You wrote, back on 2/12/2007: "Many thought Paul was a cult. Many believers gave him the nickname, "the abortion." Did you know that?"

Would you mind telling me where you learned this? I'm interested in this kind of information. Thank you in advance for your time, and if you're not interested in answering the query, please don't.

I only learned of this forum today, because it turns out one of my websites is mentioned in it.

Your Fellow addicted Taper.. brainout (search on the net, you'll find me)

Galiban, look up how Paul uses "haphe" in Eph4:11-16 in context; that will cinch the "right pastor" idea you were looking for, I'm sure. It was clear to me in the Greek, anyway. Also look up the etymology of sumbibazw and sunarmologew. The former verb means to be knit-together-by-instruction, and you find it in Isaiah, too. My lexicons come version of BibleWorks 5, but in version 7 you get little Kittle and Wallace. Big Kittle you can get from Barnes and Noble. Thieme always talked about it, and hopefully this year I'll buy it.

Thanks for your comments. Meaty stuff. I didn't expect that in this kind of forum. Glad I came here by mistake (yeah, no mistakes in the Christian's life).

[i:41fb1a2c50]Context of 1John Chapter 1 – This is [b:41fb1a2c50]entirely to the church[/b:41fb1a2c50]. The context is fellowship of the believer with God. This is not speaking to those who lack salvation.[/i:41fb1a2c50]

You also have a habit of making big dogmatic statements, which are really nothing more than assumptions. You assume that, because the epistles were written to churches, the audience is only believers. But there were many unbelieving heretics in the church then, just as there are now. And the apostles warned the churches about this many times. In their epistles, they dealt with questions of salvation for the unbelievers in the audience, and questions of spirituality for the believers. As responsible ministers of the Word, who had the utmost care and concern for their hearers/readers (believer and unbeliever alike), they had to cover both issues very thoroughly. They certainly never made the assumption that everyone in the church they were writing to were all believers. One of the reasons they had to thoroughly and repeatedly expound the doctrines of salvation, was that there unbelievers in the churches—some of whom were even trying to promote their heresy and denying that Jesus was the Son of God (called “antichrists” by John in his epistles). When Paul wrote, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation,” don’t you think he was concerned about the unbelievers in the audience?

[i:41fb1a2c50]A person who is not saved is not going to concern himself/herself with maintaining fellowship with God. 1John 1:6 states a person says he has fellowship. [b:41fb1a2c50]An unbeliever is not going to care one iota about whether in fellowship or not.[/b:41fb1a2c50][/i:41fb1a2c50]

Once again, another groundless assumption. There have always been religious unbelievers (like Pharisees and Gnostics in John’s day, and many Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., today) who do indeed desire fellowship with God, and even think that they have it, but they are still lost in darkness because they have never confessed that they are lost sinners who need the Savior, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and Him alone. This was a primary concern for John in writing his epistles, as he and the other apostles had to refute the heresies of the Gnostics, who were in the churches, denying that they were sinners and even denying that Jesus was the Son of God. John writes in 1 John 2:18-19, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, [b:41fb1a2c50]even now are there many [/b:41fb1a2c50][b:41fb1a2c50]antichrists[/b:41fb1a2c50]; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” And again, in 1 John 4:2-3, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: [b:41fb1a2c50]Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: [/b:41fb1a2c50]and this is that spirit of [b:41fb1a2c50]antichrist[/b:41fb1a2c50], whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” In this short epistle, John repeatedly emphasizes the Person and Deity of Christ: “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that [b:41fb1a2c50]Jesus is the Son of God[/b:41fb1a2c50]? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, [b:41fb1a2c50]the Word[/b:41fb1a2c50], and the Holy Ghost: and [b:41fb1a2c50]these three are one[/b:41fb1a2c50]” (1 John 5:5-7). And, in refutation of the Christ-denying heretics (“antichrists”), he repeatedly declares that we must believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God: “And this is his commandment, That we should [b:41fb1a2c50]believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ[/b:41fb1a2c50], and love one another, as he gave us commandment” (1 John 3:23); “And we have seen and do testify that [b:41fb1a2c50]the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world[/b:41fb1a2c50]. Whosoever shall [b:41fb1a2c50]confess that Jesus is the Son of God[/b:41fb1a2c50], God dwelleth in him, and he in God” (1 John 4:14-15); “Whosoever [b:41fb1a2c50]believeth that Jesus is the Christ [/b:41fb1a2c50]is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him” (1 John 5:1); “He that [b:41fb1a2c50]believeth on the Son of God [/b:41fb1a2c50]hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. [b:41fb1a2c50]He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. [/b:41fb1a2c50]These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of th e Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and [b:41fb1a2c50]that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God[/b:41fb1a2c50]” (1 John 5:10-13). Would John have to keep repeating these basic truths of the Person and Work of Christ if he was only talking to believers? Can we afford to make such an unfounded assumption? Especially when we already know that there were unbelievers in the early churches?

