    reconciliation with our Creator".  He then discusses the traditional
    interpretations of salvation, which include redemption, justification,
    and sanctification as part of the overall process of salvation.  He
    then states:

        A number of Christian groups, including the Friends, believe that
        the redemption/salvation process is not authentic until we enter
        into holy obedience to God. In some traditions, including
        evangelical Quakerism, this stage of spiritual development is
        called sanctification--that is, being made holy in the presence of
        God.  Arrival at this point enables one to say with Kierkegaard, "I
        will do one thing only and that is to do the will of God."  For
        Friends such an understanding of the redemptive process corresponds
        with what Fox meant by Christian perfection; sanctification,
        holiness, and perfection are in effect synonymous terms.  However,
        there is an important difference between Friends and other
        Christian groups at this point, for Friends do not make a
        distinction between justification and sanctification in the
        redemptive process.  They believe that one is not fully justified
        before God until one is sanctified--that is, brought into holy
        obedience and spiritual unity with God.

        Likewise, Friends have taken issue with Wesley's first and second
        work of grace to effect justification and sanctification following
        conversion.  (Quakers speak of "convincement" rather than
        "conversion."  For them "convincement" represents "the initial step
        on the long road to Christian perfection.")  They believe there is
        one work of grace--namely, that if one lives "in the virtue of that
        life and power of God" (to quote George Fox), then one can come
        into a "perfectly" restored relationship with God.  Such a state of
        sanctification led Fox and early Friends to believe that they could
        live as if the kingdom of God was already present, and not some
        future event.

        Finally, Friends have never been of one mind about whether the
        Light of Christ Within is sufficient for salvation or whether the
        atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross was necessary to make
        reconciliation with God possible....The evangelical tradition of
        Friends has held that the atoning work of Christ on the cross is
        essential to salvation.  Liberal Friends, on the other hand, have
        emphasized the Light of Christ Within (or, more recently "that of
        God in every one") as the basis for spiritual reconciliation with
        God.  Another way of expressing this difference is that liberal
        Friends emphasize Christian nurture in place of Christian
        redemption, whereas evangelical Friends emphasize Christian
        redemption *and then* Christian nurture as the basis for growth
        toward the life of Christian perfection.  (pages 66-67)

    -- Mike

    I would like to point out that "justification" and "sanctification"
    are Pauline theological terms.
    
    Richard

    RE: Salvation
    
    (-1 - Who's Pauline? ...just kidding)
    
    I am of the belief that "Salvation" is a "one time thing", like an
    initiation into a club.  The initiation is a three-step process,
    1)confess Christ and believe (as the scripture in .1 states), 2)be
    baptised in water, 3)be baptised in the holy spirit, and you are in the
    club, you are saved, thus "salvation".
    
    Once saved, always saved, but from this point on you begin a new course
    in life, of learning, experience, and growth unto perfection in Christ.
    
    Saved from or to what?  I believe in Matthew or Luke, in the first few
    chapters, there is a statement regarding this.  It speaks of exactly
    what we are saved from.  We are "saved from", but not "saved to" in my
    opinion, because this is "grammatically" incorrect.  Being "saved from"
    automatically disposes us to live for and in God and receive the gift
    of eternal life.
    
    Salvation, relates to the putting on of the new man/spirit, and this
    only happens one time/moment.  It represents the change in direction of
    our mind, from worldliness to righteousness.  I don't believe that this
    "change" happens as a process/ongoing, but is accomplished very quickly
    once and for all.  Afterwards, one may "backslide", but God is married
    to the backslider.
    
    Jesus says, Ye must be born again.  Which speaks of the baptism.  This
    "born again" experience is not a process or ongoing, but is quickly
    done, in a moment are we passed from death unto life.  If this were not
    so the thief on the Cross next to Jesus couldn't have made it to
    heaven without going through the necessary process.  
    
    Playtoe

Some Christian collectivities believe that salvation is a one time 
irrevocable event.  Others believe that salvation can be accepted, lost,
and accepted again.  Still others believe salvation is a process rather
than an event, a way rather than a destination.

Richard

    RE: 12
    
    Thanks for the overview Richard, but what is the correct understanding
    in your mind, or do you feel them all correct, or do you feel there is
    no "correct" way, but that it's according to how you want to interpret
    or define it?
    
    It seems to me that if you have ever been saved (the experience), you
    should know beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what Salvation is and
    how it occurred in your life, either as a process or as a one time
    thing/moment.  Only the theoreticists debate this issue, those who
    really haven't been saved...that's my "opinion", based on the evidence
    of my personal experience in being saved.
    
    I'm saying this, from the very first day that I accepted Christ into my
    life, from that moment on, I was saved.   There's no process, to period
    of time that occurred before I was saved.  Tell me, from your own
    experience, and not theoretically, how Salvation occurred for you.  And
    if you do I'm SURE we'll all be on one accord on this, that it is a
    moment, a very special moment, that we are saved.  The process that
    some refer to is the process of time one spends adjusting to the boon
    of Salvation, or it is the process of time one spends perfecting self
    in Christ, but neither of these are a process of Salvation, but are
    processes that one is positioned to undergo as a result of being saved. 
    It's like a baby is born only once from the womb, being born of the
    spirit is a one time thing, but as Jesus said "Ye must be born again"
    which is the "moment" of our Salvation...as the man asked Jesus "Can a
    man enter into the womb again?", of course not.  Can a man be saved
    twice, NO...what does the scripture say, "It is impossible for one who
    has tasted the gift of God....if he should fall away, to every come
    back again" something like that.  
    
    So, with diligent study, showing thyself approved, rightly dividing the
    word of truth, we make plain the understanding of God's Word, and there
    is no confusion or contradictions.  If it is necessary to decide, do we
    offend men (who we can see, and FEAR!), or God (who does not appear to
    our natural eye, and who we may not fully fear)?  The way I've stated
    this seems to lead one to choose to offend God, because he's not here
    and we have no fear of him, but as a Christian, what do you say?
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .13
    
    See 220.4
    
    Richard

    RE: all....
    
                  I also believe in "once saved always saved".  I also 
    believe that the Bible is THE word of God.  Ok....now you ask "why,
    if God is love, does he 'allow' people to go to hell?"  God, in my
    mind, loves us *SO* much that he gives us a choice.  He also loves us
    so much that he *gave* his son to die for us.  Did Jesus *HAVE* to die?
    I believe that the answer is yes.  Since the Bible teaches the God
    cannot 'look' on sin, Jesus had to die so we, you and I, could go
    before God clean and without sin because Jesus took on himself my
    (our) sins.  But this salvation is a gift and can be rejected.  Once
    accepted, this salvation is eternal.  The holy spirit, living within me
    corrects me and purify's my faith.
    
    
    Dave  

    Dave,
    
    	Would you say that the primary mission of Jesus was to bring
    salvation to the world?
    
    Richard

    RE: .16   Richard,
    
                       John 3:16-17
    
       16   For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
    that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
    life.
      
       17   For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
    but that the world through him might be saved.
    
    
    
    NOTE:    Verse #16 says the word "should" and NOT "shall".  That is a
    very important point.  It is confirmed in #17....the word "might" here
    is used...again giving the impression that there is a choice.  With all
    the other scripture supporting that, I think the word usage here is
    consistent.
    
    
    Dave

    My experience and understanding of salvation aligns itself with some
    other thoughts that have been expressed in this string that salvation 
    is a process.
    
    The process of salvation to me, is recognizing God in all things and
    that all things are in God.  Which is also what several Christian
    mystics proclaimed as salvation, i.e. Meister Eckhart, Hildegarde of
    Bingen, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Francis of Assisi, St Thomas Aquinas and
    Giordiano Bruno, to name a few.
    
    If I cannot look upon the world and recognize God in all things and all
    things in God, then I am not saved.  And just because I looked at the
    world yesterday and recognized God in every thing, if I can't do it today
    I am not saved.  Salvation is a process of coming to *know* God in all
    things.  I believe this to be one of the primary teachings of Jesus
    the Christ.
    
    Karen

re Note 220.13 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

>     Thanks for the overview Richard, but what is the correct understanding
>     in your mind, or do you feel them all correct, or do you feel there is
>     no "correct" way, but that it's according to how you want to interpret
>     or define it?

        Remember, that Paul describes our present understanding as
        "looking through a dark glass" -- elsewhere he describes
        God's wisdom as appearing foolish in the "light" of human
        wisdom.  Just because we think there must be one right
        interpretation, and just because we think we know it, offers
        no evidence that either is true!

        The correct understanding is God's -- some day we will see
        clearly, when we see him face to face, but not a moment
        sooner.

>     It seems to me that if you have ever been saved (the experience), you
>     should know beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what Salvation is and
>     how it occurred in your life, either as a process or as a one time
>     thing/moment.  Only the theoreticists debate this issue, those who
>     really haven't been saved...that's my "opinion", based on the evidence
>     of my personal experience in being saved.
  
        Certainly your own experience has some validity in defining
        how it happened for you (and even then, mere experience can
        be misleading and misinterpreted), but it has no validity in
        making generalizations to all of humankind!

          
>     I'm saying this, from the very first day that I accepted Christ into my
>     life, from that moment on, I was saved.   There's no process, to period
>     of time that occurred before I was saved.  Tell me, from your own
>     experience, and not theoretically, how Salvation occurred for you.  And
>     if you do I'm SURE we'll all be on one accord on this, that it is a
>     moment, a very special moment, that we are saved.  

        Playtoe,  if "Only the theoreticists debate this issue," then
        how come you are debating it?  	It would seem to me that it is
        Richard who is taking the position that we needed debate this
        issue.  You seem to be taking a very different position,
        namely, that we needn't debate this issue as long as we all
        agree with you.  Such a position on your part guarantees
        endless debate (unless, of course, you succeed in either
        wearing down your opposition or driving them away).

        Bob

Re:  Salvation a continuing process

Is there Biblical support for this view that anyone would care to offer?
Or is this teaching one that has little Biblical basis (and, in fact,
contradicts a lot of the Biblical teaching)?

The one verse that comes to mind says "work out your own salvation in
fear and trembling" which, I believe, is properly interpreted to mean
that, given salvation, we should work from that basis to grow (rather
than achieving salvation by works which clearly contradicts much Bible
teaching such as Eph 2:8,9).

Collis

re Note 220.20 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> The one verse that comes to mind says "work out your own salvation in
> fear and trembling" which, I believe, is properly interpreted to mean
> that, given salvation, we should work from that basis to grow (rather
> than achieving salvation by works which clearly contradicts much Bible
> teaching such as Eph 2:8,9).
  
        But the Bible does not teach that works play no role in
        salvation;  in fact there is ample evidence in Scripture that
        works are a necessary companion to salvation in the life of
        the believer.

        The Bible also teaches that one cannot earn or merit their
        salvation through works -- only one can earn or merit
        salvation by an act, and that one is Jesus and that act is
        submission to death on the cross, and that merit is
        sufficient to earn the salvation of us all.

        Rather, for the Christian, works play the same role as faith,
        for such works are a component of faith.  True faith cannot
        exist in the absence of faith, and "good works" cannot be
        done except in the presence of a real faith.

        Good works is the test for the presence of the faith to which
        we are called, much more so than any doctrinal test, because
        they are really two sides of the same coin.  One can pass any
        doctrinal test you can name, and yet not have saving faith. 
        But true good works, those that yield good fruit, are bona
        fide evidence (pardon the pun) of true faith.  There is no
        evidence of true faith apart from good works.

        But neither faith nor works merit or earn salvation, for that
        has already been accomplished!

        Bob

    Collis,
    
    Reverence in itself is salvific.  I believe the essence of the Bible is
    to teach people how to revere the Creator and *all* Creation.  I could
    cite *numerous* passages of this, and have done so in the past, but
    right now, I do not have the time.
    
    If accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal savior brings about a
    reverence for God and all Creation, then we are really talking about
    the same thing, imho.  When I see God in all things and all things in
    God, I am consciously welcoming and accepting Jesus into my heart and
    life.  I treat myself and others as the likeness of God which they 
    are - I love my neighbor, the earth and all her creatures, as myself.    
    
    That's about it.  I can't think of anything more to add without
    sounding redundant.
    
    Karen 
    
    p.s. Thanks Bob for .21.  That also says it very well for me.

Note 220.20
Re:  Salvation a continuing process

Collis

One of my favorites, Luke 9:23-24 speaks of being saved and implies process:

"And he (Jesus) said to all of them, "If anyone wants to come with me,
he must forget himself, take up his cross every day, and follow me.
For whoever wants to save his own life shall lose it, but whoever loses
his life for my sake will save it."

Is there anything that Jesus said that would support the single event
perspective?

Richard

    Richard .23,
    
    That passage (Luke 9:23-24) has always spoken *volumes* to me.
    
    So often when I've been evangelized to accept Jesus Christ as my
    personal savior it is so *my* life will be saved.  The >impression< 
    of selfish motivation inherent to that line of reasoning has just 
    never felt right to me.
    
