While It Is Yet Called Today...

[vernecarty]

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?

Indeed! I do wonder however, if a preoccupation with what we may achieve in some distant future assessment, sometimes blinds us to the awesome possibilities in the here and now.
Christ came that we might have life, and life more abundantly.
I for one very much want to experience the fulness of His resurrection power, to the degree that this is humanly possible, in this life.
I want to know the wonders of his matchless grace and boundless mercies - in this life.
I want to see Christ fully formed in me - in this life.
Surely whatever else He has in store, must just be icing on the cake no? 
Verne

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Doesn't this verse give you goose-bumps on your goose-bumps?! Now where did I first hear that? 

[Chuck Miller]

Tom wrote:

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.

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. 

Tom,
It makes me wonder why the "alarm" didn’t go off when you were subjected to George's perverted teaching on this and other subjects for 18 years.  You criticized me for asking questions.  Had you done so in the Assembly, you might have saved yourself many years of distress. I did, and that was the beginning of the end of my the Assembly days.
I believe all of us are in agreement that it is very important to the understanding of scriptural passages, that they be viewed in the context of the entire passage.  So also with a sentence from a book.

You were obviously so intent on refuting Dillow’s exposition on the Kingdom, that you pulled a couple of sentences out of context and tried to make it sound as if he believes that we are not saved by faith alone.  Anyone who has read the book in its entirety know that this is not true.  But in your endeavor to try to discredit Dillow, you neglected to include the following from the very next page (542).  It reads:

When a man does believe, he is not only unconditionally accepted by the Father, but the benefits of the atonement are extended in his case to protect him from hell.  This extension occurs through the free gift of justification, acquittal at the divine bar of justice.  P. 542 

Does this sound like a man who believes that  “full forgiveness is based on performance of religious duty?”  You erroneously equate Dillow’s admonition for a godly life in Christ (our sanctification, which is conditional), with our salvation by grace through faith (our justification, which is unconditional). This is a basic premise that runs all through the book, that you would have very easily discovered long before you reached page 542.

God bless,

Chuck

[hopon]

I want to see Christ fully formed in me - in this life.

And we find this in the relationships and situations we are in, in the here and now. So, we're back home again, eh?  

I believe that Job saw this when he speaks in 42:5&6 - "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You." It was in reading this verse when I was in a difficult situation that caused me to see Christ in it. Do you think that Job may have been seeing the same thing?

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Doesn't this verse give you goose-bumps on your goose-bumps?! Now where did I first hear that? 

Yeah, sounds vaguely familiar.  And the possibility of seeing the man Jesus makes my heart skip. Hope there are trees around to climb to get a good view.  

[vernecarty]

You erroneously equate Dillow’s admonition for a godly life in Christ (our sanctification, which is conditional), with our salvation by grace through faith (our justification, which is unconditional). God bless,

Chuck

I would ask Dillow this question but I cannot so I will ask you Chuck.
Can there be glorification without sanctification in your opinion?

Tom wrote:

Tom,
It makes me wonder why the "alarm" didn’t go off when you were subjected to George's perverted teaching on this and other subjects for 18 years.  God bless,

Chuck

In my humble opinion this is hitting below the belt and I think you know it Chuck.
Tom would be the last person to contend that he is the same man today, that he was eighteen years ago.
In that we should all rejoice...

Verne

[Chuck Miller]

You're right, Verne, and I apologize to Tom.  It won't happen again because I find my flesh gettng the best of me when my views are continually misrepresented.  I'd rather bow out of a debate than lose out on the kingdom.  I find I still have to overcome fleshly desires on a daily basis.  I bowed out once, but this time I'm removing the site from my favorites list so that I'm not even tempted to peek in once in a while.  My e-mail address is posted for anyone who wants to communicate directly with me.

And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification.  Paul said, "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" (Romans 8:17)  And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail.

