AssemblyBoard

Hi everyone.

I have shown two translations of one of GGs key verses whereby he tried to convince us that we are to work out our salvation by going the way of the cross. It made me feel like anything I wanted was evil and I had to only want what I thought God wanted whatever that was. This left me open to the wolves who ran the Assembly system to tell us what God wanted for our lives was subjection to what they said was important to God.

I hope we can have some discussion to explain how verses like this were misused to control us and how to properly view them now that we are out.

I don't have a clear understanding of what is really meant but I can still remember the Assembly take. It would help me and possibly others to see this verse in its proper application.

Hugh

____________________________________________

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  

The King James Version (Authorized)
____________________________________________

Then Jesus said to the disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross, and follow me.  

The New Living Translation

Hugh,

If you will read the context around this passage it will help to clear up the meaning.

It occurs twice in Matthew, in 10:38.  Jesus has talked about not fearing those who can kill the body but not the soul, confessing him before men, having your own household turn against you...then he says the he who does not take his cross and follow after him is not worthy.  He is obviously telling them that they must decide to follow him even at the risk of their lives!

In 16:21 he tell the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die.  Peter says, "no way", and is rebuked.  Then he says "if any man wishes to come after me let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."

Where has he just told them he is going?  To Jerusalem to suffer and die.

What follows? Save your life-lose it.  Lose your life for his sake-save it.  What profit if you gain the whole world, and lose your soul.

The meaning here is the same as in Matthew 10.

Remember, the three most important rules in correct understanding of the scriptures are: 1. context 2. context 3. context.

Another important principle of interpretation is that the correct meaning of a passage is what the author intended for the first hearers/readers to understand by it.

Neither the disciples Jesus spoke these words to or the Jewish christians Matthew wrote his gospel for had ever, as far as we know, heard the deeper life interpretation of Jesus' words.  

What I am saying is that they did not think, "Oh, I have to deal with my self centeredness and carnality in order to become what God wants me to be."  They thought, "I have to decide if I want to be a follower of Jesus even if it gets me killed."   That, they knew, was a real possibility.

Also, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is actually closer to a paraphrase.  Rather than being a strict translation based on rules of grammar, it attempts to make the passage understandable.  But the weakness of this approach is that you get the translator's understanding of the passage.  

Hope this helps.

Thomas Maddux

Hugh,

Basing his question on verses like Matthew 10:38 and 16:24 GG used to confront me with this:

"Brother Tom, are you willing to be nothing?"  

How could I say anything but yes?  "No, I want to be something." violated my whole deeper life/way of the cross  idea of spirituality.  So, I had to "submit" and "follow wise counsel" and so on.

In other words, I had to let GG control me.

Then, finally one day, I figured out the correct answer.  It wasn't, as I had believed, "Yes".

It was, "Are you?"

Thomas Maddux

Thanks Tom

That is great to hear your clear explanation. We had this verse held over us whenever we wanted to do something and make something for our life. It always had to involve the Testimony and we would only go where the leaders said a "Work was or needed to be raised up" or we married only someone who was "approved by the leaders" because we needed to always take up the cross and deny self.

So what you have shown is it is taken out of context to make it say that. If you simply look at what Jesus was telling them in context of the their fears in following Him that is the real meaning and anything that adds to that is speculation or worse manipulation and twisting of scripture.

Thanks again you have helped me more than you will know.

Hugh

Tom

Again you are right, the New Living Bible "translation" of the passage is closer to a paraphrase. Unfortunately some will read this VERSION and use it as their only Bible. I included it because of the wording that so lends itself to the Assembly way of thinking.

It has happened in Ottawa that a brother would preach on a word that they saw in numerous verses. Their whole message hinged on the meaning they put on this word. Unfortunately sometimes that particular use of that word was only present in that translation and may not even be correctly translated from the original language in the first place.

We were so much into Chapter Summary and Devotional Style preaching that we ran the risk of not using the Word in context so often. Just an open bible on your knees is all you need brothers. God will reveal it to you. Well now I see my need to do more to "Study to show myself approved".