    Karen  

Re:  .23

Luke 9:23 does indeed use the word "save" in it.  However, I think this
is quite consistent with a view of a one time salvation and a process
of sanctification (taking up the cross can be viewed as "salvation", a
one time event, and following Jesus can be viewed as "sanctification", the
continuing process).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Will you point out for me where Jesus uses the term sanctification?
    
    Richard

    re:  25
    
    I have listened to the comments so far, and yet none have shown that
    Salvation is a process, according to scripture.  Collis, your comments
    I agree with, because you use the scriptures to support yourself, and
    not other men's opinions of scriptures.
    
    When Christ said "Ye must be born again of the spirit", this is a one
    time experience, I believe...how many times can one be "born again"?  I
    think that answer is just once, because again the scriptures say, "it
    is impossible for him that has tasted the gift of God, if he should
    fall away, to ever be brought back to repentance.
    
    You know I was reading in a book from the Nag Hamadi collection, and it
    spoke of several (actually 12) heavens.  It had levels where those who
    rejected God were punished, but up on 11 was a level for just those
    people (i.e. minister's who mislead their congregations and Christians
    who had falling back away from God).  So, it implied again "once saved
    always saved", as even the "backslider" who slid back and stayed back,
    was set a place especially for them.  It says, those who never were
    saved are punished surely, but those who knew and fell away, are
    punished doubly so.  It said of those who fell back that they had
    become totally savage and wild, seeing that they had rejected the truth
    after having known it.  Can you see the difference between a person who
    never knew and never wanted to know God, and the one's who knew him but
    afterwards turned away?  The former, may still go about so good works
    in their own self righteousness, but the latter knows exactly what is
    the essence of truth and goodness and when they counter it they do it
    in knowledge and quite well...totally savage and wild.
    
    Salvation is a one time thing, that happens in a moment.  The thing is,
    as my grandfather told me when he counselled me before I accepted
    Christ, "Don't do this until you are SURE this is what you want to do,
    I love you, but don't do it because I'm asking you to."  He explained
    to me the reward that would come if I did, and I said within myself I
    wanted that reward, and so I accepted Christ and was baptized into his
    name and body, of my own will.  I think some fall back because they got
    saved at the request of others and not of their own desire...so some go
    to church (play with God) to impress their friends, loved ones, etc.,
    but if their friends and loved ones leave them and they find no more
    reason to impress them, they figure why stay with God? and they seek to
    fall away, and this is a great evil, IMO.
    
    Can you see this?
    
    Playtoe

Re:  .25

Richard,

You point out to me where Jesus uses the word "Trinity", and I'll point
out to you where Jesus uses the word "sanctification".  :-)

    Good point, Collis.  I don't believe in the Trinity either. 
    
    -- Mike

    Playtoe .27,
    
    > ...He explained to me the reward that would come if I did, and I said
    within myself I wanted that reward, and so I accepted Christ and was
    baptized into his name and body, of my own will. <
    
    If I'm hearing you correctly Playtoe, it sounds as though you utilized 
    the acceptance of Christ primarily as a means to an end - the end being 
    the receiving of a reward.  Is/was this so?
      
    Do you feel you would still love and accept Christ the way you do if 
    there was >no< reward in the afterlife for doing so?
    
    Thanks,
    Karen      

Re:  .29

Ah, but I expect Richard does (believe in the Trinity).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Thanks for .23, and offering the view of how salvation and
    sanctification differ from each other.  It may have been offered
    earlier in this string; if so, I didn't really pick it up then.
    
    I can make a fairly accurate translation of my experience of 'salvation 
    as process' to your view of salvation & the process of sanctification. 
    No one else may be able to, but I can.  :-)
    
    Karen                                 

    Re: .31
    
    Actually, I never use the term "Trinity," except as a proper name,
    as in:
    
    	I will be speaking tomorrow evening, May 2nd, at Trinity United
    Methodist Church in Colorado Springs at 7:00PM.

	The message will be on: The Christian Call to Peacemaking.

	All are welcome.  Prayers are requested.
    
    :-) 8-} :-)
    Richard

    PS  Similarly, I try to refrain from using expressions like "original
    sin," "the fall," "the rapture," etc..  Talk about the believing the
    "wisdom of men" (humen beings, that is ;-}).

    Re: 30
    
    No. and I don't think we need to entertain that thought.  Why?
    
    Because the scripture says, In order to come to God, one must believe
    the God is, and that he is a REWARDER OF THOSE THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK
    HIM.
    
    The way of evangelism, the best way, IMO and belief, is to tell the
    sinner of the "rewards", wave that "carrot" in front of them, and if
    they want the carrot they'll chase it...that's the way we all are
    compelled to seek the kingdom of God.
    
    If you seek to come to God without knowledge of the promises/rewards
    the chances of you sticking to it are slim.  It is from the affirmation
    and receiving of the promises/rewards that compels us to go
    on...otherwise the path is entirely to hard and arduous to follow
    without some sort of benefit for doing so...think about it and be not
    ashamed that you do it for the reward, God is glad to give you the
    kingdom if you obey Him, that's His delight, to give of what He has...
    
    Do you disagree with this?
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 29
    
    I don't think that's what Collis is saying.  But on the contrary he's
    saying it is implied from what has be said.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    Playtoe

    I generally believe that to orient one's own life towards God is its
    own inherent reward; that is why the issue of a blissful reward after
    death, there is one, is irrelevant to my own religious faith.  If there
    is a heaven, I might find out about it when I die, but what matters
    more to me now is how I live my life in this world.  Since, for my
    religious faith, heavenly a doctrine of rewards is irrelevant and a
    doctrine of hell is simply abhorrent, "salvation" means to me not a
    matter of being saved from damnation.  Instead, it refers to being
    saved from the negative consequences of not being transformed towards
    what John Hick calls a Reality-centered life.  Since I also believe
    that for all humans this transformation is not a simple binary
    condition, but rather a process, I therefore believe that salvation is
    a process.  One can then argue that the uniquely Christian approach to
    salvation, in this scheme, is that  Christ was example of a human being
    who lived a fully and measureless Reality-centered life, and thus an
    example for the rest of us to aspire to.

    This view goes along with my belief in religious pluralism, since I
    believe that Reality-centeredness is possible from many spiritual
    paths, not just Christianity.  Different religions thus offer their own
    means of salvation.   The issue isn't heaven and hell but rather the
    transformation involved for an individual as they orient their life
    towards the Greater Reality.  I also have a certain metaphysical basis
    for viewing salvation as a process.  I am very much interested in
    process theology, as developed by Whitehead, Hartshorne, and others,
    and I am inclined to extend the world view of process thought to
    include the concept of salvation as a process.

    -- Mike

-1

What he said!  :-)

To me, my reason for following God's will in my life is much the same as 
Mike's.  One minor caveat, though.  The reward for me is in overcoming
what I see as the illusion of separation from God or the Greater Reality.
I strive to keep that channel between God and myself forever open and flowing
freely with that divine energy and also to constantly be aware of and honor
that divine connection in others.

Nanci

    Playtoe .34,
    
    > The way of evangelism, the best way, IMO and belief, is to tell the
    sinner of the "rewards", wave that "carrot" in front of them, and if
    they want the carrot they'll chase it...that's the way we all are
    compelled to seek the kingdom of God. <
    
    > Do you disagree with this?
    
    Yes, vehemently.
    
    The real danger in this approach is that people wind up worshipping the
    carrot.
    
    Perhaps *SOME* people need an "enticement" or the motivation of
    receiving a "reward" for their efforts, but it is mistaken to believe
    that *all* people need this.  
    
    Eventually the carrot chasers must grow, psychologically and spiritually, 
    *beyond* their desire for "the carrot".  This is neccessary in order to 
    come into a deeper and purer relationship with God.  
    
    *Imho*
                                                       
    Karen

  And without faith it is impossible to please God, for anyone who comes
  to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who 
  earnestly seek him.

This sums up my belief.  Hopefully, it is relatively clear.

Collis

    Whitehead coined the term "objective immortality" to describe a concept
    within process thought that pertains to what is is pleasing to God.  In
    this view, all of our actions are permanently recorded by God, who is
    the one Eternal Reality.  So while our loving actions may have only a
    transient effect in the world, the important point is that they
    permanently enhance the Divine life.  This means that our loving
    actions to others are also loving actions to God.  Thus loving others
    and loving God become the same thing.

    The result is that, from the point of view of process thought, whether
    or not we subscribe to any religious dogma is not particularly relevant
    to the Divine Will; rather, God's creative actions in the world serve
    as a Divine Lure that interacts with our own creative participation in
    the world, and it is our response to this lure (through our actions in
    the world) that defines what is pleasing to God.  As we contribute to
    the well being of the "occasions of experience" (to use one of
    Whitehead's terms) that constitute the world, we also contribute to
    God's experience as well, because process thought believes that God is
    not just a creative force, but also a responsive one as well.  Since
    God never dies, our loving actions never die either, but reside
    permanently in God's experience.

    -- Mike

    "Early Friends speak of "convincement" rather than "conversion" because
    they are not turned around (con-verted) to go in an opposite direction
    toward a different but absent goal, but rather are brought to stillness
    where they can be awakened to what is already present.  Rather than a
    passive recipient of grace, as in parts of Protestantism, the self
    actively participates in its transformation, giving consent and
    yielding to deeper levels.

    "The New Creation is neither a past act, the beginnings of the world,
    nor a future event, the heavenly world at the end of time.  It is the
    present context of our being.  As such it is in fact one with the
    primordial and eschatological creation, but the stress falls on divine
    and human presence in the present.  The Quaker doctrine of creation is
    not speculative but experiential, based neither on scriptural texts nor
    on physical nature as the effect of divine causation but on a lived
    sensitivity to and unity with the world in depth pervaded by divine
    agency.  From its origins this sensitive unity, while not founded on,
    was nevertheless informed by biblical texts....

    "Early Friends are reviving the classic Christian doctrine that beneath
    original sin there is "original righteousness."  Augustine and others
    thought it lost in the fall, but Fox believes it is not obliterated,
    only obscured.  Original righteousness can be recovered when grace
    opens us to what has all along been there, by pulling us off the
    surface into the inwardness of depths of things.  Redemption is,
    therefore, the recovery of awareness of the divine life and the
    restoration of creation.  Beneath our sinful experience of a distorted
    world is the illumined experience of the world in its original
    freshness and power permeated by divine presence.  The redeemed life is
    to dwell in unity with God and world knowing the true nature of
    creatures through a felt unity with them in God, and to act in accord
    with that unity....

    "The dominant Augustinian tradition speaks of a completed creation
    which is then distorted in the fall; a minor Christian tradition,
    exemplified by Irenaeus and Schleiermacher, speaks of the world being
    made unfinished.  Our responsibility is to complete it.  The redeemed
    life, therefore, shares in divine creativity.  Early Friends
    participate, although unwittingly, in the Irenaean tradition in
    emphasizing growth from a seed and growing up into the image of God.... 

    Perfection is affirmed by Fox as he is brought up into the image of God
    in which Adam was originally created.  In reflecting later on his New
    Creation vision he says: "I found that none could bear to be told that
    any should come to Adam's perfection, into the image of God and
    righteousness and holiness that Adam was in before he fell, to be so
    clear and pure without sin, as he was."  But this is a dynamic
    perfection involving growth; using Pauline language, he says we "should
    grow up to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Fox,
    32).  It is thus possible to affirm perfection within an unfinished
    world since perfection means being open to the depths in self and the
    world and being responsive to the measure of Light we are given, rather
    than conformity to a static and abstract idea.  The measure of Light we
    have may vary from time to time,; perfection lies not in completeness
    but in the fittingness of our response to it."

    	From "Inward Light and the New Creation:  a theological meditation
    	on the center and circumference of Quakerism", by R. Melvin Keiser. 
    	Pendle Hill Pamphlet 295.

    re: 36
    
    Sorry for the taking so long to respond...but please explain that in
    simpler language!
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 38
    
    That your opinion.  But the bible says, that "in order to come to God
    one must first believe that he is, and that he is a REWARDER of those
    that diligently seek him."  Also, Proverbs 2: 1-5 tells us of the
    degree of diligence one needs to find the kingdom of God or knowledge
    of God, you must seek it as if for "hidden treasure".  
    
    The first commandment says, Love the lord thy God with ALL thy heart
    and soul and mind...".  I submit unless you see the ultimate benefit
    and reward of "eternal life" as a goal, you'll not muster the diligence
    to find the kingdom.  And you'll not find it dilly dallying around.
    
    In terms of evangelizing, or discipling others, the scripture teaches
    that all men are drawn of God, so you or I can't really "bring" one to
    the Kingdom, we each must choose to come on our own.  And why would you
    choose to go anywhere without there being some good end or benefit for 
    you there...you could easily choose to go to hell, for the experience.
    
    I see a man/woman down and out in the streets or having a problem, I
    don't tell them that they need to get their lives right with God, I
    tell them in such a way to "entice" them to try.  And God says if you
    "ASK" you shall receive.  So to get one to "ASK", they need to know
    what the reward or benefit will be.
    
