Forget & Forgive?

[Marty]

Chuck----

I agree with you that there will be consequences for how you lived your Christian
life. These will be dealt with at the "Judgement Seat of Christ", where crowns will
be awarded, etc., and where some will "be saved though as by fire". But George
(and others) have taught a Christian can lose the Inheritance, or even be thrown
into the lake of fire.


--Joe

Joe, as I read your posts in response to Chuck you frequently refer to George and his teachings to valid your point. Chuck is not mentioning George nor trying to defend him. He is separating salvation from inheritance. Is being saved from the “wrath which is to come” the same as “receiving the crown of righteousness”?

You also referred to believers as ones who will stand at the judgement seat of Christ. Receive consequences for how they conducted themselves on earth. At this time crowns will be awarded. Is that not talking about inheritance? Is that not suggesting that some may not receive what others may? It has nothing to do with Georges teaching or lake of fire or any such thing. It has to do with what Christians receive after this life.

A reasonable question would be, do careless Christians receive the same crowns (inheritance) as faithful Christians? I know I struggled with that in my life and I suspect many others have.

[BenJapheth]

I think a matter that caused a lot of confusion is WHAT the inheritance is. George spoke of it as kind of like a "place"--like crossing Jordan into the promised land. But do you remember what the inheritance of the Levites was? Their Inheritance was the Lord himself.  As Christians we are as the Levites--priests and Kings(per 1 Peter). Our Inheritance is Jesus Christ himself!! When we receive Jesus Christ into our hearts we have received the Inheritance. What would the "inheritance" or heaven be like without Jesus there? Once we receive Jesus into our hearts and are saved, can we ever lose him? "I will never leave you nor forsake you". Romans 8 teaches that NOTHING can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. If the Inheritance is Jesus(and I believe he is our inheritance) I can never LOSE him---"he who comes to me I will in NO WISE cast out". I cannot scripturally call Jesus the Inheritance, but I do remember the hymn that says "Where Jesus is tis Heaven there". Since I can never lose Jesus, I could never lose Heaven.

Ah yes, Jesus!  Jesus is the reward...Jesus is the inheritance.  Jesus!  Closeness to Jesus!  He's our blessing, reward, inheritance...He will be all in all.

Proximity - Do you suppose that all believers will share the same intimacy and nearness to Jesus? 

::c:v::

[Joe Sperling]

Marty---

Actually Chuck mentioned George back in his 11-8-05 post and how rash it was of
himself not to have investigated his teachings further before accepting them. I
don't mention George to "validate" anything I've said--I believe the scriptures which
teach that we ALREADY HAVE OBTAINED an inheritance are sufficient for that(see
Eph 1:11).

***add---Chuck actually stated that he was rash in accepting George as "God's Servant"
without investigating further.  --JS

My point is that the "rewards" of crowns are NOT the inheritance. They are rewards
for service, and those crowns will eventually be thrown at the very feet of Christ,
acknowledging that it was HE who actually got the victory and deserves all of the
glory(see Revelation).

It is difficult NOT to mention George when talking about "overcomer" theology, because
that was the thrust of his whole ministry. George confused the Inheritance with the
Judgement seat of Christ---but losing a crown is a far cry from being banished to darkness
or thrown into the lake of fire. Overcomer teachers actually teach that this can happen
to Christians which is entirely unbiblical. We cannot lose the inheritance because the inheritance
is part of salvation, received the day we are saved, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

--Joe

[vernecarty]

Verne,
A couple of quick questions.
1.  What will the sons inherit?