Hugh

Interesting thread! After looking at Hugh's verse in question, and looking at II Timothy 3:12, it's easy to see how the verse(s) could easily be taken massively out of context.

Contest, historical, grammatical, hermeneutical ... it blows my mind that we have a wealth of study tools that we can use to grow deeper in our understanding of God's Word. I agree also, the New Living Translation is not an accurate version to study from; you're better off using another version such as KJV, NKJV, or NASB, and investing in a solid commentary and Hebrew-Greek lexicon. Better yet, some Bibles even have Hebrew and Greek cross references in them; check out your local Bible bookstore.

How did the Assembly-ites do Chapter Summaries? Was there a specific method or set of directions? Also for devotional time? And were brothers allowed to use other Bible study tools to help them in their word studies? (I think not, but am curious).

Jerre

Hugh, you have here, in a few words encapsulated what was wrong with assembly teaching:  It laid a foundation of the appearance of sound truth, then built upon it subtle error (doctrine that could pass as true, yet lead to enslavement).

For example, to "only want what God wants" is an admirable desire.  This was hammered at the saints, and it sounded right-- who could fault it?  But then, when a saint would ask "What exactly does God want?" the reply was subtly worded, but boiled down to, "Oh, we'll explain that for you."

The bottom line was that we were told what to study and how to study it, and if we learned things that were not approved of by the leadership, we were publicly castigated for our errors.


Here, again, the basics seemed solid:  We all had a week to study the same chapter.  The goal was to determine the passage's "spiritual teaching" (an outline of what the chapter says, the "spiritual meaning" (a recognition of how the "teaching" relates to practical living for me today), and the "spiritual application" (how I intend to henceforth employ what I have learned here in my everyday life).

I have been able to utilize this technique, in a general way, in practical situations throughout my adult life.  It can be a useful way to break things down to understandability.  But under Geftakysism, "spiritual" translated to "assembly-leadership-approved."

As for devotions (personal morning and evening "times with the Lord"), we were instructed to get on our knees, open the Bible, and expect God to speak to us.  That's what George did, and God always spoke to him!  But for us to tell what God had "shown" us was to walk on eggshells, because if George didn't approve what we had "learned," we were deceived, carnal-minded, had allowed sin to reign in us...  It was almost as bad as to admit that we had heard nothing at all from the Lord.

There were certain aids to study allowed (to some), but they were only those that George approved, e.g. Darby, or Coneybeare and Howson.  But even then, it was unsafe to glean something from these sources that didn't fit the assembly mold.


The wonderful thing about this bulletin board is the very nature of the give-and-take discussions here, the like of which could never take place under assembly rule.  The assembly pattern is a theocracy, in which a designated "priesthood" speaks on behalf of God to the people, telling them what God wants them to do, and if the individual wants to act upon his own, he must subject his will to the approval of the priesthood.  Verses such as 2Peter1:20 were wielded like clubs to beat down any notion that a saint might act, or even think, independently of the leadership.

The great challenge today to those who were (or are) in the assemblies is to filter out the heavy-handed assembly teachings that ride like leeches upon the words of scripture and, as barnacles defile a ship, make the Bible appear ugly and undesirable to those who have been denied its true nurture for so long.

Thank God that He is able to deliver us from such bondage, having made to us exceeding great and precious promises to continue in us the great work of redemption that He has begun, until the day of His triumphant eternal reign.  Hallelujah, what a Savior!

In Christ,
al

Jerre

Here is what we mean by Chapter Summary and the technique to FIND GOD'S WILL for your life daily in the Morning Times.

This is Chapter Summary

1. What does it say
2. What does it mean
3. What am I going to do about it.

Give the chapter a title from the breakdown. The breakdown is done by grouping paragraphs with similar thoughts together and giving a brief explanation of each. Then write a paragraph or two with one meaning and one application you took from the breakdown and end with a sentence to explain your specific application for this verse that you planned to do.

