While It Is Yet Called Today...

[vernecarty]

David knew God's laws. That's why he tried to cover his sin! He knew God's laws stood fast and that he had committed a sin. He also knew the only way he could be married to Bathsheba was to have Uriah killed. It was the only way he could change the circumstances to appear to be innocent.

What a picture to us of how we try to finagle our way around issues because we know what we have done is wrong.

David didn't walk into his relationship with Bathsheba figuring ahead of time that God would forgive him for it. He never thought it would be found out.

Yes, David knew God.

The larger lesson I draw from David's failure is what got him into the situation he found himself in.

This unquestionably great man certainly did not purpose to take a stroll on his verandah expressly for the purpose of ogling some neigbour's wife taking a bath.
What was, considering the rest of his life, a momentary weakness wreaked untold havoc on him, his family and his nation.

The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a combination that can spell disaster for the strongest among us...and sometimes does...

By God's grace, control your environment!
Verne

[hopon]

Maybe more like; somehow it would work out. I don't think he ever imagined the ramifications. Do you think David still loved Bethsheba after all the dust settled? Do you think God still loved David ?

Yes, David knew God

Yes, I believe that David knew the ramifications. He was the king wasn't he? God put him in that position for a reason. He knew God's laws and how to obey, interpret and apply them.

David was desperate when he arranged for Uriah's death. To arrange for someone's death to cover your own sin shows desperation in my mind. He was the king and the world was watching. (If David can do it, why can't we?) This is why God said that Bathsheba's child would die. The world was watching David as king and representative of God. Of course David was hoping that it would work out. Don't we all wish that?

I believe that David loved Bathsheba. After his repentance, he could view Bathsheba thru God's eyes. He had wronged her. But look at the gentleness of David while he pleaded with God for the life of the child who died because of David's sin.

Did God love David? Absolutely. David didn't die as a result of his sins and Solomon follows David as king. That is a strong statement in my mind.

In reading the psalms, it is obvious that the most important relationship in David's life is his relationship with God. God values that kind of man.

[hopon]

The larger lesson I draw from David's failure is what got him into the situation he found himself in.

This unquestionably great man certainly did not purpose to take a stroll on his verandah expressly for the purpose of ogling some neigbour's wife taking a bath.
What was, considering the rest of his life, a momentary weakness wreaked untold havoc on him, his family and his nation.

The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a combination that can spell disaster for the strongest among us...and sometimes does...

By God's grace, control your environment!
Verne

I agree with you. And Bathsheba wasn't bathing in hopes of seducing a man, like many have tried to suggest.

[Oscar]

Revelation 3:11  Behold I come quickly, hold fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

If someone takes your crown, you no longer have it.

Hopon,

I think there are a few problems with your understanding of this verse:

1. The "taking" could be hypothetical.  We do not know if this has actually ever happened, or will happen.  Just because you are warned against something does not mean you will actually do it.

2. This particular "crown", (STEPHANOS can mean many things, such as wreaths worn on the head at weddings), seems to be already in possession of the persons addressed.  If so, it could not be one of the crowns that represent heavenly rewards for individuals.

3. The crown is probably an honor conferred upon the church at Philadelphia collectively.  The church is being addressed through its "messenger".  The passage speaks of "your crown", not "your crowns".

4. If a man can 'take" the crown it couldn't be a heavenly reward.

5. The church in Philadelphia is long gone, and did not last until the second coming of Christ.  It could well be that the coming Christ speaks of a different coming, (!) or a "coming" in some other sense.

All in all, using this verse to support the idea of eternal consequences doesn't work too well.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[hopon]

Hopon,

I think there are a few problems with your understanding of this verse:

1. The "taking" could be hypothetical.  We do not know if this has actually ever happened, or will happen.  Just because you are warned against something does not mean you will actually do it.

Why are you warned if there is not the possibility of the situation being warned against actually happening?

2. This particular "crown", (STEPHANOS can mean many things, such as wreaths worn on the head at weddings), seems to be already in possession of the persons addressed.  If so, it could not be one of the crowns that represent heavenly rewards for individuals.

3. The crown is probably an honor conferred upon the church at Philadelphia collectively.  The church is being addressed through its "messenger".  The passage speaks of "your crown", not "your crowns".

And there is the possibility of the crown not being awarded to the church as a whole, eh?, or there wouldn't have been the necessity of the warning.