What will we inherit?
I trust that there is no disagreement as to the who of inheritance.
The book of Galatians is the tour de force on the subject and unequivocally establishes that inheritance is based solely on promise, and that in turn on relationship.
While there are many warnings contained in the Scriptures, violence has been done to the faith of many by a mis-application of such texts, and a promulgation of doctrine contrary to what is clearly taught in God’s Word.
The subject of inheritance is typically presented in the Bible by more frequent references to God’s dealing with Abraham than any other subject.
Some contend, and I tend to agree, that in in fact the key verse of the entire New Testament is found in Romans 4:16

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed;

What will we inherit? That is simply a matter of looking in our Bibles at verses that talk about the subject and there are many.
One must ever keep in mind that the subject of promise (inheritance) is inextricably linked to the seed! That is the secret.
I will now suggest that several of you look through your Bibles and post a few of those incredible promises.
I will next talk about the when of inheritance.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you...  1 Peter 1:3,4

Verne

[Oscar]

Chuck,

You said:

In giving your reasons why you feel that the "Overcomer" teachings of Dillow, Hodges and others is wrong, you make, what I consider to be, a very questionable observation.  I'm referring to your post #58 of November 3rd in which you list 3 reasons why you believe the teachings are "wrong in a number of serious ways"

I am not knowledgeable regarding the "Scientific Method" that you claim was used by these men for interpreting scripture, nor am I aware of any of the "other methods" that you classify as "legitimate" interpretive methods.  I am curious to know how you have arrived at your conclusion and would like to know whether it is a result of your own deduction, or if you have taken it from something you read?

In my own case, I have never attempted to determine what "method" these men used in developing their doctrines, nor have I attempted to do so concerning other theologians, most of whom fall into groups commonly referred to as "Calvinists," or "Arminians," (or variations of them).   Inasmuch as you seem to be very confident in your assessment, Tom, I would like to ask you the question it brings to mind - Who determines which interpretive method is "legitimate," and how did they become qualified to make that determination?

Chuck, I have been a student of Church history, and therefore a student of theological develolpments, for over 40 years.  An understanding of what has happened in church history is closely related to an understanding of how they thought, ie, how they did theology.   You gain understanding of the "what", by understanding the "why".   The way differing traditions approach the scriptures largely determines what they believe and practice.  They "way they approach the scriptures" is simply another way of saying "their principles of biblical interpretation".  Take a look, for example, at "The Story of Christian Theology" by Olson or Louis Berkhof's "Development of Christian Doctrine."  Even better, read Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" , (8 volumes).  Works at this level show up such works as "The Torch of the Testimony" or "The Pilgrim Church" as mere pablum.

You asked "who gets to determine which interpretive method is legitimate?" A better question would be, "which interpretive method is legitimate?"  This avoids the subtle implication that human folly/evil/pride is behind everyone else's beliefs, and focuses on the real issue of "what is true?" 

You also said:

In like manner, Tom, I would have to regard your claim of "legitimacy' simply on the basis of your subjective opinion, no differently than I can accept the Catholic's claim of infallibility in regard to theirs.  After all, aren't your claims of "legitimacy," in actuality, just another term for "infallibility?"

Since all opinions are subjective, it is difficult to understand what you mean here.  In my opinion, your name is Chuck Miller.  Am I to doubt that because it is my subjective opinion?  Do you doubt that because it is your subjective opinion as well?  In reality, opinions can be evaluated in two ways: 1. They must be factually based. 2. They must be clearly thought out. To say, "that is just your subjective opinion" is a tautology.

In addition, to make the claim that if someone holds an opinion strongly they are claiming to be infallible is to violate both #1 and #2.

Now to business.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Tom,
 I would like to respond to your reason #6 for feeling  that this [“Overcomer“] teaching is wrong in a number of very serious ways.  You wrote:

RESPONSE:  I believe you have misunderstood the teachings of Dillow, Hodges and some of the others who teach on the doctrine of the kingdom, and what I believe concerning it, Tom, but rather than reiterate much of what I say in my own writing on the subject, I thought it would be profitable to all if you could give your explanation of certain scriptures that I myself had found hard to explain in reference to a believer’s eternal security

Philippians 2:12
 
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;

Question:  How am I, a believer,  to “work out” my salvation? 

Chuck, 2:12 begins with the word "therfore".   What is it there for?  It means that this is the action that the Philippians should take on the basis of verses 1-11.  He gives practical guidelines in verses 1-4, and then describes the proper attitude in verses 5-11.  No mystery here.

However, notice that there is no mention of overcoming, inheritance, eternal consequences and such.  Individual verses are to be understood in their context, the passage in which they occur, not subjected to "private interpretation."