    I'm talking about Christianity and discipleship and the kingdom of
    God...what are you talking about?
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 40
    
    My question to you is this, "Is Whitehead more knowledgeable on this
    than Jesus, the Disciples, or God himself?".  If you think so then you
    do it the way Whitehead said.  But I follow NO MAN, only God.
    
    If a friend invites me to your house, he's been there, and he says I
    have to take off my shoes to come in, because you don't allow people to
    wear shoes in your house.  I'm gonna make sure 1) I've got a clean pair
    of socks on, 2) and take my shoes off when I come to the door...simple
    as that.  I'm not gonna listen to someone argue about whether it's
    right or wrong to require this, or whatever they have to say, unless
    they encourage and reinforce YOUR requirements...but not if they
    contradict you...if I do I just ought to be careful.
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe,
    
    The language of the Bible is 2,000 +/- years old. In that time
    period many great Christians have lived and died and given 
    their testimonies as to their lives in Christ. So while I
    ultimately follow the voice of God//Jesus//the Holy Spirit,
    in my life..
    
    I also learn from the lives and thoughts of the persons in the
    past who have been powerful witnesses for God.
    
    Bonnie
    
    i.e. I listen to people who help me understand the diference
    between what was actually meant when the bible was written
    in the original language, and what we english speaking souls
    think it means after x to the y translations.
    
    

    Thanks, Playtoe, for passing the word along on what God believes on
    this issue.  The next time you see God, please tell him I said "Hi".
    
    -- Mike

    Playtoe 43,
    
    > ...what are you talking about?
    
    I don't know how to simplify it further for you.  I'm talking about 
    the importance of total reverence for *God*, as opposed to falling into
    the trap of reverencing the "reward."  The latter is idolatry my friend, 
    if that's not already apparent.  
    
    But this is merely a difference, imo, of our interpretation and 
    experience.
    
    So be it.
    
    peace,
    Karen                              

    RE: 47
    
    If it is true that those how seek God for the rewards, which of course
    includes the saving of one's own soul, leads to idolatry, as one begins
    to worship one's salvation, or eternal life, or various spiritual gifts
    and fruits, more than the saviour...I think you're confused.  
    
    When you look at what are the rewards, it becomes plain that those
    rewards once received would make one ever grateful and thankful to God
    for them, and if you worshipped them so much the more one would be
    inclined to think of God and praise him...PRAISE HIM, that's the key. 
    Why would you PRAISE the reward?  Isn't that what worship is all about?
    
    Idolatry?  What is idolatry?  Isn't it PRAISING or SERVING some FALSE
    source of the rewards?  I think you're confused.....
    
    Playtoe

    Regarding Playtoe's question in the first paragraph of .44 about
    Whitehead and God--I discussed my theological influences in note
    215.15, where I specifically mentioned the process thought of Whitehead
    and Hartshorne.  I just so happens I believe that I do follow God,
    based on *my* understanding of God.  This understanding of God comes
    from the influences that I discussed in 215.15, which are not the same
    as the sources for Playtoe's understanding of God.  I posted the
    information in 215.15 in the hopes that this might facilitate a
    dialogue, in that others would understand where I was coming from. 
    Having once been a fundamentalist myself, I am aware of where that
    perspective, as well as other similarly conservative theological
    perspectives, come from.  When both parties in a discussion understand
    the perspective of the other, it is possible for both to forgo useless
    preaching at one another and instead, when necessary, agree to
    disagree.

    It may be the case that a statement such as "I follow NO MAN, only
    God", when directed at someone who disagrees with your own theological
    perspective, accepts the differences in point of view.  But I must
    admit that I am more inclined to perceive it as a put down that neither
    accepts nor even recognizes these theological differences.  It seems to
    demonstrate no interest in the possibility that the other party also
    believes that they follow God.  I am not really sure what kind of
    response is really expected from a statement like "I follow NO MAN,
    only God"; I can say, "I'm sure that you genuinely believe that you
    do", but agreeing to disagree doesn't seem to be what a statement like
    that is getting at.

    I am reminded of Jed Smock, the famous campus preacher.  When I was a
    college student, he would preach at the heathen students who were
    walking to and from class.  Once a friend of mine tried to engage him
    in a dialogue, but whenever he made any comment, old Jed just recited a
    stock Bible passage and went on with his preaching.  It wasn't a
    dialogue--it was a monologue from Jed to the rest of the world, and he
    wasn't really interested in listening.  I felt that what my friend was
    doing was a waste of time, but he said he was doing it mostly for the
    benefit of the other students than to really try to talk to Jed.  In
    any case, you soon learned that there just wasn't any point in trying
    to have a two way discussion with someone who was just preaching at
    you.  

    -- Mike

        Playtoe .48,
        
        > I think you're confused.....
        
        Quite the contrary, I'm very clear.  But since this issue of 
        reward(s) is central to an understanding of salvation I'd like 
        to try delving a little deeper.
        
        > When you look at what are the rewards....
        
        To prevent myself from being assumptive, please specify the 
        "rewards" you are referring to.
        
        And to answer your questions:
        
        > What is idolatry?  
        
        Webster defines it as "worshipping an image" and "blind 
        adoration."
        
        > Isn't it PRAISING or SERVING some FALSE source of the rewards?
        
        No.  
        
        If you acknowledge *God* to be the source of the "rewards", 
        which you have, there is no objective "litmus test" one can use 
        to determine the truth of falsehood of that Source, is there?  
        
        To believe otherwise is to place oneself above God.  Is that 
        really the position you wish to establish? 
        
        Karen

    re 50
    
>        To prevent myself from being assumptive, please specify the 
>        "rewards" you are referring to.
    
    Surely, the greatest of rewards for seeking and finding the knowledge
    of God is "Eternal Life", and from there, in the form or a "pyramid"
    are a host of other rewards.
                         The gifts/rewards of God
                               Eternal Life
                                    ^
    
    >    > What is idolatry?  
        
>        Webster defines it as "worshipping an image" and "blind 
>        adoration."
>        
>        > Isn't it PRAISING or SERVING some FALSE source of the rewards?
>        
>        No.  
>        
>        If you acknowledge *God* to be the source of the "rewards", 
>        which you have, there is no objective "litmus test" one can use 
>        to determine the truth of falsehood of that Source, is there?  
    
    Hold on a minute, you say NO, that it isn't praising and serving some
    false source of rewards?  Are you saying that if I acknowledge God as
    the source of my rewards that I could be false, and an idol worshipper,
    because there's no "litmus test" one can use to determine that there
    really is God?  If so, you've gone beyond my faith.
    
    There is only one God, one "source", all other gods, or sources are
    false, to acknowledge any other is idolatry...which takes us back to
    the verse I pointed to before, "In order to come to God, you must first
    believe that he IS, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently
    seek him...if you don't believe that he IS, well you surely can't
    believe that he is going to reward you.
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe .51,
    
    >...Are you saying that if I acknowledge God as the source of my
    >rewards that I could be false, and an idol worshipper, because there's
    >no "litmus test" one can use to determine that there really is God?
    
    No, I'm not saying this at all.  I don't believe you're "false" at all,
    Playtoe, or that the God you worship is "false".  I would never even
    attempt to make such a determination about you or anyone else.  
    *That* was the point I was trying to make.
    
    Idolatory however, is not the main issue I've been pondering.  I'm
    really thinking more about the issue of salvation and the rewards God
    has promised according to the Bible.  You say the greatest reward God
    promises is Eternal Life, and there are other rewards as well.  What
    are some of these other rewards?
    
    What I'm wondering is do we receive all of these "rewards" *after* 
    we die, (provided we are "saved", of course)?  Or are there any of these 
    rewards that are given while we are still living this earthly physical 
    existence?
      
    Thanks,
    Karen                                        

    re: 52
    
    The rewards which are promised to those who believe in God and
    diligently seek him are for this life and in the hereafter.
    
    What I need to do soon is go through and list the scriptures which bear
    promises.  But a few off the top of my head.
    
    1)	If you'll tithe, God promises to "open the windows of heaven and
    drop you down blessings so abundant you won't be able to receive
    it...and also the "devourer" won't take all you have.
    
    Hold it...I think I'd do you more good if I do some homework first. 
    Why don't you also see if you can find some.  I'll enter it on Monday.
    
    Boy, this is really a very good thing for me to do over the weekend!
    
    
    Playtoe

    Thanks for your assistance Playtoe.  I'm glad you're glad to be looking
    at this over the weekend for me.  I'm afraid I won't have much time to
    research it myself, but that's why I'm interested in hearing what you
    and others may have to share in this regard.
    
    Again, thank you,            
    
    Karen

    Re: The Promises and Rewards
    
    I did look into the promises and rewards, and it dawned on me how that
    works.  You'll note that in the NT it keeps on mentioning the
    "Promise", which Abraham, Enoch, and others received by faith, but they
    all received different things...things "tailor-made" for them
    specifically.  I see the promises and the rewards, but they are all
    contingent upon acts of faith of some sort.  In other words, as you
    develop and grow in the Lord, you'll receive the Promises and Rewards
    according to your needs, there is no standard list however that I can
    present, except the only standard promise to all men is the "gift of
    eternal life, through salvation."
    
    So if I were to point out the promise or the reward, they we come in
    conjunction with the act of faith the brings it forth.  Which I felt
    may or may not be all relevent to you.  What is more relevent is the
    fact that they are "tailored" to be suitable to your mind.
    
    Also, as it is written, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has
    it entered into the hearts of men, the things God has instore for those
    that love him", and this comprehends all the promises and rewards
    altogether...so how you interpret this scripture is up to you, "what
    you bind on earth you bind in heaven, what you loose on earth you loose
    in heaven," "according the measure you meet, so shall it be measured
    unto you".  
    
    As I reflect on my grandfather's words, I clearly realize that at that
    point, just coming into Christ, my main concern and what had been
    impressed upon me was "getting to heaven"...and the promises and
    rewards he spoke of were related to if I chose accept Christ as my
    personal savior.  However, in your case, you've already accepted him
    right?  And now you're asking about more sophisticated promises and
    rewards than that of just eternal life (which as you say, are there any
    that we receive in this life).  Karen, yes there are many that we
    receive in this life...even to the point as Jesus said, "some will
    never see death" and this is not talking about such people who are
    living in the day that Jesus returns and we are changed, etc. but like
    Enoch, and Elijah, these men never saw death.
    
    But for you, the whole thing is a matter of faith...if you need more
    faith, what did Jesus say, "Act like the things you do in the name of
    God and religion ARE YOUR DUTY to do" and this increases faith.  Why?
    Because it's one thing to do something because someone told you to, but
    quite another to do it out of a personal sense of duty...doesn't that
    imply to you that such a person REALLY stands for the Word.  Say if
    it's company related, and question of company policy, wouldn't you deem
    the best employee one who obeys policy dutifully, than one who does it
    simply because it's the company policy (when the cat's away mice play,
    type attitude)?  
    
    If you want to know if God REALLY IS, who should you ask?  Other men?
    NO.  First of all, no man has ever seen God, and his Sons only
    "declare" him and bear witness to him, claiming to act in his name, but
    they have not seen God.  So don't you expect to SEE him.  But ASK him
    to make himself more real to you?  Doesn't that seem the correct one to
    ask?
    
    On these two things, Faith and REALNESS/belief/believability, is the
    issue of God established.  As it is written, "these are not highly
    devised fables, but what we have tasted, touched and handled with our
    hands, of God".  So it's not a "blind faith", but a faith based upon
    revelation knowledge, or experience that comes from within the self. 
    
    Anyway, I hope you understand a little better about the promises and
    rewards and moreso how you obtain them in a tailor-to-fit way.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: Salvation
    
    I've recently come upon the essence of SALVATION.  For the past 10
    years or so I've made a more concentrated effort to apply the
    principles of God's Word in my life.  One I've had major problems with
    was "Acknowledging the Lord in all you do"...does that mean when I'm
    sinning too? was my question.  I've recently realized more than ever
    before, that NO not while I'm sinning (that is impossible really,
    because the Holy Spirit can't dwell in an unclean temple, right) but
    what it means is "don't lie, or deceive yourself" thinking that what is
    sin is not sin...like the "fornicators and proud of it" who say since
    they're only going to continue in fornicating, and god hates a willful
    sinner, it's hypocritical to pray for forgiveness for it.  The fact is
    the "willful sinner" is the one who DOESN'T pray for forgiveness when
    he knows he's going to do it again...remember Lot, "had the filthy
    conversation of the Sodomites but vexed his soul each night."  If you
    had seen him by day at the gate, he worked the entrance gate to Sodom,
    you'd think he was just another Sodomite, but in his heart he prayed
    each night for forgiveness, though he knew each day he had to go back
    to that gate and talk the way he did because of the nature of the work
    he was doing, and this is what was expected of him, at the entrance to
    such a city.  He very well couldn't keep the job and be calling the
    Sodomites wicked sinners could he?...But God found him, the only
    righteous man in the place, called him out before the destruction.
    