It was a subjective way to study the bible. It was mostly based on our feelings, impressions and our experience which for most was molded by the Assembly teachings. We lived together, ate together, travelled together and were encouraged not to spend too much time with family or get involved with other Church people except to draw them "into our perfect fellowship". We were strongly encouraged NOT to use bibles with footnotes or margin notes because they were "the interpretation of just one prerson but rather with an open bible pray on your knees and God will show you what the passage means.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Because we were kept busy all the time (a common cult technique) we did not have enough time to do in depth study and with only approved study tools like the Strongs Concordance and Vine's Dictionary and a few other books by Stott we had little to let us go astray from GGs theological trap. On the book table were books that supported GGs way of thinking. The Pilgrim Church (they met like us see we are just following traditional patterns) ya really.

With GG being on most of the tape ministry we had him as (our footnotes and commentary) so guess what the Lord showed us on our knees it was planted by GG in the endless Sunday tapes or Video Tape Seminar or Weekend Seminar in Fullerton CA or Champaigne IL.

We were in a box set by GG and all the theology and ideas were controlled by him and his Leading Brothers and Elders. We had "Free Will" inside that box so it looked like we made the choices but they were all controlled to keep us from straying from the "true sheepfold".

Hugh

Al

It's what you learn after you know it all that really counts eh! We were taught what they wanted us to learn and discouraged from "healthy critical thinking like Paul said was good of the Bereans".

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Hugh

Al,

You mentioned the word "theocracy" in your post. That's a key word for the Jehovah's Witnesses.  (See http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/language.html?FACTNet for info.) So everyone was to have gleaned spiritually divine meanings without footnotes or commentary to guide them? I must have been thought of as a really dumb sheep for reading books like "A Woman After God's Own Heart", "Trusting God", and "The Master's Plan for the Church" during my Bible study time.

The bottom portion of our Sunday service bulletin, where we are given space to take notes, says this:

"Your responsibility, by God's enabling, is to consistently apply the divine principles and truths you have heard (Phil. 2:1-13; I Tim. 4:7-9; James 1:22-27). As you meditate on this message, ask yourself these questions:

     *How does God want my beliefs/actions to change?
     *How can I accomplish this change?
     *What is the first step toward bringing about this change?"

Would to have been a fly on the wall at some of those weekend seminars. I always refused to go when I was invited because of work, but frankly there was something creepy about the whole setup of those things. My "BS" detector is always on! But perhaps attending a session might have given me the boldness to approach my friend with the truth of the Assembly.

Thank you both, Hugh and Al, for answering my questions. The BB is a great place for dialoguing about those issues that need to be discussed. Indeed, Al - "Hallelujah, what a Savior!"

Jerre

This is commonly known as the inductive method of Bible study and need not be overly subjective. What the passage says and means has nothig to do with feelings per se. It naturally follows that once one understands what the passage is saying as well as its meaning, one should then consider how it may be personally applied. Like so many other things, this also became perverted in the assembly environment.




That the cross is an instrument for dealing with the self-life of the Chrisitian
is I believe entirely  Scriptural. In the assemblies the teaching was used strictly as a means of manipulation.
The believer is nonetheless expected to deny in himself, every sinful tendency to which he is naturally subject, and this is in fact a very personal, conscious, and daily excercise in the pursuit of holiness.

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.   Luke 9:23
   

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple
Luke 14:27


And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Galatians 5:24

This work can be accomplished only through the agency of the indwelling Holy Spirit and is not a matter of excersice of will only.  Its application under assembly style teaching was a recipe for complete disaster and doomed to failure...the evidence speaks for itself.

Verne

Right.  This is what I meant when I said that I have used these principles many times in my life.  They are fundamentally sound.