2 Thessalonians 1:5

This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.

Question:  How can I, a believer,  be considered “worthy” of the kingdom?

You might want to read verse 4...."we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials that you are enduring."  They are evidencing the "faith that overcomes the world' ie, saving faith.  They are real Christians.  Real Christians have been made worthy of the kingdom, (Colossians 1:12-14).

btw, I don't think that we will be accounted worthy of the kingdom by waving the "filthy rags" of our works of righteousness, (Isa. 64:6) at God.

Romans 8:16-17

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Question: What is it to which we are fellow heirs with Christ?

Among other things, we will share in his resurrection, his reign, and his glory.  But did you notice who this verse says will do this?   Not a special class of "overcomer", but "children of God."  Every true child of God has suffered because of it, just as he promised. Do you know any Christians who have never, in any way, suffered because of it?  I don't.  Those who suffer will be glorified with him.

1 Corinthians 10:11-12

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

Question:  In looking at verses 1-10 that precede 11 and 12, what happens if we do fall?

1. First, notice that it is not specified what will happen!  The warning is drawn from Israel's experience.  They got killed!  In 11:29-30 similar consequences are said to have happened to Christians.  Sin can lead to discipline, up to and including death.  But notice also, the judgement of God upon Christians is applied in order that they may avoid the judgement of the world.
This type of judgement takes them out of the world.  It is applied in this life, not the next.

2. This list of questions is a good example of the abuse of Baconianism!  What you have done is to cobble together a group of isolated and unrelated passages in order to support a doctrinal position. None of the verses even so much as mention the doctrine that you are trying to support!   That, my friend, is how this whole "Overcomer" teaching was originated. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Since you all seem reluctant to post any verses on the subject of inheritance, I have taken the liberty of looking up a few.
Keep in mind a correct understanding of what Scripture is saying critically depends on understanding whom is being addressed and why.
If you fail to strictly apply this fundamental hermeneutical tenet, you will get in trouble.
Some of the most incredibly confused and misguided notions arise because of folk who ignore this principle, and the question of God's promises is no exception.
What will the sons inherit?
Here is a smattering:

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

I can just hear it now...but Verne, it does not say sons, it says the meek does it not?!

You are missing the point if that is what you think.
Everytime  you see in Scripture any mention of inheritance, your mind should immediately fly to the limiting designation and that is the seed of promise!
The vouchsafed promise is not not be appropriated willy nilly by anyone who simply imagines themself entitled- that is presumption and dangerous.

The warnings we see in the Scriptures are warnings against presumption!

 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.


Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.


Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

You said:

Keep in mind a correct understanding of what Scripture is saying critically depends on understanding whom is being addressed and why.
If you fail to strictly apply this fundamental hermeneutical tenet, you will get in trouble.

And all the saints said.........AMEN!

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

Since you all seem reluctant to post any verses on the subject of inheritance, I have taken the liberty of looking up a few.
Keep in mind a correct understanding of what Scripture is saying critically depends on understanding whom is being addressed and why.
If you fail to strictly apply this fundamental hermeneutical tenet, you will get in trouble.
Some of the most incredibly confused and misguided notions arise because of folk who ignore this principle, and the question of God's promises is no exception.
What will the sons inherit?
Here is a smattering:

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

I can just hear it now...but Verne, it does not say sons, it says the meek does it not?!

You are missing the point if that is what you think.
Everytime  you see in Scripture any mention of inheritance, your mind should immediately fly to the limiting designation and that is the seed of promise!
The vouchsafed promise is not not be appropriated willy nilly by anyone who simply imagines themself entitled- that is presumption and dangerous.

The warnings we see in the Scriptures are warnings against presumption!

 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.


Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.


Verne

Verne,

Revelation speaks of a kingdom into which no liars, adulterers, murderers, etc., will be admitted. Can we assume that those outside of that kingdom are the unsaved, who are not written in the book of life, and that this is referring to the eternal kingdom and not the millenial kingdom?