    The KEY to Salvation, therefore, is the maintenance of a "good
    conscience" towards God, through the advocacy of Jesus Christ.  I can
    point to a host of scripture that supports this...though before I had a
    hard time receiving this "liberty".
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    Playtoe .55,
    
    Thanks very much for the thoughts and information you shared.  My
    experience of God and Christ in my life is exactly as you describe. 
    The "rewards" I've experienced have been tailor-made and so often met
    my unique needs and trials at the time.  
    
    I tend not to think of these rewards as rewards per se, but rather as 
    God giving me feedback as to how I'm doing in life.  This feedback
    comes in the form of answers, insights, and revelations.  From this I
    continue to dialogue with God and we've grown much much closer over the
    years.
    
    The exception I've taken to some Christian thought is what I feel to be
    an over-emphasis on rewards received after physical death.  There
    seems to be an obsession with death sometimes in these people, and the
    "rewards" they'll get "then" for being good "now".  That just doesn't 
    speak to my condition, or to the way God and I dwell within each other.
    
    Thanks again,
    
    Karen

    Re: 57
    
    Yes, I agree with you 100%.  The afterlife rewards seem to the only
    ones emphasized for the most part.  I also note in I or II Peter about
    the Promises, again it mentions the "promises" but speaks very
    generally and nothing too specific, though somewhat specific.  
    
    Anyway, as you've said, it has been that "tailor-made" reward system
    that has led me on and into a closer relationship with God.  As such, I
    guess you can see why we Christians may have a hard time trying to
    explain in any "credible" way why we believe in God to a person who
    does not believe.  If there were general standard rewards, cut and dry,
    we could say 1-2-3/A-B-C this is what you get, see if worked for so and
    so.  But as it is we can't really point to others and what they've
    received with any sameness, except in a general pointing to the
    condition of their life...which a non-believer could easily point to as
    being simply natural.  The matter of "faith" is hard to prove
    empirically, again because it depends upon "the measure you meet".  I
    imagine if they can somehow measure "effort", (we do now but in a
    general "pass-fail" type of ruler) we could begin to scientifically
    approach promises and rewards...but perhaps that's also why God has
    made this practically impossible, considering the uniqueness of every
    individual and infinite factors that come to play in regards to
    "putting forth effort".
    
    Peace and Love
    
    Playtoe

    Yes we agree Playtoe, the matter of "faith" is not only hard to prove
    empirically, I feel at this time it is impossible to prove.  But I for
    one delight in that.  Everyone will discover it for themselves oneday
    in their own way.
    
    Peace & blessings,
    
    Karen

    RE Note 863.125 JULIET::MORALES_NA 
    
    > No where does it say loving your neighbor with all of your heart gets
    > you eternal life... EVERYWHERE in the Bible, faith in Christ is the key
    > to salvation.  John 3, The entire books of Romans indicates this. 
    >Isaiah....  
    
    John 15:10  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love;
    even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his
    love. 
    John 15:11  These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy
    might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 
    John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I
    have loved you.

    If we keep Jesus' commandment to love one another as he loved us, then
    we will have the joy of Jesus within us and will live (abide) in his
    love. I conclude that one cannot abide in Jesus' love and yet not be
    saved. Of course, one must have faith in Jesus that what he says is
    true.

    	Eric 

    Shall we keep all the scripture in its context.   Verse 2 clearly
    indicates that Jesus is the Vine and we are the branches.  A branch
    must be part of the vine or else it dies.  Just following the
    commandements below without the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, his
    death, burial and resurrection... atonement we cannot be branches.
    
    *********************
     Those who claim to have the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ *must*
    produce fruit or be pruned.  
    
    John 15:1  I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
      2  Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and
    every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth 
    more fruit.
      3  Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
      4  Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of
    itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
      5  I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I
    in him,the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do 
    nothing.
      6  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
    withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
      7  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye
    will,and it shall be done unto you.
      8  Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall
    ye be my disciples.
      9  As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in
    my love.
     10  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I
    have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
     11  These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in
    you, and that your joy might be full.
    
    

    jack,
    
    First of all I have decided not to call myself a Christian Unitarian
    Unversalist anymore.  Unitarian Universalist alone means much more to
    me.  I feel the power of our covenant and our principles and purpose
    everytime I read them.  I need to do too much translation with
    Christian Creeds before I can accept them. 
    
    Jesus was not a Christian and  had no need to call himself a Christian.
    
    I am inspired by Jesus, by his example, by the way he lead his life,
    and by his teachings.  I will continue to accept Jesus as a model and a
    teacher.
    
    I am inspired by much of what Paul wrote.  Paul is far from Infallible
    however.  He is inconsistent in his letters.  He is outrageous at times
    particularly in his treatment of women in the Corinthian church.  He
    has an absolutely wonderful sense of the spiritual life and ethics as I
    detailed in my sermon.  I will be inspired by the best of Paul.
    
    I will continue my journey through the Bible until I have read and
    studied the whole Bible.  It is fascinating.  Then I will study the
    Koran, then Budhist, Hindu, Tao and other scriptures until I understand
    the essential similarities and differences among the world religions.
    
    Now what would I tell a young man who wanted to know what he needed to
    do to accept God's Grace.  I would tell him to imagine being in the
    room with the person you love the most in the whole world.  Your
    mother, your father, your uncle, whoever.  Now imagine this person just
    gave you the most wonderful gift that you could ever imagine.  How
    would you accept that gift.  I would then suggest visualizing that that
    is how you would accept that wonderful gift of grace from God.
    
    I truly do not understand why you cannot see how simple it is?
    
    Patricia

    Feel better now, Jack?
    

RE:             <<< Note 220.62 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

       
   > Now what would I tell a young man who wanted to know what he needed to
   > do to accept God's Grace.  I would tell him to imagine being in the
   > room with the person you love the most in the whole world.  Your
   > mother, your father, your uncle, whoever.  Now imagine this person just
   > gave you the most wonderful gift that you could ever imagine.  How
   > would you accept that gift.  I would then suggest visualizing that that
   > is how you would accept that wonderful gift of grace from God.
    
   > I truly do not understand why you cannot see how simple it is?
    
   

     Might make one feel all nice and cuddly in this life, but I'm afraid I
     wouldn't trust it for my eternal life..




     Jim

     
     

    re: Note 220.61 by JULIET::MORALES_NA 

    > Just following the commandements below without the saving knowledge of
    > Jesus Christ, his death, burial and resurrection... atonement we cannot
    > be branches.

    The verses you cite say nothing of the sort. To be a branch of the vine
    you must keep Jesus' commandments, his commandment is to love one
    another. There is nothing about death, burial and resurrection...
    nothing about atoning blood. 

    And the fruit of the vine?... why it's love, of course. 

    I don't see how the Bible, or at least these verses, support your
    claim.

    Eric

    What is God's Grace to you Patricia?

    John 3:1  There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of
    the Jews:
      2  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know
    that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that
    thou doest, except God be with him.
      3  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
    Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
      4  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?
    can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
      5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
    born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
      6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born
    of the Spirit is spirit.
      7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
      8  The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
    thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: 
    so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
      9  Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
     10  Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and
    knowest not these things?
     11  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and
    testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12  If I have 
    told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye
    believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
     13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
    heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
     14  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
    the Son of man be lifted up:
     15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
    eternal life.
     16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
    that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
    life.
     17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
    that the world through him might be saved.
     18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth
    not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only
    begotten Son of God.
    

    re .67
    
    There is nothing in your quote that I do not accept.  The miracles I do
    accept as mythical and symbolic and not literal.  You and I may differ
    in our assumptions about the nature of truth.
    
    Nowhere in these quotes is there anything about sacrificial atonement.
    
    Jack,
    
    It is unfortunate that you cannot see how simple the acceptance of
    Grace really is.  
    
    Nancy,
    
    Grace is the gift that allows us to perceive that which is holy, that
    which is spiritual.  For many years I considered myself an Atheist and
    it was very clear to me that there was no God and that God was used as
    a crutch etc.  Then through God's grace I cannot fathom today how I
    could hold those beliefs.  Life is holy.  People are holy.  Moments are
    holy.  God's spirit can be discerned everywhere.  Creation is holy.  My
    words are not adequate to describe what Grace is and What Holy is and
    what Spirit is.  All three are very real without my being able to
    describe them.  All three are spiritually discerned by all who are
    spiritual.  All three are discerned differently by diverse people of
    Faith.
    
    Patricia  

    Patricia,
    
    I must say that it saddens me greatly the belief system you hold
    dear... as I'm sure you could say about mine....
    
    For your sake, I hope you're right... because if you are I'll make it
    regardless of what I believe or how I live into life eternal.
    
    But if God's word is Truth, you won't... and that truly grieves me.
    
    

RE:             <<< Note 220.68 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

       
   > Nowhere in these quotes is there anything about sacrificial atonement.
    

     Matthew 26:27b,28 "drink from it, all of you..for this is My blood of
     the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins"

     (Jesus was speaking).    
       
        
    >Grace is the gift that allows us to perceive that which is holy, that
    >which is spiritual.  For many years I considered myself an Atheist and
    

    Grace is God's unmerited favor, which comes about as a result of what
    Jesus said above.



    Jim

    Is man's (gender neutral) default "salvation state" saved or damned?
    
    	Eric
    

    .72  It depends on who you ask.  The majority says the default is a state
    of sin, and therefore, damned.
    
    For a dissenting opinion read Matthew Fox.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Original sin = damned

    Whaddeyetellya?  Whaddeyetellya?
    
    ;-)
    
    Richard
    

                                       
    Good going, Patricia!  (;^)
    
    For those who soar in 'Grace Space' (;^) (a.k.a. 'baraka(t)' in the Sufi
    tradition), I like to think of the words to John Denver's song:
    
    	Love is everywhere, I see it.
    	You can be all you can be, go on and be it.
    	Life is perfect, I believe it,
    	Come and play the game with me.
    
    Or...as the author of the book, "The Great Swan - the life of Sri
    Ramakrishna", Lex Hixon, once told me, "Soar with the Great Swan."
    
    Cindy

    
    I'll bite Richard.  Please mark this for posterity in case you need the
    answer again.
    
    WHY EVERYONE SHOULD WANT SALVATION:
    
    Because we were created for fellowship with God, but because of sin we
    lost that fellowship.  We all have a void that can only be filled by
    our Creator.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that He is the only one
    who can fill that void.  If you want an abundant, joyful life now 
    and forever more (and who doesn't), then you need a Savior and His 
    name is Jesus.
    
    The way back to fellowship with God is defined exclusively by God,
    but it is offer inclusively to all.
    
    Jill
     

    .938
    
    Good note.

    220.77 (formerly 9.938)  Thanks, Jill.
    
    (Now if I can only remember where I was going with this! 8-})
    
    Oh, yeah!  Some believe salvation means to be spared from eternal
    damnation or the emptiness of the abyss.  Some have the notion that
    salvation means living forever with Jesus and all one's loved ones
    who've passed on in the next life.
    
    Actually, my own beliefs about salvation are really not very different
    from your own.  At least, not in my opinion.

    I would define salvation as a state of being in deep and abiding
    relationship with God; the immediate awareness, in all fullness, of
    the unspeakably Holy.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    I like that definition, Richard.  Thanks!
    
    C'zn

    .79
    
    I would agree as well... my question is what do you do with the
    awareness?  
    
    Do you stand back like looking into a display window at a mall?  Do
    you admire that beautiful new dress or chainsaw and image how it could
    turn your body into something as beautiful or cut a tree quicker then
    shaving your beard?
    
    Does this beautiful feeling you get while looking inside cause you to
    come back to this window over and over and over again?
    
    But looking inside that window and not taking the items you are looking
    at doesn't do you very much good.  That forest of trees that needs
    cutting down to build your [insert dream] will still stand without that
    chain saw, the dress will never adorn your body while still in the
    window.... 
    
    Awareness, imagery and desire to obtain holiness are wonderful... but
    the holiness of Christ is just a breath away for all who believe. God's
    grace and his gift costs us nothing if we can swallow our pride and
    accept it...
    
    No looking through windows... the glass has been shattered and receipt
    is as simple receiving.
    

    RE: .79
    
    Well Richard, I would agree with your description of salvation being
    in deep and abiding relationship with God.... I would add that I think
    the place that will happen is heaven.  And that if that's the
    description
    of being with God, then there is an opposite description of being
    without
    God...this has been referred to as eternal damnation and yes emptiness.
    An emptiness that the one purpose you were designed for, you missed,
    for all eternity.  I think there's a name for that too....it's called
    hell.
    
    I'd be interested in your description of eternally being without God or
    in knowing if you beleive in such a concept.
    
    Jill

    (Re: .82 Jill Kinsella)
    
    The cosmology of the Bible is such that Heaven is an actual, physical
    place.  The notion of Heaven and Hell as a dimension of experiencing
    life after death is actually quite Hellenistic.
    