Also right.  The assembly version of these principles was to figure out what you "felt" the passage said and meant (always in light of assembly doctrine), along the lines of Tom's illustration of George's teaching on Jesus' saying "I thirst":

---

Well, yeah-- on your first visit...  We would have "lovingly" surrounded you, making you feel very welcome and seeking to see you awed :o by the spiritual depth you found in our presence. ::)

Later, if you were less-than-awed by us and persisted in your pursuit of "unapproved" ministry and commentary, you would have been labeled a spiritual predator, a wolf in sheep's clothing, and driven from the flock by the "shepherds." :'(

al

What made it subjective is that we did not always ask "What does it mean?"  Rather, we asked "What does it mean to me?"

BINGO!
Probably one of the most scintillating statements ever made about assembly life and teaching. Right on the money!
Verne

p.s. I dare say that in the minds of many, consciously or otherwise, the question answered was:  What does it mean to George?

That's so true: "What does it mean to ME?" And with all of the stuff we were already DOING to try to please God and be overcomers, the "What am I going to DO about it" portion of the Chapter summary was the coup  de etat--add a few more "works" onto the already burgeoning schedule. "I'm going to pray more" or "I'm going to spend more time in the Word" or "I'm going to preach more", etc. etc. It makes me tired just thinking about it ::)

--Joe

Guys you have hit the nail on the hammer or something like that. I said Chapter Summary was.

1. What does it say
2. What does it mean
3. What am I going to do about it.

And the second one really was 2. What does it mean TO ME!!!

That is what made it subjective and introspective and gave power to the system to beat you down with your own interpretation of the scripture. It definitely worked. THAT IS IT WORKED for the Leaders to have anther tool in their arsenal to keep us in submission. We were taught to think of ourselves as wretched failures and we acted like little lost souls looking for a crust of bread from the all wise and almighty and HOLY don't forget HOLY leaders. It is God's mercy brother you are not struck down. There is just enough truth to make us believe it but God also delights in mercy.

Hugh ;D

Hey, thanks Marcia for a great reminder-- I had forgotten that thread...


Um... Symbolic of the assembly in general, I think, which always seemed to leave us broke and down. :-\

al

This example does not logically prove that Scripture sometimes does not have a meaning beyond the literal. We have already seen Paul's use of allegory in both the matter of the physical creation and the lives of Sarah and Hagar.
The proper question for someone who adduces an interpretation such as the above is to inquire on what basis it is they have done so. This I believe was the most  serious failure of the leadership around Geftakys. His teaching that we somehow met God's need in worship was blasphemy and clearly heretical (to say nothing of pagan in its orgins).
It is truly unfortunate that some of you, just because there were no men of stature around George with the courage to challenge him when he spouted this sort of hogwash, seem intent to let this miserable failure operate as a basis for being critical of those who understand that the Word of God is infinite in its scope and significance, like its Author. George's perversion and misapplication of what he read by some godly men is hardly a basis to impugn all that they taught.
When we know all there is to know about Christ, we will know all there is to know about Scripture...seems pretty obvious does it not?  :)
Verne

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know  in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I do not believe that this is what is happening here, Verne.  It is more like, George's perversion and misapplication is being exposed even where other godly men did the same.  E.g. BakthSingh was no George Geftakys and he was a well respected man such that he meritted a state funeral, yet there were some elements of his ministry that were subjective in nature.  There are some assemblies who continue to exist because they are now 'justifying' their existence by their association and connection with BakthSingh's ministry.

TomM and MarkC and others have stated on this BB that they have read from a number of good Christian authors when they left the assembly scene.  They have even recommended books to us to read which you can find on GA.com.

So we agree that we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Sometimes we just disagree with you, so lets agree to disagree or to further discuss the topic.  The danger is that we may follow yet another man if we do not have the freedom for open discussion.

God bless,
Marcia

Verne----

I think that the "what does it say? What does it mean? What am I going to do about it?" is probably a very good way to read the scriptures. But the way the Assembly used those steps was very subjective.