God bless,

Chuck Miller

[vernecarty]

You're right, Verne, and I apologize to Tom.  It won't happen again because I find my flesh gettng the best of me when my views are continually misrepresented.  I'd rather bow out of a debate than lose out on the kingdom.  I find I still have to overcome fleshly desires on a daily basis.  I bowed out once, but this time I'm removing the site from my favorites list so that I'm not even tempted to peek in once in a while.  My e-mail address is posted for anyone who wants to communicate directly with me.

And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification.  Paul said, "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" (Romans 8:17)  And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail.

God bless,

Chuck Miller

Just between you and me Chuck, if you read some of the exchanges that I have had with Tom on the BB, I don't mind telling you that I have sometimes felt like hitting him in the exact same place (and probably did on occasion)...
I hate to see you go as I think the discussion extremly helpful though at times a bit heated.
One of the lessons I have learned over the past couple of years is to be bit more thick-skinned than I used to.
Another reason I hate to see you go Chuck is that this is also my last few weeks on the BB and the BB really needs a few seasoned posters like yourself to keep the mix interesting.
Please reconsider.

And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification.  Paul said, "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" (Romans 8:17)  And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail.

The reason I asked this question, as you probaby figured, is that it raises serious questions about Dillow's attempt to distinguish justification from sanctification by making one of them conditional.

I agree with your above position. Here is Dillow's problem Scripturally and it shows the problems that arise when we attempt to deal with the things of God from only, as we must, a human space-time constrained perspective.

 I appreciate your contribution Chuck.


Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:30

Please correct my logic if I posit that since justification and glorification according to Romans 8:30 are unconditional as all being entirely in the Divine Purview, and, there can be no glorification without sanctification, as we agree, then, sanctification cannot be conditional as Dillow suggests.

Verne

[M2]

You're right, Verne, and I apologize to Tom.  It won't happen again because I find my flesh gettng the best of me when my views are continually misrepresented.  I'd rather bow out of a debate than lose out on the kingdom.  I find I still have to overcome fleshly desires on a daily basis.  I bowed out once, but this time I'm removing the site from my favorites list so that I'm not even tempted to peek in once in a while.  My e-mail address is posted for anyone who wants to communicate directly with me.

And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification.  Paul said, "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" (Romans 8:17)  And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail.

God bless,

Chuck Miller

Unforunately, Tom's misrepresentation to support his argument is one of those problems this BB suffers from.  Many have departed this BB because it becomes pointless to have a reasonable discussion with Tom.  Tom's "credentials" have earned him his little support group.

I am in no way saying that everything Tom posts is off the mark, or that I agree with everything that Chuck says either.  But it is the very same dynamic that allowed George Geftakys get away with atrocities, while silencing those who were attempting to intelligent discussion with him.

Dillow's book, which I have not read, was recommended reading by GG et al, so it is of some relevance to discuss it here.

Marcia

[vernecarty]

Tom's "credentials" have earned him his little support group.

Marcia

You've got to be kidding me Marcia.
You think a Master's degree (or whatever other "credential" you think insures Tom from ever being wrong) is the reason for the post I made?!
You surprise me.
If any other poster had made the same comment about you, my response would have been the same.
I get the impression that Tom has somehow ticked you off and it is conditioning your perspective on this.
Am I right?
If my arguments are misunderstood or misrepresented, I view it as an opportunity to clarify my position, not get hot under the collar.
That is what BB life is all about is it not?
There is a lot of stuff that Tom and I disagree on and anyone who has read the BB for any time knows that.
My post does not in my view make me member of any "support group" if you don't mind...
Verne

[M2]

You've got to be kidding me Marcia.
You think a Master's degree (or whatever other "credential" you think insures Tom from ever being wrong) is the reason for the post I made?!
You surprise me.
If any other poster had made the same comment about you, my response would have been the same.
I get the impression that Tom has somehow ticked you off and it is conditioning your perspective on this.
Am I right?
If my arguments are misunderstood or misrepresented, I view it as an opportunity to clarify my position, not get hot under the collar.
That is what BB life is all about is it not?
There is a lot of stuff that Tom and I disagree on and anyone who has read the BB for any time knows that.
My post does not in my view make me member of any "support group" if you don't mind...
Verne

I had to smile with this response, Verne.  No, I did not include you in his "support group", unless your "support" is based on his "credentials".