Moonflower

[vernecarty]

Verne,

Revelation speaks of a kingdom into which no liars, adulterers, murderers, etc., will be admitted. Can we assume that those outside of that kingdom are the unsaved, who are not written in the book of life, and that this is referring to the eternal kingdom and not the millenial kingdom?

Moonflower

Apart from the remission of sin through the shed blood of Christ, I would have to be excluded as as being guilty of all of the above offences.
It is pointless for me to insist that I have always been faithful to my wife so therefore not guilty of breaking the seventh commandment. Failure to uphold any part of the law means that I am guilty of transgressing all
of it.
The folk outside the kingdom will be those whose sin remain unforgiven in my view.
Verne
p.s it does appear that sin will still plague humanity at the conclusion of the millennial reign as Satan's release results in deception of the nations once again...an astonsihing possibility after Christ's perfect rule...!

[moonflower2]

Apart from the remission of sin through the shed blood of Christ, I would have to be excluded as as being guilty of all of the above offences.
It is pointless for me to insist that I have always been faithful to my wife so therefore not guilty of breaking the seventh commandment. Failure to uphold any part of the law means that I am guilty of transgressing all
of it.
The folk outside the kingdom will be those whose sin remain unforgiven in my view.
Verne

So it seems that all believers will inherit..............(which is most definitely not what gefjack taught.) Is this what you are saying here?

p.s it does appear that sin will still plague humanity at the conclusion of the millennial reign as Satan's release results in deception of the nations once again...an astonsihing possibility after Christ's perfect rule...!

This has always struck me as being a really scarey thing. After seeing evil at its worst, then good at its best with Christ ruling on earth, and sin as non-existant (men will want to sin, but be unable to), man will then choose evil.

This choice doesn't even begin to compare to Adam & Eve's choice in the perfect garden, where they had no knowledge of sin and its resultant chaos.

Another question for you, Verne:

Who will the inhabitants of the millienial kingdom be? I think this would include anyone who will not be in the sheep/goats great white throne final judgement.
I've heard it said that they will be only those who were martyred.

Moonflower

[Chuck Miller]

[continued from above]

In regard to 1Corinthians 10:11-12 - "Now these things happened to them [Israelites] as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." - I believe that the "example" that we are expected to see in the entire passage (verses 1-12) has to do with the fact that, even after the Israelites were miraculously delivered out of Egypt, they sinned against God. I’m sure that most of us would rebel against the idea that we would have done the same. But to those who would scoff at such a possibility, Paul is saying, "Be careful that you don’t repeat the sins of the Israelites," but "take heed; for you too can fall just as they did."
And because of their failure to believe God that He would drive the enemy out of the land, He didn’t send them back to Egypt, but they forfeited their inheritance of the land.   Of all the fighting men, only Joshua and Caleb were allowed to enter into the promised land.  Would you say that all those who perished in the wilderness were unsaved?

You stated:

Sin can lead to discipline, up to and including death.  But notice also, the judgement of God upon Christians is applied in order that they may avoid the judgement of the world.  This type of judgement takes them out of the world. It is applied in this life, not the next.

I'm not sure I exactly understand your inference here, but I have a different view of 1 Corinthians 11:28-32 which reads:

But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

Notice that it reads "many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. It does not say all sinners will be taken out of this world.  We also read in Hebrews 12, the following:

For they [our earthly fathers] disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.  All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Hebrews 12:11-12

I believe the Lord gives His children discernment to judge when we are sinning and gives us the opportunity to turn from sin.  But if they do not repent, we see that the Lord is going to discipline them in order that they may "share His holiness,"  But I don't see that He guarantees that every child will respond to that discipline.  He does say that "to those who have been trained by it, it will bear fruit in their lives.  I believe there will be consequences in the next life for those who do not respond.