4. If a man can 'take" the crown it couldn't be a heavenly reward.

Could the "take" mean someone could keep you from getting the crown by distracting you and causing you to turn aside?

5. The church in Philadelphia is long gone, and did not last until the second coming of Christ.  It could well be that the coming Christ speaks of a different coming, (!) or a "coming" in some other sense.

All in all, using this verse to support the idea of eternal consequences doesn't work too well.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

This crown business reminds me of the verses in I Cor. 9:24-27 that describe the race where only one wins the prize. We are encouraged to live the Christian life as one who is running to win a race. If you've ever been to a race, you already know the comparisons are true to life, ie, preparation, distraction, determination, etc. There it talks about obtaining an imperishable crown, which means you don't already have it.

[Chuck Miller]

Quote from: VerneCarty on December 06, 2005, 11:47:56 pm

The larger lesson I draw from David's failure is what got him into the situation he found himself in.

This unquestionably great man certainly did not purpose to take a stroll on his verandah expressly for the purpose of ogling some neigbour's wife taking a bath.
What was, considering the rest of his life, a momentary weakness wreaked untold havoc on him, his family and his nation.

The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a combination that can spell disaster for the strongest among us...and sometimes does...

By God's grace, control your environment!
Verne

If you read the account in 2 Samuel 11 you will note that "David sent Joab out to battle........but David stayed at Jerusalem" (2 Sam 11:1)   It was one of the only times that I can recall that David did not lead his men into battle.  How true of us also, that we can fall into sin because we are not doing what we are supposed tro be doing or are not where we are supposed to be.  And as Hopon pointed out , Bathsheba "was not bathing on the roof in order to seduce a man."  But she was indiscreet in failing to recognize the possibility of being seen by others.

Some lessons here for us to learn from.

Chuck

[vernecarty]

Quote from: VerneCarty on December 06, 2005, 11:47:56 pm
If you read the account in 2 Samuel 11 you will note that "David sent Joab out to battle........but David stayed at Jerusalem" (2 Sam 11:1)   It was one of the only times that I can recall that David did not lead his men into battle.  How true of us also, that we can fall into sin because we are not doing what we are supposed tro be doing or are not where we are supposed to be.  And as Hopon pointed out , Bathsheba "was not bathing on the roof in order to seduce a man."  But she was indiscreet in failing to recognize the possibility of being seen by others.

Some lessons here for us to learn from.

Chuck

Right on the money!

Why are you warned if there is not the possibility of the situation being warned against actually happening?And there is the possibility of the crown not being awarded to the church as a whole, eh?, or there wouldn't have been the necessity of the warning.Could the "take" mean someone could keep you from getting the crown by distracting you and causing you to turn aside?
This crown business reminds me of the verses in I Cor. 9:24-27 that describe the race where only one wins the prize. We are encouraged to live the Christian life as one who is running to win a race. If you've ever been to a race, you already know the comparisons are true to life, ie, preparation, distraction, determination, etc. There it talks about obtaining an imperishable crown, which means you don't already have it.

Tom makes some good points aobut the need to be careful in our application of the verse.
I don't know about you hopon but a lot of the erroneous ideas I harboured about things like loss of our inheritance  "losing out"  and just a general attitude of some kind of spiritual ellitism came from so may years of listening uncritically to a man like George Geftakys.
The man clearly had his motives among which were to manipulalte the emotions, control and instil fear, and  create a sense of dependency in his hearers - leaving the assembly was leaving the covering!

What incredible hogwash the man fed us all those years!

It is often good to examine why we think a certain way about a particular Scripture.

Having said that, I will confess that passage in  1 Corinthians 9 is to me one of the most sobering in all of Scripture and one of the reasons is that it is not explicit what is at stake although something clearly is.
George Geftakys with terrible clarity illustrates the dire possibility that one can preach to others and end up being disqualified.
My attitude about this passage, and all other such warnings in the Scripture is simply:

I don't want to find out what the means, so Lord do whatever it takes...

If one is following the Lord Jesus, you really don't have much time to be worrying about what you might loose; you are far too busy enjoying what you already possess!     
Good discussion...carry on!

Verne

p.s. I would like to pint out that in the Lord's exhortation to the church at Philadelphia, the structure suggests that holding fast to what they had, was equivalent to not losing their crown...