    To answer your question, the opposite of salvation to me would be
    a sense of remoteness or "relationshiplessness" with the Other.  Some,
    I'll grant you, sense no particular (or conscious) need for this
    "communion."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    .83
    
    Now I understand your ability to believe in Jesus and yet not be
    burdened for the souls of others who do not believe...
    
    The only consequence of not believing is relationshipless...
    Unless you are not saying something....

(Note 220.84  MORALES_NA)

>    Now I understand your ability to believe in Jesus and yet not be
>    burdened for the souls of others who do not believe...

I am burdened for the souls of those who do not believe and also for the souls
of those who do.

Richard

    .85
    
    Very contradictory to your stance of any faith will do... where was
    that note you posted, oh so most recently about this very subject.  I
    couldn't find it.

    .86  I don't know what note you're talking about.  Neither am I fond
    of responding to unsubstantial accusations.
    
    Jesus be with you,
    Richard

    Actually, I am also reading Romans from the perspective of Universal
    Salvation.  Romans is tough to comprehend, it may be internally
    contradictory, but good old Paul does make quite a claim for universal
    salvation.  I think that is the topic I will exegete for my course
    assignment.  I've got special dispensation to work backwards.  Choose
    my topic and then find the best passage to support it.  since exegesis
    can also bring in other passages I intend to turn my assignment into an
    analysis of Predestination and Universal Salvation based on Paul's
    letter to the Romans

  >I've got special dispensation to work backwards.

This is not exegesis.  This is called eisegesis and often
results in misinterpretation and misunderstanding the text.

Collis

    No actually, I made the argument that Exegisis is a skill emphasized in
    theological school because of the assumption that the Bible is the word
    of God and therefore it was critical to understand exactly what the
    word meant.  I suggested that I would rather ask the question what does
    Romans say about Universal Salvation versus salvation of the elect. 
    The instructor did not agree with my assumption about Exegisis but did
    agree that as long as I backed up my paper with significant, researched
    analysis of a passage, it was OK.  I criticize the literary and
    Historic/Critical methodologies because the disguise the assumptions
    the investigators start with.  Existencial methodologies start by
    defining the assumption.  I will define my assumption based on my faith
    as a Unitarian Universalist that God's grace is given as a free gift to
    all humanity and analyze the text of Romans from that perspective.  I
    do not know what I will conclude from the analysis.    Different
    passages in Romans appear to argue in opposite directions.  I will
    summarize my results when I am done.  If any of you want to help me by
    giving me your opinions, I will certainly listen.
    
    Patricia

    I am not the scholarly type.. however it appears as though you are
    saying, "Here is my opinion, now let me go validate it through
    scripture that will support me."  Instead of, "Reading scripture first,
    then forming an opinion."  The latter of course is still an opinion, as
    I believe conviction comes only through the Spirit of God.  
    
    
    
    

    Nancy,
    
    It is a matter of approach.  I have formed my ideas of what is moral,
    what is ethical, what is spiritual without reference to the Bible. 
    Then I found my way back to the Bible and am astonished that the Bible
    says much of the same thing.  The word of God is alive and has been alive
    in all times and all cultures.  
    
    1.  I believe in Universal Salvation, regardless of what Paul says
    about it.
    
    2.  I have read Romans at least 5 times in the last month as well as
    reading three brief commentaries about Romans and most of Karl Barth's
    Epistle to the Romans.  I do not know what Paul says in Romans
    regarding Universal Salvation.  He seems to argue both sides of the
    arguement.
    
    3.  I am going to do my research and paper trying to identify what Paul
    says about this subject.
    
    4.  I will judge Paul's theology on this important issue as adequate or
    not adequate based on my conclusion.
    
    My primary question is different than yours.  I am asking how the Bible
    fits in along with other sources to my theology not how my theology
    fits with the Bible.  I can be much more objective in my decisions
    about the text because regardless of the answer it does not negate my
    faith.  It of course does influence my Faith.
    
    

    >My primary question is different than yours.  I am asking how the
    >Bible fits in along with other sources to my theology not how my theology
    >fits with the Bible.  
    
    Perhaps its just semantics but I believe what you are calling different
    are the same.  If you are asking how the Bible fits in along with other
    sources, then in fact you are asking how your theology fits in with the
    Bible... In either case, we are talking about your belief system and
    the Bible... whether its with the other sources which formed your
    belief system or the now formed belief system.
    
    >I can be much more objective in my decisions
    >about the text because regardless of the answer it does not negate
    >my faith.  
    
    No, you cannot. :-)  Since you say you can, I just thought I'd say you
    cannot.   You cannot be more objective in your decisions about the text
    because you already have preconceived ideas in place about the errancy
    of the Bible.  Therefore, with that belief in place the Bible has no
    consequence on your life whatsover... You may pick and choose that
    which appeals to you though.  Therefore, your objectivity is placed
    invalid based on your belief the Bible is errant.
    
    >It of course does influence my Faith.
    
    I wonder how it influences your faith...
    

    "The Bible has no consequence on your life whatsoever"
    
    That is quite a bold statement.  
    
    Patricia

 What is "Universal salvation"?





 Jim

    Patricia,
    
    >I can be much more objective in my decisions
    
    As is this... bold statement.
    

    no Nancy,
    
    A question about whether I am objective/subjective or you are
    objective/subjective is radically different than a statement that the
    Bible has not relevancy to my life whatsoever.  

    Sorry you feel this way, I happened to take great offense at your
    assumption of being *more* objective then myself.  That is how your
    sentence read to me.  Perhaps you meant more objective then you have
    been in the past?
    
    

    BTW, Patricia, shall we move on with the discussion or argue over who
    is more offended?
    
    I personally would like to move on..if you do not wish to, sobeit.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

I again submit that the methodology you wish to use is
flawed if you want to determine what *Paul* is saying.

Collis

    
.100
    
    And what do you think of Nancy's methodology (or lack thereof), Collis??
Or is methodology only your concern when the conclusions vary from your
own?

Richard

    .101
    
    >And what do you think of Nancy's methodology?
    
    Brother... you really like to pit people against each other don't you?
    

    .102
    
    I'd rather understand why certain methodologies are criticized while
    others are not, thank you very much, Sister.
    
    Richard
    

    .103
    
    I don't believe you Richard, it is my impression you'd rather point 
    fingers and play janitor.
    
    I really get tired of this.  I wish to participate in here with the
    right attitude and then you pop up with your pompous insinuations which
    are insulting.  They aren't directed typically at any*one* person, just
    all of us who believe in the Bible as the Word of God.
    
    I won't play pick and show me games with you Richard.  This is IN MY
    HUMBLE OPINION of your noting style.  Which also BTW fries my potatoes!
    [my son like that one]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    My 4 year old daughter has accepted Jesus Christ as her personal
    saviour.  Praise the Lord!

    re Note 220.102 by JULIET::MORALES_NA 

    > Brother... you really like to pit people against each other don't you?

    Love the methodologist, hate the method...

    I'm surprised you find this a tough concept to grasp. :^)

    Eric

 RE .105..AMEN, Ron....



 My 11 year old son left a message on my answering machine at home yesterday...

 "Dad, I want to be saved..can I this weekend (when I will have him)?"  I told
 him I'd be right over to get him last night, but he said he'll wait til
 the weekend ;-)




 Jim

    RE Note 220.105 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ

    > My 4 year old daughter has accepted Jesus Christ as her personal
    > saviour.  Praise the Lord!

    How can a four year-old possibly have the cognitive and emotional
    development to make such a decision? Do you treat all her decisions
    with unqualified acceptance? 

    Just wondering,

    	Eric

    RE: .108
    
    		Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me".  
    I read that to mean if the little guy wants it, let him go.
    
    Dave

    RE: .108
    
    Same question here too, Eric. 
    
    In my previous faith, the church had an official time of 7 years.
    I.E. before 7 you didn't know what sin really was.
    The Catholic church is famous for rules of the road.
    
    
    I have *no* problem with a person at any age having a relationship with
    Christ, but surely the depth of understanding is somewhat "light".
    
    Marc H.

  Matthew 19:14 "Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come to
  me:for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven".



  

    RE: .111
    
    There are many passages about children in the NT. Having 5 children
    myself, I tend to like them.......
    
    But, rather than quoting scripture, try reading the reply and giving
    your view.
    
    Marc H.

 Re .112 (Marc)

 Well, OK...


 
Not knowing Ron personally, I would venture to suspect that he has a
Godly home and that he honors God in his life.  I would also suspect
that Ron attends a church where there are Sunday School classes are
taught and that the Gospel of salvation through Christ is taught.
Thus, I would deduce that Ron's child has heard the message that
Jesus died and gave his life that she might have eternal life with
Him..Add all of this up and I would guess that while she may not fully
grasp all of the elements of salvation through Jesus Christ (heck, I
don't understand them all) she has enough information to know that
Jesus loves her and she loves Him..


Why in the world would one want to tell their child that they cannot
ask Jesus into their heart?

As the Bible verse explains "don't hinder them"..in other words its also
a matter of obedience on the part of the parent.


Jim

    Re.the last few
    
    Many of the children incarnating on the planet today are very 
    advanced souls, therefore, I see it as good that they are 
    consciously entering what Peck calls Stage II of their spiritual 
    development.  
    
    That way, they'll have a headstart on progressing into Stage III 
    and eventually Stage IV, unless they somehow get stuck along the 
    way.
    
    It's interesting that in the Mayan language, in which each word 
    can be reversed and be a pointer to the same thing, is that the
    world for 'child' spelt backwards also means 'old soul'.
    
    Cindy
    

    RE: .113
    
    Thanks Jim.....
    
    Note:  I didn't say you can't let the child ask Christ into their
    heart...rather, like yourself, my knowledge of Christ is always
    something to work on.
    
    Hey, maybe its this medium of notes or something.....we seem to be
    arguing a lot now  a days when * THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT!*
    
    Marc H.

    RE "Suffer little children..."

    Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put
    his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.  But Jesus
    said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for
    of such is the kingdom of heaven. Mat And he laid his hands on them,
    and departed thence.

    		Matt 19:13-15

    This doesn't say *anything* about children -- of their own volition --
    accepting Jesus as their personal savior. 

    I am not arguing that it is impossible for children to be blessed by
    Jesus or to learn the message of Jesus. I think this is a wonderful
    thing. What I don't understand is the ability for a child, certainly
    one of preschool age, to fully comprehend what they are professing
    when they say, "I accept Jesus as my personal savior". 

    I think that children should learn about the value of money. That
    doesn't mean I'll let my child make his own financial decisions. I
    think children should learn the value of a healthy marriage. That
    doesn't mean I'll let them decide whom they'll marry when they're four
    years old. I don't think a child's decision to accept Jesus as their
    personal savior has any more credibility than a child's decision to be
    a fireman when he grows up.
    
    
     	Eric

    I can speak from experience on this one.
    
    
    Both of my sons received Christ as Savior at age 4.  Both boys have
    been in church since infancy and have known about sin, death, heaven,
    hell and Jesus since they were old enough to learn.  
    
    The one thing I was concerned with for my children was that they were
    *learning*, not *accepting/acknowledging* on their own volition.  My
    first son was depressed, shoulders down, acting funny for about a week
    [this kid was a happy child *all* the time], so I got very concerned. 
    I sat with him and found out he had heard about sin, and knew he was a
    sinner and wanted Jesus to save him.  WOW, I thought how can he *know*
    this.  I put him off for anothe week thinking he was not ready.  The
    next week he cam to me and said, "Mom, I want to be saved NOW!"  So we
    prayed together with him asking Jesus to be his Savior.  As he was
    being counselled at church, the man asked him if he really understood
    sin and what it was.  Matthew said, "Yes!"
    
    The man asked him if he could tell him a sin that he had done.  Matthew
    responded, "When my Mom's not looking I pinch my baby brother!", and he
    had tears in his eyes.
    
    I have an equally convincing accounting of Clayton's salvation. 
    Clayton was a "BEHAVIOR" problem and had been kicked out of daycare. 
    When he asked Jesus to be His Savior [on his own volition], this kid
    who wouldn't look you in the eyes, looked you in the eyes... and today
    he is one of the best kids around.  He is still very strong willed, but
    he submits to authority,  because he submitted to Christ first.  He has
    a heart for God and when asked who loves him most, he responds, "God
    does."  He makes  up his own praise songs to the Lord, the tune is
    barely recognizable, but he's singing and very indepth perceptions of
    his relationship with God... He's 7 now.  Matthew is 11.
    
    We recently talked about assurance, because they were so young when
    they received Christ...  What I have seen with my son's is that they
    have reaffirmed their salvation on their own.. when the memory has
    become clouded, though they remember, they have prayed to God for
    assurance.  I don't discourage that, I believe that even as an adult,
    while I know I am saved and I don't pray for assurance, I do recommit
    myself to God on occasion... I think is called growing.
    
    A 4 year old is not too young to understand, though I believe that
    recommitment and reassurance will continue as they grow...
    