Especially asking "What does it mean to ME?"  I can remember on more than one occasion when the LB leading the meeting was done with "his" meaning I was told "my" meaning was wrong. In effect he was saying "God isn't speaking to you brother". Because in the end there was only one meaning anyway--the Assembly meaning(George's interpretation). The chapter summary times were really a time of strong indoctrination into the teachings of George. In effect a form of "brainwashing", as were the tape studies too.

I think by being asked "What does it mean to me?" you could come either close or far from Assembly doctrine, and slowly "accept" what was the "right" teaching---George's teaching. Take Romans 8:30 as an example. I am asked "What does it mean to me?" So I share: "It means that I am already glorified in God's sight, because it is in the past tense". Later I am told "No, brother, your meaning was wrong. You are misinterpreting the verse. Only by overcoming and becoming no longer a child, but a son, do you earn the right to be glorified" etc., etc.  The obvious meaning of the verse is replaced with the Assembly meaning for the verse, and I "learn" this way. It truly was a very subtle form of brainwashing and indoctrination into false teaching.

--Joe

In that case Marcia, you consider what it is that they are specifically saying and determine whether it has Scriptural merit.
You do not make fallacious blanket statements such as:
"The only meaning to be derived from Scripture is a literal one" and then give the ridiculous example proposed by a known apostate of "I thirst" meaning the Eternal God requires humans to fulfill His need, via worship or anything else for that matter.
What exaxmple of Bakht Sing are you thinking of?
Why don't we talk specifics instead of speaking in generalities?
Verne
The fact that you seem preprared to indict Bakht Sing for whatever aspect of his ministry you deemed "subjective" becasue of what you know about George and his conduct I think mightily proves my point. Again, I would like to hear specifically about any such example that you take issue with and why.

Joe in this I absoluely agree and I think this is where Tom Maddux makes a cogent case. Any serious study of the Word of God begins with a thorough grounding in its literal, historical and geographical basics. Tom is guite right in that this kind of study absolutely demands a rigorous application of intellectual effort. Mere devotional reading will not acquaint you with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the significance of their use in Psalm 119.
I would in fact argue that it was exactly because we were so truly ignorant of, or did not believe what our Bibles actually said, the amount of time we spent in them notwithstanding, that we were so susceptible to some of the unbelievable balderdash dished out my George and his henchmen. Butchering Scriptural typology or allegory was not the worst thing Geftakys did. Remmember this man ended his minsitry teaching thing clearly contradictory to what is plainly in Scripture. Are we surpised he got other things completley wrong?
The example you give is illustrative.
The kind of idiocy you cite while it seems so ridiculous to us now, was commonly permited to go unchallenged by people who were supposedly spending all this time reading their Bbibles. Strange is is not?
For this kind of weakness and quiet acquiesence we have on one to blame but ourselves.
Verne

Verne,

FYI the allegorical method of interpretation which you ascribe to has its origins in the Alexandrian theological tradition.  It was brought into Christianity by men like Clement of Alexandria and Origen.  They learned it BTW from their studies of Platonic philosophy, which they saw as useful in explaining Christianity.

They learned their method of interpretation from a Jewish Platonist philosopher known to history as Philo of Alexandria.  (Hmmmmm  ::))
He used it to interpret the OT in ways compatible with Platonism.

The problem with the method is that there is no way to verify an allegorical interpretation.  For example, where in scripture can one find verification that anyone understood Jesus' words about taking up the cross in the deeper life sense taught by GG, (and a whole bunch of other folks.)

What has always happened is that churches relied on spiritual authority to establish an interpretation as correct.  The Roman Catholics adopted it because it allowed them to say the Bible meant what they wished it to.  Peter was the rock, Mary was the queen of heaven, etc.

Among Protestants authority is placed in confessions and denominational authorities, or in low church situations such as Baptists and Plymouth Bretheren, in the dominant brothers, or whoever is percieved as "spiritually advanced".  