[i:41fb1a2c50]Conversely, 1 John 2 states “My little Children” certainly not unbelievers are his students?[/i:41fb1a2c50]

And yet again, another [i:41fb1a2c50]assumption[/i:41fb1a2c50]. John addresses his audience several times as “my little children,” but, as we have already established, not everyone in his audience is a believer. John is greatly concerned for the spiritual condition of those he is writing to. Whether they are believers or unbelievers, he cares about them; and we cannot make the assumption that just because he addresses them as his children, they are all actually saved.

[i:41fb1a2c50]Then proceeds to state that he hopes they will not sin but when they do they have an advocate in Christ before the father![/i:41fb1a2c50]

And the assumptions just keep on coming... It actually makes perfect sense to spend the first chapter setting forth the issues of salvation and the Person and Work of Christ, and once you’ve established these principles, explain the advocacy of Christ at the right hand of the Father. You can’t grab one statement about the advocacy of Christ and assume that everything that’s been said to that point was addressed exclusively to believers.

[i:41fb1a2c50]1John Chapter 1 is the extension of understanding that [b:41fb1a2c50]God desires fellowship with us. That is why he created us.[/b:41fb1a2c50][/i:41fb1a2c50]

Yes, Galiban, I couldn’t agree more. God desires fellowship with us all. That is indeed why He created us. But we are all born into this world lost in sin. The only way we can have fellowship with God is to believe in His Son and become born again and saved. The issue of coming into fellowship with God is not “rebound,” but simply believing in Christ. We then receive His perfect righteousness, we are new creatures in eternal union with Him, and in eternal fellowship with God through the perfect, complete, and eternal sacrifice of Christ at the Cross. Our new nature is perfectly righteous and therefore can never lose this fellowship; our old nature is corrupt and sinful, and never was and never will be in fellowship with God.

You claim that the context of 1 John 1 supports your “rebound” doctrine, but all you have done is skim over the chapter making a lot of assumptions, and you have not compared it with other relevant passages. Let’s read through this chapter:

[b:41fb1a2c50]1 John 1:1-2 [/b:41fb1a2c50]That which was [b:41fb1a2c50]from the beginning[/b:41fb1a2c50], which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of [b:41fb1a2c50]the Word of life[/b:41fb1a2c50]; (For [b:41fb1a2c50]the life was manifested[/b:41fb1a2c50], and [b:41fb1a2c50]we have seen it[/b:41fb1a2c50], and bear witness, and shew unto you [b:41fb1a2c50]that eternal life, which was with the Father[/b:41fb1a2c50], and was manifested unto us;)

John begins his first epistle in an almost identical fashion as his Gospel—declaring the Person of Jesus Christ, the eternal Living Word, who was manifested to us on earth.

[b:41fb1a2c50]John 1:1-4,14 [/b:41fb1a2c50][b:41fb1a2c50]In the beginning [/b:41fb1a2c50]was the Word, and [b:41fb1a2c50]the Word was with God, and the Word was God[/b:41fb1a2c50]. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [b:41fb1a2c50]In him was life[/b:41fb1a2c50]; and the life was the light of men. ... And [b:41fb1a2c50]the Word was made flesh[/b:41fb1a2c50], and dwelt among us, (and [b:41fb1a2c50]we beheld his glory[/b:41fb1a2c50], the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Here we have a striking similarity between the opening chapters of two books, written by the same author with much of the same vocabulary. This is where we have a very obvious, logical reason for comparing two passages (no imaginary “highway” is necessary).