Marcia

[Marty]

You gotta admit Verne that Tom has a following that supports him to the end. That’s what makes this bb very difficult to converse on. Tom is right and everyone else is wrong. Tom never has to explain his position he just has to twist the others. You have pointed that out yourself. From there his little elves bustle around paying homage to Tom and trying to parrot his points.

Seems like Chuck has seen that and will take the same course of action all others have. Then it will be Tom and his buddies all by themselves.

Whom will Tom display his vast knowledge to? They will have to start evangelizing on college campuses to bring in new blood that Tom can mold into his image.

[vernecarty]

I had to smile with this response, Verne.  No, I did not include you in his "support group", unless your "support" is based on his "credentials".

Marcia

Mine, credentials that is, never did me much good.
I found myself saying things like:

I investigated the bioactivity of fused hetero-cyclics with halogen substitiution in non-activated positions, and after retro-synthetic analyis, attempted to elucidate the enzymatic pathways by which the activation enerygy reduction needed for this kind of synthesis could occur...! blah! blah!   

A few folk know exactly what I am talking about. The vast majoprity will go - huh??!!
Verne

[vernecarty]

You gotta admit Verne that Tom has a following that supports him to the end. That’s what makes this bb very difficult to converse on. Tom is right and everyone else is wrong. Tom never has to explain his position he just has to twist the others. You have pointed that out yourself. From there his little elves bustle around paying homage to Tom and trying to parrot his points.

Seems like Chuck has seen that and will take the same course of action all others have. Then it will be Tom and his buddies all by themselves.

Whom will Tom display his vast knowledge to? They will have to start evangelizing on college campuses to bring in new blood that Tom can mold into his image.

Well I do have to admit there were a few occasions on which I thought I had Tom dead to rights on some point of debate or Scripture ( so few participated I rarely if ever had any affirmation in this regard) and fully expected him to concede. I seem to reacall that he did on at least one occasion,     but I will agree he does have a bit of difficulty backing up. Having come out of the assemblies like I have, that may not always be a bad thing.
The way you promote good debate is that you continue to make your point as clearly and as calmly as the heat of the situation permits, abeit sometimes difficult.
It is really too easy to take your marbles and go home.
So what if the other person fights unfair soemtimes?
That does not make them right and you wrong.
We need to learn to stick to our guns when we are convinced of a matter.
We also need to be gracious if it turns out the other fellow is perhaps better instructed than we are.
Utlimately, don't forget it is quite O.K to disagree! 

[Joe Sperling]

 

Oh, we're back to "support groups" again are we, because a few agree on the same
doctrinal position? It's amazing to see people come in, ask doctrinal questions, receive
answers they don't like, get into a spat, and then leave in a huff.
***addition    Not that I've ever done that myself   I will refrain from doctrinal argu-
mets from now on(at least I'll try), although I find them rather stimulating actually.

I agree with Tom's position because I have read and have a copy of "The Reign of the
Servant Kings" by Joseph C. Dillow. The below writing concerning this book I believe to
be correct, and is the same stance I believe Tom takes. The whole "overcomer" theology
is based on a wrong understanding of the BEMA seat, or Judgement seat of Christ. Please
read this explanation:

FALSE BEMA: The teaching set forth in this book typifies the erroneous "overcomer" movement, which is dominated by "partial" or "split" rapturists. This particular group, however, allows for a complete rapture, but then splits or divides the body at the BEMA seat. They teach Judgement
of the PERSON, as well as their works and deeds done in the body. (If you recall when God "judged" Adam he cursed THE GROUND not ADAM HIMSELF--my own note--Joe).