Heretics like the Gnostics adopted it, since it allowed them to claim that the scriptures had a "higher", "spiritually discerned" meaning that the unenlightened could not understand.   :o

In the early church the theological school of Antioch rejected the allegorical method and insisted that the literal sense of the scriptures was the only true sense.  Their ideas lost out eventually, but were re-emphasised by the reformers during the 16th century.

Now, Alexandria has made a comeback through Pietism, and is widely practiced by many evangelicals.

But not this one.

Blessings,

Thomas of Antioch.

The historical lesson is interesting. It seems to me that a consideration of  any basis for allegorical teaching in Scripture has to begin with the apostle Paul Tom. That is the basis on which we should consider its merits, not whether the Alexandrian teachers thought it was a great idea. Scripture itself is our ultimate authority is it not?
The evangelical understanding of the cross in the life of the believer is not nearly as mystical as you would have us believe Tom. Who cares about labels, "deeper life" or otherwise?
There is not an instructed Christian who will not affirm that the teaching simply has to do with learning to say "no" to one's own carnal inclinations. Where is the mysticism in that I ask you?


Just becasue the Gnostics said this means it was not true? Tell this to the Scribes and Pharisees reading the OT in the the time of the Lord's advent. Is it possible that there is much we still do not apprehend in the New Covenant?
We really ought not to flatter ourselves so my friend.


In this I must admit you have made a critical point and I think is what lies at the heart of our discussion.
How would one know if an allegorical interpretation is reasonable?
The first point is that Scripture itself does this so we know as an interpretive method it is entirely legitimate.
I would argiue that the same Spirit of God that gave Paul or Peter particular insight into what the Scripture was saying can do the same for godly men today.
 When I hear something presented that I do not understand or cannot immediately verify from Scripture, the first question I ask is does it contradict Scripture.
If it does not, I keep an open mind.
You seem to be of the opinion that you are justified in dismissing it as a possibility at that point.
There is much that you and I do not know about Scripture and I am certain that there are many poeple who know more than both of us put together.
I trust that I will always be teachable.
I remember the first time I heard someone talk about the fact that Paul is teaching in 1 Cor 10:11 that we should expect to see the types  alluded to by Paul on the contemporary scene, I was a bit sceptical, I knew or understood little about Biblical typolgy.
I am now convinced that you simply cannot rightly interpret the Word of God and its absolute relevance to what we see happening among professing Christians today unless you have a solid grasp of what the Bible teaches regarding biblical types.
How would I explain that?
Frankly if you reject the idea of Biblical typology, explanation is pointless. Ultimately, the believer has to trust the Spirit of God tolead him into all truth, not just the apostles. There is much that we know to be true, and which the Bible says absolutely nothing about, for example, that both the weak and strong atomic forces are orders of magnitude stronger that the gravitational force!   :)

Verne

p.s Clement and his pupil Origen were not without their problems. Both of these fellows were proponents of Unrestricted Universalism, clearly contrary to the plain teaching of the Word of God.

p.p.s I was going to mention how the seven great lives of Genesis reflect the seven days of the creation work but I just remembered that that is not your cup of tea... :)  :)  :)

Looks like Hugh and Joe are speaking the same language eventhough Hugh was in Ottawa, that was not really affected by GG because of distance, and Joe left 20+ years before GG's excomm...

Strange, don't you think??


If you do a search you will get the recent discussion re. BakthSingh; probably happened while you were offline eh??

I am not prepared to indict BakthSingh.
No man is perfect in his interpretation of the Scriptures, hence we discuss the Scriptures.
The problem with assembly folk is that they are comfortable with whatever supports their POV, even if it is contrary to Scripture, and they are willing to endorse the whole package, as presented by a particular ministry, just so that they can 'justify' their continuance.


You are right!  It is not my cup of tea either; at least , not at this time.

Here is an example where you expose Clement and Origen by name;  this is how discussions happen.

God bless,
Marcia

This is due to rank disobedience which ultimately leads to complete deception. Leave them alone.