[b:41fb1a2c50]1 John 1:3 [/b:41fb1a2c50][u:41fb1a2c50]That which we have seen and heard[/u:41fb1a2c50] declare we unto you, [b:41fb1a2c50]that [u:41fb1a2c50]ye[/u:41fb1a2c50] also may have fellowship with [u:41fb1a2c50]us[/u:41fb1a2c50][/b:41fb1a2c50]: and truly [b:41fb1a2c50]our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ[/b:41fb1a2c50].

“That which we have seen and heard” is the Person of Christ from verses 1-2. And John is declaring the Person of Christ to his readers/hearers for a specific purpose—so that they can have fellowship with him (John), who already has fellowship with God. So right away, we see two groups of people involved here—those with whom John already has fellowship (“us”) and those with whom he does not yet have fellowship (“ye”). There are people in the audience who John cannot yet fellowship with, and for this reason he is declaring unto them the Person of Christ. And if John needs to declare the Person of Christ to them before he can have fellowship with them, then obviously they are not yet saved.

[b:41fb1a2c50]1 John 1:5 [/b:41fb1a2c50]This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that [b:41fb1a2c50]God is light[/b:41fb1a2c50], and in him is no darkness at all.

Similarly, we see in John’s Gospel that the “light” is Jesus Christ, and the “darkness” is the unbelieving world:

[b:41fb1a2c50]John 1:5-10[/b:41fb1a2c50] And [b:41fb1a2c50]the light shineth in darkness[/b:41fb1a2c50]; and [b:41fb1a2c50]the darkness comprehended it not[/b:41fb1a2c50]. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

(By the way, I read Randall Pittman’s chapter on Light and Darkness and did not see anything to support your view. Could you show me some specific statements?)

In verses 6 and 7, we see again that the issue of fellowship depends on salvation, not “rebound.”

[b:41fb1a2c50]1 John 1:6-7 [/b:41fb1a2c50]If we say that we have [b:41fb1a2c50]fellowship with him[/b:41fb1a2c50], and [b:41fb1a2c50]walk in darkness[/b:41fb1a2c50], we lie, and do not the truth: But if we [b:41fb1a2c50]walk in the light[/b:41fb1a2c50], as he is in the light, we have [b:41fb1a2c50]fellowship one with another[/b:41fb1a2c50], and [b:41fb1a2c50]the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin[/b:41fb1a2c50].

Here we have the clear distinction between walking in darkness and walking in the light. If a religious unbeliever like a Pharisee or a Gnostic (an “antichrist”) says they have fellowship with God, they are lying because they are still walking in darkness. By contrast, if we “walk in the light,” two things happen: (1) [u:41fb1a2c50]we have fellowship with one another[/u:41fb1a2c50] (as in verse 3), and (2) [u:41fb1a2c50]the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin[/u:41fb1a2c50]. The blood of Jesus Christ cleansing us from all sin can only mean salvation. (There are numerous scriptures on the blood of Christ washing away our sins throughout the N.T.) If we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin; therefore, to walk in the light is simp ly to be saved. And if we walk in the light (if we are born-again believers), then we can have fellowship with one another, as in 1 John 1:3 (see above).

At this point, it is also interesting to note 1 Cor 1:8-9, where the Apostle Paul also mentions fellowship with God. (You see, Galiban, this is how a diligent Bible student with common sense studies the Bible—by looking up scriptures that actually mention the same subject.)

[b:41fb1a2c50]1 Cor 1:8-9 [/b:41fb1a2c50]Who shall also [b:41fb1a2c50]confirm you unto the end[/b:41fb1a2c50], that ye may be [b:41fb1a2c50]blameless [/b:41fb1a2c50]in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were [b:41fb1a2c50]called unto the [u:41fb1a2c50]fellowship[/u:41fb1a2c50] of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord[/b:41fb1a2c50].

When the Apostle Paul, the great teacher of the doctrines of the “mystery,” talks about our fellowship with God, does he even hint that it can ever be lost? And that we have to continually “recover” it because we’ll keep “losing” it? Not at all. He only reminds us that, as born-again believers who are eternally secure with the very righteousness of Jesus Christ, we will be “confirmed unto the end” and “blameless” at our Lord’s return. This is the only issue concerning fellowship with God—have you believed in His Son and are now [i:41fb1a2c50]in Christ[/i:41fb1a2c50], or are you still lost and without Christ.