[Oscar]

Hopon,

You said:

Could the "take" mean someone could keep you from getting the crown by distracting you and causing you to turn aside?

I don't know.  If you think that is what it means, tell us why.  In this whole discussion of the Overcomer teachings the "overcomer" side has attempted to advance their position by merely asking questions.  This, to many, serves as evidence of the weakness of the position.  If people have positive arguments for their views they advance them.  What has been going on is that the "overcomers" seem to feel that in asking these questions they will force those who believe in a full salvation by grace alone to join them in their rejection of this apostolic doctrine.

Now this passage could be referring to what you have said.  But does it?  Until one is confident about the meaning of this verse, you cannot legitimatly use it as a premise.  How can one conclude anything sound on the basis of "I don't know?"   Clear thinking people know that that is not logically possible. 

This is why one of the most important principles of Biblical Hermeneutics is: Passages that are not clear should be interpreted in the light of passages that are clearly understood.  This follows from the idea that the Bible, having a single omniscient author, does not contradict itself.  This is what the Bible means when it says, "No scripture is of any private interpretation."

This crown business reminds me of the verses in I Cor. 9:24-27 that describe the race where only one wins the prize. We are encouraged to live the Christian life as one who is running to win a race. If you've ever been to a race, you already know the comparisons are true to life, ie, preparation, distraction, determination, etc. There it talks about obtaining an imperishable crown, which means you don't already have it.

Well, at least it means that the wreath of I Cor. 9:25 has not been obtained.  What you are arguing here is that the wreath of Rev 3:11 is the same.  Do you actually know that?  If so, how?

I Corinthians 9 is about Paul's apostleship.  Paul is defending his claim to be an apostle against his critics.  Apparently someone has accused him of being a "pork barrel preacher" who is in it for financial gain.  Paul argues that: 1. He has a right to be supported as he preaches the gospel. 2. He has abstained from exercising his rights.  3. He devotes himself to a lifestyle and to ministry methods that make this possible.

Interestingly, the NIV says in verse 27, "disqualified for the prize".  The greek text, however, simply says "adokimos", which can mean "disqualified" or "rejected".  Paul is arguing that he hopes to win a wreath of honor by faithful service in his apostleship, and is devoting himself to a lifestyle that makes that possible. Could he be disqualified from his apostleship?  Seems to me he could.  And if he were disqualified he could not, by faithful discharge of his office, earn his laurels.

However, reading into this verse, as "Overcomer" teachers do, a loss of our inheritance in Christ is totally illegitimate.  Paul is talking of reward for faithful service.  He is not discussing our inheritance in Christ.  GG, and others of his persuasion, "morph" this verse from its legitimate context to support their ideas in a completely different context.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[hopon]

Tom makes some good points aobut the need to be careful in our application of the verse.
I don't know about you hopon but a lot of the erroneous ideas I harboured about things like loss of our inheritance  "losing out"  It is often good to examine why we think a certain way about a particular Scripture.

I was fortunate in that I learned some of these scriptures in VBS at my Great-aunts Bible Church when I was young, before the influence of the gold-rush king. The verses in Phillipians spoke to me about something important going on that would require my attention in order to attain it. "I press toward the goal for the prize". And this was written by someone who had been persecuting Christians, but had been converted. There was something of value here for me or it wouldn't have been written.

If one is following the Lord Jesus,

So right here you say "if". We know that Christians exist who are not following the Lord. We know that we could be in the same condition they are. There would be no need for individuals giving account and undergoing individual judgement if there were no differences between the lives of saved individuals or unsaved individuals. (It could be done as a large classroom event)

(However, back to the prodigal son, who spent his entire inheritance. It was gone. But he could still be accepted into his father's home.)

Isn't Paul saying "run so you can get it all?" I don't think he is saying if you don't get it all you get nothing.

[Oscar]

Folks,

It is often good to examine why we think a certain way about a particular Scripture.

Amen!

In this discussion it is very evident that some understandings of passages that are brought up are imported from our experience in the cultic Geftakys assemblies.   We need to be more like the Bereans.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Chuck Miller]

TOM
YOU WROTE: 

What has been going on is that the "overcomers" seem to feel that in asking these questions they will force those who believe in a full salvation by grace alone to join them in their rejection of this apostolic doctrine.