Origen was a magificent scholar. Like Andrew Jukes, another man I greatly respect and have learned an incredible amount from, he is completely wrong on the notion of a universal redemption of humanity. The Bible clearly teaches differently.
He and Jukes are however far more logically consistent in their theology than those espousing an inconsistent Arminian Universalism. They completely fail to recognize that while they inveigh against the Particularism of Calvinism and denounce the idea of a limited atonement, they are completely shut up to the inescapable conclusion that they too must of necessity limit the atonement.  They limit its efficacy. We limit its extent.
When you have a premise and a conclusion that are mutually exclusive, one or the other (or possibly both) must be false.
Inconsistent Armenian Universalist agree that the Bible teaches that not all men will be saved. How they arrive at that conclusion from a premise that asserts an unlimited atonement  is incomprehensible.
The argument raised by John Owen in his colossal work on the subject remains unanswered by Arminian Universalists to this day; they gamely keep trying...read Karl Barth's dialectical theology if you want to really give yourself a headache... :)
Verne

Verne---
I'm glad you got it right at the very end of your post. I was wondering what an Armenian Universalist was. It's all Greek to me though.

--Joe

As someone pointed out, the five points of Calvinism were in fact drawn up in direct response to the five points of Arminianism, a teaching named after Jacobus Arminius.
The five points were drawn up in 1610, the year following the death of Arminius, and presented to the Dutch government by those who shared his views.
"The Five Articles of Arminianism" stated:
" That...Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man. so that He has obtained for them all, by His death on the cross. redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys the forgiveness of sins. except the believer, according to the word of the gospel of John 3:16 -  God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. and the first epistle of John 2:2 - And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world"

It is termed universal because they assert that God designed and purposed the atonement to redeem every man.
It is inconsistent because they acknowledge that, based on the above premise, God fails to achieve His purpose.

Unqualified Universalism teaches that all men will eventually be saved. They at least do not commit the horrific error of inconsistent universalism, viz. that God somehow fails to accomplish His purpose...
Verne
 

I think you missed Joe's point, which is that not all Armenians are Arminian.

Oops! Silly me! Sorry about my spilling... ;D
Just goes to show how dangerous it is to take yoruself (or any one else!) too seriously :)
Verne

Attached is a picture of John 3:16 in the Armenian language.

This is a good Christmas verse!

I hope that I transcribed it correctly.  The Armenian alphabet is somewhat difficult to learn.

(http://www.briantucker.net/bb/attachments/Ar-J3-16.JPG)

Hi Sondra,

I won't be offended if you ignore my comments on a thread that you are involved in a discussion with someone else, unless I comment on something that you have posted.  I intended to post that comment yesterday, but let it slip for some reason.


Verne, you stated something that I have been thinking of recently.
People say things like "I have to choose to whatever".  True, but it almost makes it sound like a "work" though that is not necessarily what they meant.  It is more about walking with the Lord.

Marcia

Did I miss something here?  I posted my comment on another thread for the very purpose of not intefering with your discussion with Verne.

It's too bad that:
1.  You viewed my comment as cheerleading, which it was not.
2.  and that you have decided not to post anymore.  I was actually quite enjoying the discussion. (sorry if that last comment appears to be cheerleading, but it is truth).

Marcia

P.S.  I will respect your wish to stay out of your discussion on the other thread.  Any comments I make about it, I will make on this thread instead.
Marcia

Verne,

I posted a comment at: www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=815.msg24799#msg24799 (http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?topic=815.msg24799#msg24799)

How do you view it being a matter of how we walk rather than choose?


Sondra,

I have not interfered with your discussion thus far.  The first comment I made set you off.  I have observed that Brent, Moonie, Tom and possibly others have commented in the past, so my lament at this point is "Why me?"  Possibly you were making a statement to everybody, and I happened to be the unlucky one that you chose to use as an example.

Though I can respect your wish to stay out of your discussion, the nature of a public discussion will throw all kinds of wrenches into a focussed discussion.  Go for it, but there is the possiblity that people will PM or EM both you and Verne.  Like I said (cheerleading sounding or not) I was enjoying the discussion between you and Verne.