One quick word on "inheritance."  I don't believe it's just coincidental that God has used the father/son relationship in regard to His own relationship with us.  A father may raise all of his children in the same manner, yet some may turn out worse than others.  The father may, for that reason, leave less of his estate to  ones who have been disobedient or unfaithful. They may have not responded to the discipline he administered, and he may, if he so chooses, even dis-inherit some.  Yet that does not change the fact that they are still his children. Nothing changes that, unless, upon a rare occasion, the child seeks to legally change his name and completely disassociate himself from the father. Some may learn of their father's disapproval and change their ways, in sorrow for having offended him.  Others may repent in order not to be dis-inherited.  Unlike our Heavenly Father, the earthly father may, or
may not, be able to discern the difference. Then, as often is the case, the children may not learn of their father's disposition toward them until after His death.  Then it will be to late for the dis-inherited one to repent.  I don't want to strain the analogy and try to twist it to fit my beliefs, but I do believe there are some similarities worth considering.  I'll touch more on my thoughts concerning the inheritance in my next post.

God bless,

Chuck

[Chuck Miller]

[Continued from above]

In regard to the questions I raised as to the meaning of several verses, you summarized your responses by stating:  "What you have done is to cobble together a group of isolated and unrelated passages in order to support a doctrinal position."

Well actually, Tom, I merely quoted a few verses with which I had had a problem in the past in trying to reconcile them with what I previously believed. I was curious as to how you interpreted them.  And as for them being "isolated and unrelated," I guess that too is a matter of subjective opinion. For your consideration, I’ll just give you my idea of how I believe they harmoniously blend together into a reasonable exposition of a biblical truth.

In regard to Romans 8:16-17 - "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" - I view this verse in a relationship to Daniel 7:18 and Revelation 11:15  which read:

But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever. Dan 7:18.

There are other references in Daniel that speak of the coming kingdom; (i.e. 2:44, 7:14, 7:22 and 7:27).

I accept this as a literal prophecy and we find that its fulfillment is spoken of in the book of Revelation:

Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever. Rev 11:15

From this testimony, I believe it is undisputable that Jesus is the heir of the kingdom and we - if we suffer with Him - are fellow heirs with Him.

In regard to Thessalonians 2:5 - "This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering." - I believe that in order to obtain our inheritance of the basis of faithful service and perseverance in the faith.  In 2 Thess 1:4, we find Paul  commending the Thessalonians for their perseverance in the midst of all the persecution and afflictions they endured. I don't think this is in anyway a reference to our justification.  Take note that it doesn't say, worthy of "eternal life," but rather, worthy of "the kingdom of God. And no, Tom, - I don’t believe "that we will be accounted worthy of the kingdom by waving the filthy rags of our works of righteousness, at God."  If you are insinuating that I do, then you really haven't the faintest idea about what I've been saying.

In regard to Philippians 2:12 - "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling" - Since I find it impossible to believe that Paul is saying that we can "work out" our justification, I believe that the word "salvation" as used in this verse is best understood in one of its primary meanings of "deliverance." So
then, I believe it would mean that working out our salvation refers to our sanctification, and availing ourselves of the grace of God to deliver us from our fleshly desires - desires which lead to disobedience and sin and thus to the possibility of some severe consequences.

For we read : "For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we  escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard" (Hebrews 2:2-4).

It is obvious that the writer is speaking to believers (Yes, Verne, I do believe it can be important to know to whom the passage is addressed), therefore, he wouldn't be speaking of their justification, since these "holy brethren" (Heb 3:1) had not neglected to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation.  But the writer is exhorting them to have fear and trembling of the consequences ("a just penalty") of neglecting to obey His commands.

[continued below]

[Chuck Miller]

Tom,

Just a few observations before I respond to some of the statements in your last couple of posts

In trying to determine the credibility of your statements, I have to consider the fact that you remained in the Assembly for 18 years, and as you said, -  It took you years to work your way out of the Assembly, even after you knew that GG's ideas on prophecy and church polity were in error"

So when you profess to having been "a student of Church history, and therefore a student of theological develolpments, [sic] for over 40 years," perhaps you'll understand why I'm not overly impressed, since it really doesn't seem to have been very helpful in governing your building and acting on your convictions.  So when you try to convince me of your ability to interpret scripture, or to determine which interpretive method is legitimate, your inability to have recognized George's erroneous teaching on church government belies your credibility as a student of theological development. But, be that as it may, I'll gladly listen to, and consider your reasoning and opinions, as I would anyone else who disagrees with me, regardless of their credentials. Now, let me touch on some of your responses.