RESPONSE: Your accusation that I reject the doctrine of “full salvation by grace alone” is blatantly false, and totally unwarranted.   I will ask you to refrain from ever again making such a reckless statement. 

Chuck

[vernecarty]

One of the things we so often overlook about sin is its opportunity cost so to speak.
Perhaps this is one reason God's Word describes sin as deceitful.
We are all quite familiar with sin's devastation in the life of the sinner and those around him, whether it be the drunk driver who visits death and destruction on an unsuspecting family, or some unfaithful spouse who plunges the family into a nigtmare of economic and emotional ruin, and the scarring of the young and innocent lives involved.
Have we ever thought much about the other side of the coin, namely, all the subsequently missed opportunity for doing good, and if you are a Christian bringing glory to God's name in this life?
Frankly, I find this a greater motivator than the fear of material loss or injury - what I fear most is the loss of opportunity!
There are some sins that I can commit, that would forever deny me the opportunity to glorify my Lord and Saviour in the way he intended. How tragic!

If I know myself to be a man given to lust, it would be high folly for me to be serving as an elder in my church for example.
Think of the man Geftakys and what opportunities are now lost to him!
Oh I know that he will continue to pretend, and posture but that will change nothing.
Personally, I can think of no more powerful stimulus in our pursuit of holiness than theprospect of loss of opportunity available to us only in this life. I suspect the nature of any regret in glory will be a sudden apprehension of this truth, and not so much finger-wagging on the part of our Redeemer.
Once faith becomes sight, such oppotunities are forever lost...think about it...just thinking out loud...
Verne

[Oscar]

TOM
YOU WROTE: 
RESPONSE: Your accusation that I reject the doctrine of “full salvation by grace alone” is blatantly false, and totally unwarranted.   I will ask you to refrain from ever again making such a reckless statement. 

Chuck

Chuck,

A few days back I posted this:

I am familiar with Dillow’s book, and find that there are some interesting insights in about several scriptures.  However, I would not recommend it to anyone for any positive purpose.  It is rife with circular reasoning, theological speculation, attempts to use analogies to “prove”  interpretations, and appeals to fine points of Greek as a method to avoid the clear meaning of texts that don’t fit into his scheme.  Thankfully, most folks will not be willing to endure all 605 pages of text as he spins his theories out in detail.  The book is, IMHO, mind numbing.

Having said that, I must go further.  When I read Chapter 23, entitled “Negative Judgement and the Believer”, I was quite plainly shocked and alarmed.  It will take a few paragraphs to explain what I mean.

Here is the statement that first caused my sense of alarm, and further statements that strengthened that feeling:

1.  “The atonement must therefore be a satisfaction for the sins of all men without exception.” (p.540)

2. “…the atonement must be a satisfaction for sin in a special sense.” (p.541).

At this point I was saying to myself, “Can he really mean what I think he means?”  He then goes on to convince me that he does.

3. Describing the ideas of a theologian named Dabney, he says, “He argues that the satisfaction of Christ does not obligate God to cancel our whole indebtedness, precisely the view of this writer. His acceptance of Christ’s death as a legal satisfaction ‘was, on His part, an act of pure grace; and therefore the acceptance acquits us just so far as, and no farther than God is pleased to allow it.’ “. (p.541)

I became alarmed because I recognized what he was teaching.  He confirms this over the next several pages. 

Earlier in this discussion I stated that anyone holding the Overcomer teaching must have a “low view of the forensic theory of Christ’s atonement, ie, that Christ bore the punishment for our sins and that our account is “reckoned” clear by God when we believe, who subsequently imputes the righteousness of Christ to us.  From then on we have a standing with God as possessing Christ’s righteousness.  All our sins are forgiven when we enter heaven.

I was wrong.  Dillow does not have a low view of this crucial doctrine. He has rejected it outright!    In its place, he has resurrected the medieval Catholic speculations known as the “Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement”.


According to this theory, taught by speculative Catholic theologians such as Anselm of Canturbury, (1033-1109AD), God, the great sovereign of the universe, has been “offended” by man’s sin.  Now these folks understood just how much trouble you could get into if you offended a king or other high ranking official.  These folks were powerful and could do terrible things to you if they wished to.  God, in this view, condemns man because his honor is offended. 