    

    Eric:
    
    I don't know your church/religion background.  I personally don't make
    judgements on people based on generalities...I think that's called
    stereotyping.
    
    My daughter Sarah's story:
    
    Background Information:  My wife Lori accepted Christ at the age of 10. 
    They're family never went to any organized church until her older
    brother and sister were teens.  Her mom always listened to Billy
    Graham's crusades on TV and accepted Christ in their living room. 
    Within a matter aof six months, her dad, brother and sister, then Lori
    all accepted Christ.  They been faithfully serving there over 20 years. 
    Her brother is Associate Pastor and heads the Evangelism program.
    
    My father was a Lutheran, mom Southern Baptist.  We always went to an
    evangelical Lutheran or UCC.  They don't teach or study the Bible.  At
    the age of 33, I started going to a local Baptist Church where I just
    relocated.  After a few weeks and following a visit to my home, I
    accepeted Christ 7 years ago.  Three weeks later, I met my future bride
    to be.
    
    Sarah has been attending Sunday School since 2.  Every Wednesday she
    attends the AWANA program for ages 2-18.  Last year, Lori's grandfather
    past away being a believer and that had a profound effect on Sarah. 
    Every evening I read a selection of children's Bible stories that
    Lori's grandfather gave to Sarah shortly before his death.
    
    In the AWANA program, kids learn Bible verses, church doctrine and all
    the Bible stories which are reinforced in each Sunday School Class and
    in our daily reading.  Last Wednesday, 3/16 before AWANA, after reviewing
    Sarah's verses, which a parent must confirm weekly to the AWANA leader,
    Sarah and I talked about the three verses she was reading, dealing from
    heaven and hell, trusting the Lord and Jesus dying on the cross.  I
    answered her questions, recognizing she knew understood the concepts of
    sin, right and wrong, heaven and hell, the price Christ paid on the
    cross and the free gift of salvation.  Sarah then asked to be saved and
    we said a simple sinner's prayer. {Sidelight: talk about prayer
    warriors, she prays for her sick friends and relatives, the ice storms
    and people getting in traffic accidents, thankful for her house and
    food and clothing, etc.}
    
    I set up an appointment with the Senior Pastor of our church last
    evening.  He went over a children's illustration of the above mentioned
    concepts and asked her some questions which she needed to answer, in
    her own words, knowing that she understood the concepts.  Lastly he
    asked her if she was saved.  She answered "I prayed the sinner's prayer
    last Wednesday with dad!"
    
    This all confirmed in his mind that she understood the issues and concepts
    involved and had willingly made her decision for Christ.  She will come
    forward at invitation on Sunday and be a candidate for baptism.
    
    
    Eric:
    
    I wouldn't be so presumptuous to allow some of the things you ridiculed
    me about in .116.  That's the reason I waited a week and conferenced
    with the Sr Pastor.  If you aren't saved, maybe you should talk to a
    local pastor on your own.
    
    I really don't care to debate any or these issues with anyone so I
    won't be responding to any inquiries.  I wrote to Nancy off-line and
    will respond in kind to other inquiries.  I won't debate something
    important as my child's decision for Christ to anyone who won't make
    the same conscious decision for themselves.
    
    TYVM,
    
    Ron

 What a wonderful testimony, Ron....



  Jim

    You know, it's a funny thing.  This is not far from the historical
    argument between those who sanctioned infant baptism and those who
    became known as Anabaptists, the predecessors of Baptists.
    
    My son was baptized on New Year's Day when he was 10, I think.  It
    was totally his decision.  We, of course, supported him.
    
    Quakers at heart, we didn't care if he ever went through the ritual
    of water baptism.  We were more concerned with his inner being.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Jesus went and taught the elders of the temple a thing or two at a
    very young age.  What was His age then - 11-ish or so?  
                                          
    Cindy

    In the Jewish custom, the age of accountability was 12 years old.  I
    believe Jesus was around 12 years of age when he went into the temple.
    
    

    re: Note 220.118 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ

    > I wouldn't be so presumptuous to allow some of the things you ridiculed
    > me about in .116.

    Now stop it. I DIDN'T RIDICULE YOU FOR ANYTHING! 

    All I heard from you was the simple one sentence statement that your
    four year-old daughter accepted Jesus as here personal savior. You did
    not qualify this statement in any way. 

    In .108 I asked questions about your assumptions of a four year old's
    cognitive and emotional abilities. I wanted to know where you were
    coming from. I wanted to know if there were other major decisions you
    let your child make.

    You didn't answer.

    In .116 I was doing two things. First I was responding to the citation
    of Matt 19:14 as a supporting Scripture for juvenile acceptance of Jesus
    as personal savior. Second, I was adding my own perspective of the
    value of teaching children about Jesus and my beliefs regarding the
    cognitive and emotional maturity of young children. I DID NOT RIDICULE
    YOU IN ANY WAY.

    Sulk away in righteous indignation if you want, but be aware that you
    see demon where there are none. I will not, however, refrain from
    questioning things you may say that I don't understand. I will continue
    to include my personal perspectives when I feel they will help others
    in understanding where I'm coming from. 

    > I personally don't make judgements on people based on generalities...     

    Of course you do. You just judged me, and my character, as ridiculing
    you *personally*. 

    > I think that's called stereotyping.

    I stereotype all the time. I tell my kids that the cop's are the good
    guy's. That strangers should be avoided. Other's in this conference,
    not you I'm sure, have stereotyped liberals/conservatives, gays,
    Catholics, fundamentalists, Unitarians... Stereotypes are not wrong,
    they're just not 100% (or even 90%) accurate. We must always leave room
    for adjustment of our views of others. 
    
    
    	Eric

    Actually Eric I understand why Ron reacted the way he did to your
    "questioning".  I also understand why *you* questioned.
    
    :-)

    RE: .124
    
    Then explain why Ron acted the way he did, cause I sure don't
    understand the harm in Eric's questions.
    
    
    Marc H.

 Well, at least the angels in Heaven are rejoicing







Jim

    .126
    
    Exactly... [does that answer your question?]

    Marc,
    
    Do you remember the birth of your first child?  Looking in awe at
    her/him?  Feeling for the first time the love of a father towards its
    child... warm, wonderful, awesome and sobering...  
    
    How would you have felt if someone said, "OH you have an ugly baby!" 
    or are you sure she/he's your's, they could've switched them in the
    hospital you know?
    
    When a Christian parent has a child receive Christ as their Savior, it
    is almost the same as the physical birth of that baby... the awe, the 
    joy, the wonder....
    
    Eric asked because his logic prompted him to...  This reaction
    questioned the reality of something as precious as a birth [albeit a
    spiritual one]...
    
    
    

    RE: .128
    
    Went through 5 births, so I can honestly say that I know what you mean!
    
    Thanks for the explanation.
    
    Marc H.

    Eric, Marc & others:
    
    As Nancy put it, much better into words than I could, the questioning
    of both my child having the capacity to understand the meaning of
    accepting Jesus as her personal saviour and then making assumptions in
    .116 didn't sit well with me at first.  That's why I wrote .118.  I
    apologize for the reaction I had and specifically for the offense Eric
    felt.
    
    I don't understand why Eric you haven't responded back to my .118 but
    instad entered your .122.
    
    Lastly, if I'm in and out of here on a more infrequent basis than
    others, my job, and the phone being a large part of the job, prohibits
    me from being more active.  I've learned from making the same mistake
    Eric did in .122 that you don't question why a person has or hasn't
    responded...unless it's off-line or voicemail, of course.
    
    Simple this:  My joy is that my daughter will now someday join other
    loved ones, present and those currently in heaven today, forever,
    someday!
    
    Ron

    RE: .130
    
    I think we have all learned something good.
    
    Marc H.

    re. .124

    > Actually Eric I understand why Ron reacted the way he did to your
    > "questioning".

    Your use of quotes makes me read this sentence:

    	Actually, Eric, I understand why Ron reacted the way he did to your
        so called questioning.

    The use of quotes indicates that you, yourself, wouldn't call my
    replied as questioning... that you would call it something else. Am I
    wrong? Why the quotes?

    > How would you have felt if someone said, "OH you have an ugly baby!" or
    > are you sure she/he's your's, they could've switched them in the
    > hospital you know?

    Off base. If anything I said "I don't *understand* who people can
    consider new born babies pretty." This is the second or third time
    someone as turned my own admission of a lack of understanding and
    questioning into a charge of personal ridicule... It's wearing thin.

    Eric

    PS  I've spent so much time defending my character, I neglected to
        mention how informative both Nancy and Ron's accounts were. Each
        clearly answered my questions by explaining why they feel the way
        they do.  

    PPS I don't understand how anyone can consider a new born (ie < 1day)
        baby pretty. I may be a beautiful event, but it ain't pretty :^)

     

    Re: .132
    
    A brand new baby looks great to the parents. Others? Well, not really
    that great. Sure is an experience, though.
    
    Marc H.

    re Note 220.130 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ

    > I don't understand why Eric you haven't responded back to my .118 but
    > instad entered your .122.

    I'm in the dark, Ron. .122 was my response to your .118. What were you
    looking for? Respecting the sensitivity you felt (feel) toward your
    child's decisions, I did not want to pursue the specifics any further.


    All I want you to know is that I wasn't putting you, or your daughter,
    down personally. I was *not* singling out your daughter from all four
    year-olds... I was just stating what I believe to be the developmental
    level of ALL four year-olds.

                 
    	Eric

    There's more than one school of thought on salvation.
    
    There's the "once saved, always saved" doctrine.  There's also the
    notion that salvation is not a one-time done deal, that one must
    daily rededicate one's life to God.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 I believe in eternal security, but I also believe in rededicating my life
 every day ;-)



 

    .136 Jim,
    
    Going by the definition of salvation found in 220.77, exactly
    what is eternal security?
    
    Please feel free to supplement .77 or to provide your own definition
    of salvation.
    
    Richard
    

RE:          <<< Note 220.137 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>

       
   > Going by the definition of salvation found in 220.77, exactly
   > what is eternal security?
    
  
    My apologies..I meant to say that I believe in "Once saved always saved"
   which is how I define eternal security.




   > Please feel free to supplement .77 or to provide your own definition
   > of salvation.
    
    
    Thank you very much.  However, I agree 100% with .77



    Jim    

    >How can a four year-old possibly have the cognitive and emotional
    >development to make such a decision? Do you treat all her decisions
    >with unqualified acceptance? 

My daugher asked Jesus into her life when she was 4 (on July
16, 1992 to be exact).

She just did it.

No, she doesn't have the cognitive and emotional development to
understand all that this means.  But she sure does have enough
to understand that she's a sinner and that Jesus died on the
cross instead of her to pay for her sins out of love for her.

In addition, it is God that saves, not cognitive and emotional
development!!!

Collis
  

Note 220.138

>    My apologies..I meant to say that I believe in "Once saved always saved"
>   which is how I define eternal security.
 
>    Thank you very much.  However, I agree 100% with .77

Jim,

	Help me understand this. .77 stops short of declaring salvation to
include a guarantee of an afterlife -- Heaven, resurrection of the dead or
whatever.  Yet, I get the feeling that this is really what you're talking
about when you refer to eternal security.  Correct me if I'm mistaken about
this.

from Note 220.77

>    Because we were created for fellowship with God, but because of sin we
>    lost that fellowship.  We all have a void that can only be filled by
>    our Creator.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that He is the only one
>    who can fill that void.  If you want an abundant, joyful life now 
>    and forever more (and who doesn't), then you need a Savior and His 
>    name is Jesus.

	Are you saying that once you're saved it's impossible to lose
this relationship, to fall out of this fellowship with God?  Or are you
saying something else?

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    One of the biblical records for Salvation and Eternal Security can be
    found in the following:
    
    John 10:28
       
       {Jesus speaking} "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
       never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
       29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man
       is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
    
    What might be confusing the issue is fellowship and the Joy of His
    Salvation.  Read Psalm 55 and how it eloquently records David's plea to 
    be restored unto him the joy of his salvation after David had sinned with 
    Bathseba.
    
    One might be saved and be out of fellowship with the Lord due to our
    natural sin nature and what the individual is feeling is conviction by
    the Holy Spirit, loss of the joy of their salvation.  But as 1 John 1:9
    so aptly states:
    
       If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our
       sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
    
    It is the Holy Spirit cleansing a saved sinner from their sins that
    restores the joy of their salvation and brings them back to fellowship
    with God.
    
    Ron 
       

RE:          <<< Note 220.141 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>



>	Help me understand this. .77 stops short of declaring salvation to
>include a guarantee of an afterlife -- Heaven, resurrection of the dead or
>whatever.  Yet, I get the feeling that this is really what you're talking
>about when you refer to eternal security.  Correct me if I'm mistaken about
>this.


.77 does talk about having a joyful life now and forever more, and there
 are plenty of scriptures that talk about eternal life (which we all will have
 its just a question of where we spend it) through Christ. By eternal security
 I mean that we are eternally secure in our salvation..eternally secure in 
 our place in Heaven..once we are saved, we are always saved.