God bless,
Marcia

I am not sure why the statement in Matthew has become the basis for such elaborate theological theorising about crosses. It is hard for me to believe how so many have taken what is obviously a figure of speech on the Lord's part, and turned it into a system of theology.
The key thing is not so much the act of choosing, but rather what, we choose.
It is clear that  denying self and taking the cross in this context has nothing to do with some notion of a metaphyscial self-crucifixion, whatever that means. it rather simply means accepting God's revealed will, even when it conflicts with ours. It is that simple...really - If it be possible let this cup pass, nevertheless, not my will, but Thy will be done...
Verne

  To answer more specifically Marcia, I have learned that is far safer to base my understanding on what the Bible is teaching on what it actually says, rather than on what others tell me it does.
From a practical standpoint, the Bible seems to suggest that the victorious Christian life is a matter of the walk, rather than of a strong  and disciplined will
Obviously the use of one's will is involved in a life that is pleasing to God and that walks in his ways.
It is my contention that the latter leads to the former and not the other way around.
Now to some specifics.
At the very end of Romans 7, after Paul has clearly laid out the case that mere desire, which is what after all energizes and motivates excercise of the will, is not  sufficient in and of itself effect Godly living.

  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

The only way to miss this monumental proclamation of Romans seven is to insist as some do, that Paul is not talking about believers in this chapter. How anyone can coclude this from the context is nothing short of incomprehensible.

I believe this witness of Romans seven, is indeed the testimony of every believer who has ever endeavoured to live for God's glory.

So Paul opens Romans 8 with a tour de force.

  There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I conclude it is a matter of how we walk, rather than how we choose, by comparing Romans eight one, with Romans seven eighteen!

If we can agree on that, then of course the jackpot lies in understanding what Paul is telling us in Romans 8:1, for that is the key - How am I walking?

I hope that helps to clarify my perspective a bit
Verne

p.s. One thing that has helped me in thinking about this is comparing the images conjured by choice, and walk.
Choice is static.
Walk is dynamic.
One conjures up imagery of somehat almost leisurely contemplation of many options.
The other of purpose, flow, movement, direction...
p.p.s Brent will probably appreciate the metaphor of moving the rudder of an anchored vessel...lots of choices...none of significance or impact...

I too was uneasy with the usual interpretation of this verse: that believers needed to bear up under their providentially assigned burdens, having the Lord as a model.

The difficulty with this is that the traditional harmonization of John with the synoptics has the Lord stumbling under the burden of the cross and being replaced by Simon of Cynrene.

After many years and some intermittent intensive study, the context caught my eye.

The context is in the revelation to the disciples that the Lord must suffer and die and be raised. (Matt. 16.21.

Matt. 16.24 seems to me to be the prototype of a correct invitation to receive the free gift of eternal life.

The self must be denied or disowned. God is willing to take all our assets and liabilities and obligations, but we must let them go, implicitly through being willing to accept Jesus as Lord if not otherwise.

And one must admit to being a sinner, deserving crucifixion. And, figuratively follow Jesus to Golgatha where the sinners cross becomes the Lord's cross and the list of the sinners sins is nailed to Jesus' cross.

Simon of Cyrene represents all that have thus taken their sins to Golgotha and have had them taken away by the Lamb of God.

Wasn't Jesus simply telling his disciples (real people who were with him at the time) that he was going to Jerusalem to be crucified and if they wanted to follow him, they would need to prepare for a similar fate?  This would be in contrast with their natural expectation that Jesus' purpose was to overthrow the Roman government and bring in an immediate, political kingdom.

How this applies to us today, 2000 years out of context, is generally a matter of conjecture or speculation.  One could possibly argue from other verses that every Christian throughout the ages should expect some measure of persecution and resistance even to martyrdom.  I think trying to spiritualize the statement to some inner principle of Christian living misses the very literal point Jesus was making to his disciples.