The way to get back into a king’s, or in this case God’s, good graces is to make up for the offence, and then to go beyond the damage you did to the king and do something really great for him.  He will then have received sufficient “satisfaction” to restore you to favor to the degree he wishes to do so.  This is the meaning that this theory places upon Christ's work upon the cross.  He satisfied God's offended honor when we could not do so.

The reformers of the 16th century rejected this teaching and insisted upon a return to Apostolic and Biblical theology.  The Catholic Church rejected their pleas, and you know what happened.  It was the cries of “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”, (Scripture alone and faith alone), that were the battlecries of the Reformation.  It was for preaching the apostolic doctrine of forensic justification by faith alone that many were persecuted, even burned alive, by Catholic officials.

Now a few “evangelical” theologians such as Dillow and Hodges are returning to the errors of past ages in order to find a way to teach that only some of our sins are forgiven, and that we will have to bear others into heaven.

I will not be following these fellows any time soon.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Undercomer

Dillow has quite clearly rejected full salvation by grace alone.  He openly admits it.  He teaches that all of our sins are atoned for, but that full forgiveness is based on performance of religious duty.   In doing this, he has rejected the apostolic teaching on justification by grace through faith. 

If you agree with Dillow, you have done so as well.  Do you agree with him? 

You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[hopon]

One of the things we so often overlook about sin is its opportunity cost so to speak.

Have we ever thought much about the other side of the coin, namely, all the subsequently missed opportunity for doing good, and if you are a Christian bringing glory to God's name in this life?
Frankly, I find this a greater motivator than the fear of material loss or injury - what I fear most is the loss of opportunity!

I suspect the nature of any regret in glory will be a sudden apprehension of this truth, and not so much finger-wagging on the part of our Redeemer.
Once faith becomes sight, such oppotunities are forever lost...think about it...just thinking out loud...
Verne

Yes, this is something to consider, isn't it? Even now we can see opportunities that we lost. So run, that we may obtain it all. Isn't that what it says in the scriptures?

[Joe Sperling]

Uncle Buck---

Thanks for your post in response to mine. (I have to admit, when I see "Uncle Buck"
I picture the face of John Candy who played that character in the movie). David really
screwed up didn't he? And he fell so far that Nathan the prophet had to say "You're
the man!!!" when telling the story of the man who was rich, but sunk so low as to take
the poor man's sheep, his only sheep. But God loved david deeply and chastened him
to bring him back to himself(not without suffering the consequences of his actions). He
didn't lose his position as King of Israel though, interestingly enough.

But when David was walking with God he had the right heart. He wasn't looking to obtain
a crown---he was caring for the sheep. The Lord chose David to replace Saul because of
David's heart---a heart that loved God and hoped in his lovingkindness and mercy. I think
when speaking of "rewards" the motivation is very important. Are we running to obtain some
thing? Or are we running to bring glory to God and for more to throw at the feet of the Lord
on that day?(the saints throw their golden crowns at the feet of Christ)--is the "reward" the crown
itself? Or is the reward to have something to throw at the feet of Christ? By throwing the crowns
at the Lord's feet we are saying that even the very rewards are his, not ours.

Tom---I appreciate your re-post concerning Dillow's books. To think that one could do something
in themselves to help appease God, and receive "complete forgiveness" through that is a most
awful teaching. The one that thinks there is something in themselves, or something that they can
do in themselves to gain any type of righteousness doesn't know their own heart very well.

I remember in one of C.H. Spurgeon's sermons he said that there are many when hearing the story of the crucifxion, that they weep, thinking inside "how could they have done that to Jesus?" They think "if I had been back there then I would have tried to do something--I would be weeping underneath the cross for my Lord".  But Spurgeon said the one who knows his own heart well, and realizes what the righteousness of God really means, would never say those things. He would realize that he would be one of the one's screaming "crucify him!! crucify him!!!" He would not be weeping under the cross, he would be helping them put the nails in Jesus' hands. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" "There is none righteous, not one"--
when one realizes how desperately wicked his heart is he realizes he can never "earn" anything,
but must totally "receive" what Christ did on the cross. Thank God for the words "IT IS FINISHED".
I pray that I might learn this more and more, and look to the lovingkindness and mercy of God as David did. "Against thee and thee only have I sinned and done what is evil in thy sight"  "But there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared".

--Joe