>from Note 220.77

>>    Because we were created for fellowship with God, but because of sin we
>>    lost that fellowship.  We all have a void that can only be filled by
>>    our Creator.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that He is the only one
>>    who can fill that void.  If you want an abundant, joyful life now 
>>    and forever more (and who doesn't), then you need a Savior and His 
>>    name is Jesus.

>	Are you saying that once you're saved it's impossible to lose
>this relationship, to fall out of this fellowship with God?  Or are you
>saying something else?



  I was saved in 1979.  I served the Lord for several years until a number of
  things happened and I went into a long period of backsliding...I broke the
  relationship, but I *know* that He was still there, because I could feel
  the tug of the Holy Spirit.  Even as I continued in my rebellion and
  sin, I knew that He was there and calling to me to come back to Him..until
  an amazing set of "coincidences" happened that finally pulled me back..
  It is possible to fall from that fellowship, to break it, as I did.  But
  I do not believe one can lose what God has promised them once they've
  been saved.  One's rewards in Heaven may not be there, but life with
  Him will be.




 Jim

 I suppose a logical question would be "what about a guy who gets 'saved' and
 then goes right back to his life of booze, drugs, crime, etc.  Is he still
 saved and guaranteed eternal life in Heaven?"  In such a case I'd have to
 question this person's being saved to begin with.  I've seen a few such 
 cases and in each case the individual came to a point where he/she realized
 that they had not fully understood or had the wrong motivations for salvation
 to begin with.




 Jim

How about a person who is saved, backslides for several years, and dies in a 
state of "back-slidenness"?  (I'm not refering to anyone I know, just a 
generat queston.)

Peace,

Jim 

    .145
    
    Doubtlessly, it happens.  Even if you don't have a specific example.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Note 220.143

>.77 does talk about having a joyful life now and forever more, and there
> are plenty of scriptures that talk about eternal life (which we all will have
> its just a question of where we spend it) through Christ. By eternal security
> I mean that we are eternally secure in our salvation..eternally secure in 
> our place in Heaven..once we are saved, we are always saved.

Thanks, Jim.  This is the answer I anticipated.  I respect it.  At the
same time, it is not a belief I hold myself.

Peace,
Richard

RE:                <<< Note 220.145 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
                             -< 'nother question >-

>How about a person who is saved, backslides for several years, and dies in a 
>state of "back-slidenness"?  (I'm not refering to anyone I know, just a 
>generat queston.)



 My belief is they are still saved, though when heavenly rewards are handed out
 this person may wind up with few, if any



 Jim

RE:          <<< Note 220.147 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>


>Thanks, Jim.  This is the answer I anticipated.  I respect it.  At the
>same time, it is not a belief I hold myself.




OK



 Jim

>heavenly rewards

The only reward I want or expect is to spend eternity enjoying God's
presence, singing His praises forever.

I don't want a nice house on St. Barth's or a fancy car or anything
He doesn't want to give me.

    .150
    
    John the purpose for the crowns we receive in Heaven [rewards] is so
    that we can lay them at Jesus' feet.
    
    

Okay, nobody asked, but I'm going to tell you anyway.

I'm not terribly sure there is an afterlife.  I'm not terribly concerned
whether there is or not.  If there is, there is.  If there isn't, there
isn't.  My believing one way or the other ain't gonna make it so.  God
didn't indicate, at least not in the Bible, that believing in an afterlife
was your boarding pass to be Heaven-bound.

When Jesus spoke about eternal life or everlasting life, I'm not so sure
he was talking about heavenly rewards bestowed sometime after the cessation
of life.

The notion of life after death, being transported to heavenly realms when
the soul departs from the body, is really quite extra-biblical.

Shalom,
Richard

>When Jesus spoke about eternal life or everlasting life, I'm not so sure
>he was talking about heavenly rewards bestowed sometime after the cessation
>of life.
>
>The notion of life after death, being transported to heavenly realms when
>the soul departs from the body, is really quite extra-biblical.

You seem to have skipped over some major parts of the bible, Richard.
Some of our notions about heaven are extra-biblical, but life after
death is clearly promised.

"I will raise them on the last day."

"I am the resurrection and the life."

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a
building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

    (.153 John Covert)
    
    One or more of those speak of the resurrection of the dead which, I
    think you'll agree (but perhaps not), is not precisely the same thing
    as being transported to heavenly realms when earthly life ceases.
    
    You indicted yourself in another string that what happens between
    death and the resurrection is subject to speculation:

Note 768.18  COVERT::COVERT 

>While I will agree with you that notions of the current state of those
>who have died (i.e. from death until the end of all time) is what we call
>"speculative theology", there is no question that Jesus taught that the
>dead would be resurrected:
    
    Richard
    

There is no contradiction between my two statements.

/john

    Neither are mine.
    
    Richard
    

re: Note 220.148 by Jim "Friend will you be ready" 

Thanks for the answer, however "though when heavenly rewards are handed out
 this person may wind up with few, if any" sounds a lot like works over faith 
to me.  The harder I work the better my spot in heaven...

Peace,

Jim

RE:                <<< Note 220.157 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
                            -< salvation by works? >-

>re: Note 220.148 by Jim "Friend will you be ready" 

>Thanks for the answer, however "though when heavenly rewards are handed out
> this person may wind up with few, if any" sounds a lot like works over faith 
>to me.  The harder I work the better my spot in heaven...


We are talking about people who have been saved, not people who are needing
to be saved.  One cannot perform "works" and achieve salvation.  That is a
matter of faith.  However, once we are saved, and Christ is living within
us, we need to be busy in the kingdom..serving Him.  I believe, that based
on our service to Him, we (as Nancy stated) our service to Him will be tested..
(see 1 Corinthians 3:10-12 [I believe those are the verses..my Bible seems
to have disappeared from my office] which talks about the testing of our
post salvation service).

"Faith without works is dead"..once we are saved, our faith should show in
our lives.



Jim

 Speaking of salvation, my 11 year old son Scott asked the Lord to save
 him Friday night!





 Jim

re: Note 220.158 by Jim "Friend will you be ready" 

>We are talking about people who have been saved, not people who are needing
>to be saved.  

I am talking about someone who has been saved, but then "backslides", and died 
in an unrepentant, backslidden state. 

I'm wondering what people think happens to one in that example.

Peace,

Jim

    .160
    
    You'll find views on both sides of the Camp.. There is my view which is
    Once Saved Always Saved, then there is the view that you must *work* to
    keep your salvation.
    
    Try reading the Gospel of John in its entirety.
    
        
    
    

re: Note 220.161 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    Try reading the Gospel of John in its entirety.

Wot!? you mean I haven't!?!

.-)
    
Jim

-< looking for others' opinions >-
    
    WHAT??? Mine wasn't enuf???? :-) :-)
    
ZWot!? you mean I haven't!?!
    
    I dunno... but you asked and the answer is in there. :-)

  >There is my view which is Once Saved Always Saved, then there is
  >the view that you must *work* to keep your salvation.

I think the other view is better expressed that you must continue
to trust in Jesus to keep your salvation.  Some may consider
this a work, but I think many would not.  (If it's not a work
to gain your salvation, then why would it be a work to keep
your salvation?)

Personally, I'm in the once saved always saved camp (despite
belonging to a Nazarene "lose your salvation" church).

Collis

re: Note 220.163

There, see!  Collis has an opinion, too.   (Thanks for both, btw.)

Jim

    Jim,
    
    	I think it's possible to be separated from salvation, just as
    the sheep were separated from the goats in Matthew 25.31-46.  Mind
    you, the separation that takes place here, known as the final judgment,
    is not based on the strength of one's faith.
    
    Richard
    

 I suppose one could outright renounce their salvation and completely
 turn their back on what Jesus did for them, and perhaps that would
 have some bearing on OSAS..but I don't know for sure.




Jim

    Richard:
    
    I believe that the reference you make in Matthew about the sheep &
    goats in misunderstood.  Compare that passage with John 10.  Maybe that
    will help you understand what Jesus was saying.
    
    Ron

By salvation, I guess we are talking about a persons final salvation.
Jesus said that "But he who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew
24:13 RSV. So from this verse one can see that ones final salvation
is not determined at the initial point of putting faith in Jesus.

Zephaniah 2:3 RSV is also an interesting verse, it reads "Seek the LORD,
all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, 
seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the
LORD."

Jesus emphasised the need for his followers to keep awake (Luke 21:36), 
a professing Christian would not want to be judged as being a goat 
(compare Matthew 7:21-23).

Personally, I don't like the OSAS doctrine because it gives persons a
false sense of security. As 1 Corinthians 10:12 NWT reads "Consequently
let him that thinks he is standing beware he does not fall."

Phil.

 I think you are taking some verses out of their context.






Jim

RE .170

Jim,

Which ones?, perhaps we can look at the context of Matthew 24:13 & Zephaniah
2:3 ?.

Phil.

 Re .171  I was speaking specifically about 1 Corinthians 10:13, which 
to me seems to be speaking to those who are lost (apart from Christ)..I
also feel Matthew 24:13 is taken out of context, but I need to study more.





Jim

    (.168 RWARRENFELTZ)
    
    I don't think I've misunderstood the Matthew passage (25.31-to end)
    at all.  But thank you for your concern.
    
    Richard
    

    .169
    
    Actually you are taking the I Corinthians verse out of context.  I
    Corinthians is in harmony with Romans 7 where Paul who is saved states
    he wars within himself against the sin nature.
    
    It then follows suit also with the I Corinthians verses regarding the
    man being saved himself, though his works are tried by fire.
    
    The *fall* is to our sinful nature, not to Hell.

re Taking 1 Corinthians 10:12 out of context in reply .169.

I don't think this is so that is if you read the surrounding 
verses leading up to 1 Corinthians 10:12. The subject is 
salvation, verses 1-5 tell us about the Israelites who experienced 
the saving power of Jehovah God firsthand. Paul says "Now these
things are a warning for us, not to desire evil as they did."
(verse 6 RSV) "us" being the apostle Paul and the first Century
Christians. Verses 7-10 tells us of their disobedient acts
and what happened to these ones that had previously experienced
God's salvation from bondage to the Egyptians, in that those
faithless ones who put God to the test were destroyed. Paul
relates in verse 11 RSV "Now these things happened to them as 
a warning, but they were written down for our instruction,
upon whom the end of the ages has come." Consequently, we read
in Jude 5 RSV "Now I desire to remind you, though you were once
for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the
land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."
So a warning of what happened to those whom God had saved was
written down for "our instruction" as to what will happen to
those who are willingly disobedient. The teaching is clear,
once saved always saved was not true of the Israelites that
saw salvation from their God when he realeased them from bondage 
to the Egyptians.

Jesus gave a wonderful illustration in Matthew 7:13,14 RSV it reads
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,
that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For 
the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life and those
who find are few." Notice that the way or road through the narrow gate
*leads* to life. Now those who are walking down the road that leads to
destruction can take the opportunity to walk through the narrow gate
and walk along the way that leads to life. But upon entering the 
narrow gate and after walking for a while they decide to turn back 
and re-enter the wide gate. Now where will they finally end up if they
continue walking the road to destruction?. Simple isn't it, and yet
at one time they may having been walking the way that leads to life.
2 Peter 2:9 shows that God wants all to seek repentance (turn round) 
and take the opportunity of entering the narrow gate while it is still 
there.

re .174

;Paul who is saved states he wars within himself against the sin nature.

Nancy, in 1 Corinthians 9:27 RSV expands on this fight "But I pommel
my body and subdue it," in otherwords he has to get tough with himself.
But notice how verse 27 finishes "lest after preaching to others I
myself should be disqualified." What was it he did not want to be 
disqualified from, well verses 24-25 he compares a christian's life course
to that of a runner seeking a prize. Those that finish this race receive
an "imperishable wreath" that is everlasting life or final salvation.
He got tough with himself so as to not be disqualified from this race,
so that he could finish the course and receive the prize that will be
given to all those that finish it. Jehovah is righteous, he could not 
give this prize to those who don't endure and finish the race.

;The *fall* is to our sinful nature, not to Hell.

Lets look at verse 1 Corinthians 10:12,13 RSV "Therefore let any one who
thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you
that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be
tempted beyond your strength, but with temptation will also provide the
way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." God provides "the
way of escape" that is power of his holy spirit to Christians who ask.
This saving power helps them to overcome the temptations of Satan the
Devil, they cannot do this in their own strength. Hence Christians who
are willfully sinning are rejecting God's saving power, as Paul shows
the things written about the Israelites was for instruction to the
Christian Congregation and what will happen to those who are willfully
disobedient. One example that springs to mind of one who felt that
he was standing was Korah, who had previously experienced the powerful 
saving arm of Jehovah God. 

"The wages of sin is death" Romans 6:27 RSV, but if one seeks repentance
and excercises faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice then these sins will be
covered. However, if one practices sin willfully then as Hebrews 10:26,27
RSV puts it "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" hence the 
outcome will be that one will receive full recompense, that is death.
The persons sin will lay uncovered.