Their motivation for the growth of the believer is future kingdom reward, or loss of same. In an effort to have the believer persevere in growth, they threaten his future. Unless he continues in good works to the very end, he himself will be judged and suffer loss at the BEMA seat. He will lose his inheritance and privileges in the coming kingdom. If he produces sufficient good works to "qualify" he will be an overcomer, a servant king in the millenial kingdom. For them, all is horizontal, earthly, and kingdom centered. The body of Christ is thus diverted from her heavenly position and priveleges, "hidden with Christ in God".

TRUE BEMA: Although the believer's WORKS are both judged and rewarded, he himself is in no way judged or condemned(again, remember Adam, the ground was cursed, but he was not). "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath DONE, whether good or bad(2 Cor. 5:10).

The Bema Judgement seat refers to the place where winners of contests were rewarded--it was never used as a judicial bench. The word Paul chose to describe the place before which this event takes place suggests it's character is not judgement, but honor dignity and authority.

Paul did not use the word for "bad" which would signify that which is morally evil, but rather the word which reads "unacceptable". It is not the Lord's purpose at the BEMA seat to chasten his beloved bride for her already forgiven sins, but to reward her service and way of life. After all, it is
God "who works in you both to will and to do his good pleasure". And we are "confident of this very thing, that he who has BEGUN a good work in you WILL PERFORM IT until the day of Jesus Christ"(Phil. 2:13).

I believe the above definition to be right on the money, and shows the error of Dillow's teaching. The Bema seat is not a judicial bench("There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus) where
believers will be tried with fire---his "works" will be tried with fire.
--Joe

[BenJapheth]

Hurting others with the truth

That’s what makes this bb very difficult to converse on. Tom is right and everyone else is wrong... his position he just has to twist the others. You have pointed that out yourself. From there his little elves bustle around...trying to parrot his points. Seems like Chuck has seen that and will take the same course of action all others have.

Marty, I agree that this board has a flavor of argument, one-upsmanship, spiritual pride – it’s very much like the evangelical church at large – only perhaps a bit more so since it is even a bit more extreme in terms of being fundamentalist. The more fundamental and scripture focused a group is the more characters of the heretical type a forum like this will attract.  Having said this I admit to being an evangelical-fundamentalist  -- And, at my worse I’ve seen myself as an agitating controversialist – Yes, with Mike Zach I called a spade a spade, but I went too far back in February 2003..  For most of my Christian life, I too perceived that argument and rolling in the mud with folks over every variety of interpretation could indeed advance the kingdom of God.  However, I’ve never seen it done.  Argumentative – controversy seeking believers simply act as spiritual flatulence in a God-seeking environment.  It doesn’t win.  It doesn’t enlighten.  In fact, it ruins the hearers and sours the audience to the deeper things of God. 

A couple  months ago I had a real difference with my Dad-in-law on the subject of forgiveness – I’ll address this a bit on the Seven Pillars thread in coming weeks – I was set to jump into the forum and drive home some thoughts for the BB to consider  – No one on the planet has the ability to get my adrenaline going like Chuck Miller -  He’s my best spiritual friend and perhaps this is how I conned him out of his daughter 24 years ago    - I prayed about getting into the discussion and I decided not to since the ground had been covered by Brent and I a couple years ago - my views at that time had been thoroughly vetted.  Moreover, the flavor already was getting a little stressed – There’s a point when milk sours that one cannot make it good again by adding more fresh milk and we should refrain from taking a dog by the ears.  What I did do was ask Chuck Miller at breakfast (We live a couple miles from each other)  –

“Chuck, I’ve found as I reflect upon my own salvation and my own sin and how God has so amazingly and unconditionally saved me – and, that he was saving me even while I was hating Him and His enemy – and now knowing his salvation and love – that I’m incapable of not forgiving George Geftakys for what he’s done to Ann, you, Maryann, all the kids and our family.  Chuck, do you have any problem with me forgiving George even though he is probably still guilty and has not sought our forgiveness?  Moreover, I can’t help forgiving others…I can’t not forgive others. Christ has made me incapable of holding something against my neighbor.  Do you have any problem with me holding this belief?” 