To me, some of your reasonings lack clarity, Tom, and I find them quite confusing and at times baffling.  Let's look at some of them.

You made the following statement:

You [Chuck] asked "who gets to determine which interpretive method is legitimate?" A better question would be,"which interpretive method is legitimate?"  This avoids the subtle implication that human folly/evil/pride is behind everyone else's beliefs, and focuses on the real issue of "what is true?"

 Tom, you have a way of making statements that I find to be so strangely worded that it makes me wonder if you are being evasive, or have just misunderstood my question.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that my question was meant to subtly imply that I believe that there is something foolish/evil/prideful in every one else’s beliefs.  That's a false and unwarranted assumption, but since you didn't seem to like my question, perhaps you would answer your own "better question" instead. 
And along with yours, let me add another of my own,

1. Which interpretive method is legitimate?
2. How does one make such a determination?


Then you stated:

Since all opinions are subjective, it is difficult to understand what you mean here.  In my opinion, your name is Chuck Miller.  Am I to doubt that because it is my subjective opinion?  Do you doubt that because it is your subjective opinion as well?  In reality, opinions can be evaluated in two ways: 1. They must be factually based. 2. They must be clearly thought out. To say, "that is just your subjective opinion" is a tautology.

  To me, it sounds as though you're confusing "opinion," with "fact," Tom. I have documented proof that my name is Charles Miller, and I haven’t found anyone who has any doubt about it. It isn't an opinion; it is a fact. Therefore, I find your analogy to be, at best, weak and totally unconvincing. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of strange reasoning doesn't do anything to enhance your credentials as a reliable exegetist of scriptural truth, your 40 years of study notwithstanding.

And, Incidentally, Tom, do you know of any theologian who wouldn’t claim that his opinions are "factually based" and are "clearly thought out?"  Yet learned ones arrive at conflicting positions on the same topic.  So what are we supposed to make of that?  No, Tom - opinions on scriptural matters must be based upon the truth of God's word. And, lest we forget, we have been given the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, and if we abide in His word, we shall know the truth. I believe that the simplest peasant from Guatemala has as much opportunity to understand the truth of God's word as does the student at the most prestigious Bible College.

And by the way, I don't mind having to look up a word with which I'm not familiar, since it's part of the learning process.  But when I looked up "tautology," I found Merriam-Webster define it as is "a needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word," and when I tried to apply this meaning to your statement, it didn't seem to be an appropriate use in your criticism, and raises a question as to whether you actually understand the meaning.  You might want to be careful that you don't give someone the wrong impression that your trying to impress them with such words.  But, let's continue on with your reasoning.

[Continued below]

[Joe Sperling]

Chuck---

I know your discussion is with Tom, so I will keep this short. I mentioned in an earlier post that
"scripture answers scripture". You mention below the verse that says "If we suffer with him, that
we might also be glorified with him."  Then you mentioned 1 Thessalonians 2:5 "This is a plain
indication of God's righteous judgement that you will be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God for which you indeed ARE suffering". Notice: One verse says "IF you suffer" and the other verse says you ARE suffering".

The verse you mentioned which says "IF we suffer with him, that we MIGHT also be glorified with him"--this is speaking in the present tense. But notice Romans 8:30 in contrast: "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, he also justified, and whom he justified,
THEM HE ALSO GLORIFIED". This is clearly in the past tense--God considers it an accomplished fact.

There are verses which point at OUR responsibility. But can we do it? Can we make it on our own? Of course not!! "If we suffer..." is answered by the Lord who says "for which indeed you ARE suffering".  "If you suffer with him, you MIGHT be glorified with him.." is answered with "Them he justified, them he also glorified(past tense). In effect God asks the question "If" and then gives the answer "You are and you shall".   "it is finished"  FAITHFUL IS HE WHO CALLED YOU, WHO ALSO WILL DO IT(1 Thess. 5:24).

--Joe