Thanks for letting me share another perspective.

Phil.

    .175
    
    Well you know how I feel about the RSV, don't you? :-) :-)
    
    Do you believe that we can become perfected in this life?

    Also see topic 162 on Perfection.
    
    Richard
    

RE .176

Nancy,

I did think about using the KJV, I made a quick glance and the scripture
was conveying the same message especially in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13. 
Personally, I prefer more modern translations because the modern English
is easier to understand. Understanding the things contained in the Bible
is far more important than merely having knowledge. But I have nothing
against others using the KJV. 

;Do you believe that we can become perfected in this life?

Not for Anointed Christians, for they reach perfection when they die and
then receive a heavenly resurrection.

Many who may not have had the chance to hear the good news will be
resurrected back to earth and under the heavenly kingdom rule (Revelation 
5:9,10, Acts 24:15) will be given the opportunity to learn about God and 
his king Jesus Christ under the right conditions. 

However, others will go through the great tribulation that will come upon 
the earth (Revelation 7:14) and will path the way for the ones who will 
receive an earthly resurrection. Individuals in this great multitude may 
not taste death at all.

During the millenial rule, persons will be brought to perfection under
guidance of the king Jesus and the anointed Christians ruling in heaven.

As perfect humans these will be given the same test as Adam (Revelation 
20:7-9). Those who remain obedient will receive everlasting life on a
paradise earth. As we read in 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 KJV speaking about
Jesus "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he has put all things
under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put under him, it is
manifest that he excepted, which did put all things under him. And when
all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be 
subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

God through Jesus will have brought mankind to perfection on a paradise
earth. Jesus will have undone all the works of Satan the Devil. Man will
be reconciled with his Creator. It will be as God originally intended,
a paradise earth filled with perfect mankind, God's command in Genesis 1:28
will not return without results (Compare Isaiah 55:11).

Sorry my answer was a bit long, those in heaven will be perfect and have
immortality like Jesus. Those on the earth, as I understand it, will reach
perfection at the end of the millenial rule.

Phil. 

    
    I just started on a class about the Baptist Faith.  We talked last week
    about Salvation.  I liked what they had to say about it and my beliefs
    are the same.  They just stated it better, not that this is an exact
    restatement...this is my paraphrase of their statement.
    
    Salvation is triune in nature.  It's Regeneration, Sanctification, and
    Glorification.  Regeneration is that moment when you accept Christ into
    your heart and the PENALTY of sin is taken care of by Jesus' sacrifice
    on the cross.  Santification is the process of growing in God's grace
    to win over the POWER of sin in our lives.  Glorification is the day
    when we will finally be with Christ eternally and free from the
    PRESENCE of sin.
    
    Jill

    
		     The three "C's" of Salvation



	Today, I will speak on the mystery of Salvation through the life
and work of Jesus, the Christ.  As we look around us in this world, we are
dramatically aware of the power and majesty of life on a planet whose beauty
seems unsurpassed.  Little wonder, our minds look and seek a power higher 
than ourselves to explain this intricate "thing" called life.  But the 
issue of life coincides with the promise of death.  What happins to us 
when we die?  Where do we go?  Is it an end or a beginning?  Can it be 
that this is all there is?  Who among us has not pondered these questions?

	So I present to you an answer through what I call the "three C's
of Salvation.  The First is "Confusion".  Now we all know that one don't we?
Second is "Conviction".  Trial lawyers cringe at that word.  And the third
I call "Completion".   A race won, a project finished or an answer to a 
difficult question.  You will notice that these three words also seem to
provide a natural progression to a finished end.  That is my hope and 
prayer for you today.

    1.  Confusion:   In the Bible we read that God is not the Author of 
of confusion so we are going to have to look inside to find the answer to
this question.  In our finite minds, we consider the intricacies of life
and death and all that encompasses the time between.  From the miricle of
birth to understanding our place in society and finally facing death with
fear and trepidation.  I remember as a very young boy, being confused at
the ability of adults to tie my shoes and wondering if I could ever make
my hands do that.  Their hands went so fast while mine just hung there 
confused right from the start.  Why was I confused?  Simply, it was only
a lack of knowledge.  So when you consider the wonder of life after death,
and are confused, look to gaining knowledge and understanding the the
purpose of Jesus Christ.  "I have come to save the world not to condemn
it".   With Knowledge comes the next step in our journey.

    2.  Conviction:  We read in the Bible that it is the "Holy Spirit that
convicts unto Salvation".  With knowledge comes a decision to accept or
reject what we have learned.  We now know that there is a power higher 
than ourselves that is in control.  As a teenager I became convinced that
I could please myself with what felt good and right.  I was sure that I
knew all the answers.  Just ask me and I would tell you all the answers
of the questions of life.  Adults would try to convince me that experience
was needed but I couldn't see past the knowledge to relise that "living"
the life was sometimes the only way to truly "know".  Salvation is like
that.  Oh, I can tell you what it has done for me and how to get it but
to truly *KNOW* about Salvation I had to live it.  "Even Satan knows
about Christ and trembles".  Take a step toward Jesus and you come to
the next phase of life.

    3.   Completion:  The Bible says "Jesus knew that everything was now
completed;...."  Salvation is the promise of eternal life.  With completion
comes the satisfaction of knowing God in all of his glory.  Death is no
longer the victor but something that is good and looked forward to as a
completion.  On the day that I finished my active duty requirement for 
the Navy and was released, my oldest son was born.  How well I remember
that day.  The joy of getting out and the joy of becoming a father for
the first time made that day forever etched into my mind.  It is that 
same kind of joy that I look back to that day when I accepted Jesus 
into my life as lord and savior.  I had completed Gods will for my
life.  Oh I know God has other things for me to do but that was the
most important event for me personally.

	Jesus said "I am the way, truth and the life, no man comes unto 
the father but by me".  


Dave Dawson

	

    .180  Outstanding, Dave.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 9.1164                   The Processing Topic                  1164 of 1164
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Sister of Amaretto"               30 lines  27-APR-1994 15:14
                      -< Cross-posting under "Salvation" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 9.1154

>It is indeed true that you have consistently refused to discuss
>the details of this ages old and Biblically-solid doctrine of
>have to be saved.

The fact of the matter is that the doctrine of Jesus' death and
atonement for sin lights up something in my head, but lights up
nothing in my heart.  That's kind of a signal to me that the matter
has become too cerebral, too sterile, too flat; that rationalization
has kicked in and taken over, akin to explaining emotions like love
and anger in terms of chemicals and neural transmitters.

For me to fully embrace a particular doctrine, to drink it in and
incorporate it, the light must come on in both my head and my heart.
I realize this is probably yet another handicap I have to deal with
in my humanness.  If my soul was more advanced, I suppose my faith might
mirror more perfectly that of others who not only embrace the doctrine,
but have made it the litmus test of the true Christian faith.

So, what it really boils down to on the doctrine is that I've
not really made up mind.  I'm still waiting for clearness.  If it
causes me the loss of right relationship with God and to lose out
on salvation, then I guess you won't be hearing from me again after
this earthly life.  No great loss.

Jesus is Sovereign.

Richard

    >No great loss.
    
    For me, it will bring uncontrollable tears...
    
    

    Richard, we should not trust our changing hearts (Jeremiah 17:9, 
    Proverbs 14:12), but base our spiritual decisions on the secure and 
    established Word of God (Isaiah 40:8, Acts 17:11).

    Mike

    220.184  Thanks for your advice, new friend.
    
    However, the heart (the symbolic place where Christ dwells [Ephesians
    3.17], which God judges [I Samuel 16.7], and upon which the law is
    written [Jeremiah 31.mumble, Hebrews blah-blah.mumble, II Corinthians
    mumble.mumble]) is not to be so quickly and carelessly dismissed.
    
    Jesus said it's what comes out from the heart that determines whether
    we are "clean;" acceptable to God or not (Mark 7.14-23).
    
    Scripture places a high premium on the human heart.  Surely even those
    who believe everything one says must be undergirded with a Bible pointer
    can see this.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 613.87                  The Bible as God's Word                    87 of 90
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Poverty kills"                    24 lines  27-APR-1994 21:20
             -< The word is not a book, but an encounter with God >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 4.11-13  The Word of God.

	Faith is the active thing is it partly because that which it
calls forth, the WORD OF GOD, is also LIVING AND ACTIVE.  Since the
invention of the printing press there has been the constant temptation
to think of the word of God as a deposit of doctrine or a book.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For the Scriptures the word of God is the word which God addresses
to his creation.  It is the word he speaks through the prophet, making
his will known to his people.  It is the word of power by
which he created and sustains the world.  It is the word of apostolic
preaching, declaring the good news of what God has done in Jesus
Christ.  It is Christ himself as the sum and substance of God's
speech to man.  In all of these usages it is the PERSONAL ENCOUNTER
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
with the God who honors his creatures by addressing himself to them
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the demand for responsibility and the offer of life.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The preceding is a portion from the Interpreter's One Volume Commentary
on the Bible.  Emphases mine.

	Re: .182 Richard and a couple of (subsequent) replies.

	Behavioural studies of heart tranpslant patients (recepients and
	doners) have proved conclusively that the heart is a pump and not
	the seat of faith hope or charity.

	;-) several times.

	Greetings, Derek.

    RE: .187

    Blasphemer! Heretic! 

    	Eric

    PS. :^)

    Actually.. the heart is the organ.. but it is the central organ.  The
    heart is deceitful and wicked God's word declares...  What does this
    mean that an organ is bad with disease?
    
    No, I believe what the Bible is associating is the central driving
    force of man...  his direction, his nature, his core being.
    
    

    220.187  Right you are.  That's the very reason I used the word
    "symbolic" in 220.185.
    
    The heart to me represents the seat of emotions, intuition, artistic
    sensibilities and such characteristics as dedication and faithfulness.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Someone once said, "Christ wasn't sent to us to die.  Christ was sent
    to demonstrate unconditional love, no matter what it took."
    
    Surely there is evidence in the Gospels and at least some of the
    letters to support this.
    
    You see, reducing Jesus' death to an easily recitable formula strikes me
    as detached and clinical.  When I think of the passion of Christ, yes,
    I do think of sacrifice.  I do remember the curtain in the Temple being
    torn from top to bottom revealing the Holy of Holies.  I remember the
    pain accepted voluntarily.  I remember the humiliation, degradation,
    rejection and isolation.  These are the messy things of the heart.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    > Someone once said, "Christ wasn't sent to us to die.  Christ was sent
    > to demonstrate unconditional love, no matter what it took."

    YES! This is what I think the message of the cross is. This concept of
    unconditional love, of laying down your life for other. This is what
    Paul was talking about when he said that the message of the cross would
    appear as foolishness to men.

    Eric

    ...but we'd all be lost if he didn't die for our sins.

     .193
    
    Amen! Mike.
    
    Jesus did come to show us unconditional love... but until we grasp
    a view of the cross, it is merely an intellectual exercise, heartless
    at best. :-(

    
    The physical heart is the pump.
    
    The energetic heart is the seat of emotions, intuition, etc.
    
    We all have 7 major energy centers, or chakras (Sanskrit for 'wheel') 
    up the front and back of our physical forms.  The heart is the 4th
    chakra, and the color associated with it is green.  If you feel
    sensations around the heart area when it comes to feelings of love, it
    is probably not your phyiscal heart, but your energetic heart (or
    chakra) that you feel. It is all quite real - there's no need for faith
    and belief when it comes to the energy body.  I can feel the energy
    body to some degree, along with sensing certain blocks in the chakras, 
    and there are some who can actually see it, complete with the colors, 
    layers, and so forth.
    
    For more information on the energy body and healing techniques related
    to it, see "Light Emerging" and "Hands Of Light", by Barbara Brennan, a 
    former NASA physicist.
    
    Cindy  
    

    
    	  Some cultures speak of the gut or stomach as the seat of
    emotions, as where compassion resides.  Certainly our language
    reflects something of that in terming our intuitive side as coming
    from a 'gut-level,' does it not?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    Actually, the hara center is in the general area of our second and
    third chakras (the second being the sexual organs area, and the third
    being the stomach area.)  The center of the hara center (;^) is just
    below the belly button.  The hara center, when functioning and healthy,
    is connected energetically to the core of the Earth.  
    
    There is something else that we have too, and that is our core star. 
    That is located just above the naval, literally in the physical center
    of our being.  
    
    So, there is definitely quite a bit of good stuff happening energetically 
    in our 'gut-level' area.  (;^)  From what I have read, compassion is
    generally in the heart area, as the lower three chakras are primarily
    for one's own self and survival...and it's my current understanding
    that the opened heart center is where we begin to feel our connection to, 
    and our compassion for, others.  
    
    I'm continuing to read this material though, so will let you know if 
    I can find a connection to compassion and the hara/lower chakras.  
    
    Meanwhile, if you have a copy of "Power Of The Myth", by Joseph
    Campbell, he talks about this in detail too.
    
    Cindy