He said – “No, Chuck, I don’t.” 

When he said that my burden left and it was settled.  The need to fight was gone. 

Yes, we need to contend for the faith, but if one cannot articulate one's beliefs with grace than even the truth of the views will cause the hearers to not only be disgusted with the teacher, speaker, or writer, but it will cause a reaction and loathing for the truth itself.  Wise words in the mouths of fools destroy more effectively than foolish words from a fool. 

Remember we're at war - Let's consider if scoring a few points in the "See how smart I am" tussles are really worth it.  Will it build?  Will it edify?  Could folks be more like Him with these words?

For the time being I will post here – Not because of various people who view this site as their place to pontificate or bully others’ opinions, but because there are over 500 people registered here and many of the people - or maybe just some - who check posts here every few weeks or months are seeking God and are trying to make sense of their spiritual walk.

I know I am.


::c:v::

[al Hartman]

Verne, I suggest you e-mail to Chuck your thoughtful response to his last post.  I imagine he won't be checking the bb any more.

There is a lot to be said for Chuck's choice to withdraw from the board, chiefly because he has left the door wide open for e-mail correspondence with any and all who desire to continue discussion with him.  The advantage to such communication is that it allows conversation to be direct and unbiased by observers who may or may not have an interest or prejudice in the matter under discussion.
A bb is very much like the Areopagus (Mars Hill, Acts 17) in Athens, where the crowd was composed not only of earnest seekers (v.34), but of those who attended strictly to propound their own "wisdom" and to ridicule those with whom they disagreed, and of those many who stood silently by just to hear the "latest."  As in v.21, they "would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new," so is often the case on a bb.

Of course, e-mail, just as even face-to-face verbal/visual communication, is no better than those attempting to use it.  Only (ONLY) the Holy Spirit can open the eyes and ears of another person's understanding, no matter how glibly and cleverly we frame our thoughts into words.  And He will only do so in His chosen time and way, regardless of our straining efforts.

I do not advocate less effort, but merely less straining and more trust, faith, hope, prayer and, above all, more love, both to Christ and to our brethren and neighbors.  Love is "the greatest of these," incorporating all the others, and is the identifying hallmark of the true Christian, by which all may know that we are Christ's disciples.

Regarding love, it has been suggested that 1Cor.13 should be considered withing the context of chapters 12 and 14.  This is absolutely true, as should those chapters be examined within the context of the entire letter to the Corinthians, which in turn bears scrutiny in light of the entire Bible.  All of Holy Writ verifies itself, the Holy Spirit enlightening it to those who seek to understand.  Context in no way diminishes content.

Soon I will probably also depart this board and, like Chuck, I will leave it behind me when I go, with no intention of checking in from time to time.  I am indebted to many posters, both current and past, for insights that have by one means or another brought me nearer to Christ.  Rather, I should state that I am grateful to God for those posters, both friendly and hostile, who He has used to influence my life.

This will probably not be my last post, but my final post may or may not identify itself as such.  Like Chuck, I will leave my e-mail address available for any who may wish to stay in touch with me.  There is truly no one here who I would not be delighted to hear from.  (If you doubt the truth of that statement, you are probably among those from whom I would most enjoy hearing.)

A brief word about credentials and followings, neither of which I find particularly impressive or attractive:

My respect, including any lack or degrees thereof, is toward the persons on this board, not their achievements or their beliefs.  I'm sure there are those who count me among one "camp" or another-- they are those who ignore the disagreements and criticisms that occur between me and the person(s) I am supposed to support.  These things serve only as distractions from the purpose of discussion here.  There is only one reason to either read or to post on this board, and that is to find and draw nearer to Jesus Christ our Lord.  If you are here for any other reason, you may be in the right place, but you are here for the wrong reason.
May your days be merry and bright, but much more, may the love of Christ sustain you throughout this Christmas season and always,
al Hartman