[b:41fb1a2c50]1 John 1:8-10 [/b:41fb1a2c50]If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

As noted in my previous posts, all the phraseology used in these verses (the truth/word not being in us, confession of sins, forgiveness of sins, cleansing from unrighteousness, and making God a liar) has to do with being saved versus being lost—not a believer being spiritual or carnal (again, spirituality is not even mentioned).

Now honestly, Galiban, when we look at the scriptures I’ve cited and the scriptures you’ve cited, which ones are actually relevant to 1 John 1?

[i:41fb1a2c50]Thessalonians Chapter 5: 1-11 really clearly states that he is warning the “Brethren” (fellow believers) to [b:41fb1a2c50]stay out of the darkness [/b:41fb1a2c50]and not fall asleep. You need to put on the breastplate of Faith (study of doctrine, remember Faith is not believing in something we do not understand but that which we have studied and come to know) to stay sober and alert; the opposition force of sleeping/darkness in the previous verse of chapter 5.[/i:41fb1a2c50]

[u:41fb1a2c50][b:41fb1a2c50]1 Thessalonians 5[/b:41fb1a2c50][/u:41fb1a2c50]
[b:41fb1a2c50]1 [/b:41fb1a2c50]But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
[b:41fb1a2c50]2[/b:41fb1a2c50] For yourselves know perfectly that the [b:41fb1a2c50]day of the Lord [/b:41fb1a2c50]so cometh as a thief in the night.
[b:41fb1a2c50]3[/b:41fb1a2c50] For when [u:41fb1a2c50]they[/u:41fb1a2c50] shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon [u:41fb1a2c50][b:41fb1a2c50]them[/b:41fb1a2c50][/u:41fb1a2c50], as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
[b:41fb1a2c50]4[/b:41fb1a2c50] But [b:41fb1a2c50]ye, brethren, are [u:41fb1a2c50]not in darkness[/u:41fb1a2c50][/b:41fb1a2c50], that that day should overtake you as a thief.
[b:41fb1a2c50]5[/b:41fb1a2c50] Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: [b:41fb1a2c50]we are not of the night, nor of darkness[/b:41fb1a2c50].

“They” are clearly the unbelieving world who will be caught unsuspecting and destroyed at the Lord's return; “they” are the ones in darkness. The day of the Lord will come upon them as a thief, but it will not come upon us as a thief. The “brethren” are the “children of light” and “children of the day”; they are not “of the night, nor of darkness.” Paul does not say anything like “Stay out of the darkness.” He tells the brethren that they are not in darkness to begin with. Once again, the difference between light and darkness is the difference between being saved or lost.

[i:41fb1a2c50]Context of Ephesians 5 is avoiding the operation of the sin nature and fulfilling God’s will. The “magical bridge” is scriptural understanding. Ephesians 5 tells us how we grieve the spirit. 1John Chapter 1 tells us how to regain that fellowship.[/i:41fb1a2c50]

I can see that dealing with you is going to be a lot like dealing with ephesians. You have ignored every question I’ve asked you and him concerning this alleged correlation between “fellowship” and grieving and quenching the Spirit. From my 02/17 post: “Of course we are commanded not to grieve and quench the Spirit, Galiban, but [b:41fb1a2c50]where does the Bible ever say that naming and citing our sins is the solution to grieving and quenching the Spirit? [/b:41fb1a2c50]You can’t just keep building this imaginary magical bridge between 1 John 1:9 and all these other verses, with no logical scriptural reason to do so. Again, Eph 4-6 is all about spiritual growth and the qualities of spiritual maturity I just mentioned. In 1 Thess 5, we see many similar spiritual qualities, such as comforting and supporting the weak, having patience toward ot hers, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks. [b:41fb1a2c50]Confessing sins is never even mentioned in these passages.[/b:41fb1a2c50]” Fellowship is never mentioned in Eph 4 and 1 Thess 5 either. Isn’t it strange that all these things (the components of your “rebound” doctrine) are never mentioned together in the same passage, Galiban? Aren’t you getting tired of building highways?

Again, from my 02/17 post: “[b:41fb1a2c50]Where is it ever stated that setting aside the old man and putting on the new man are the result of confessing our sins? [/b:41fb1a2c50]Again, look at the context of Eph 4, and find me one verse that tells us to confess sins.” ... “Of course we have a choice of which nature (old or new) that we will follow. We have daily choices to obey God or obey our own flesh. But [b:41fb1a2c50]where in the entire Bible does that choice have anything to do with naming and citing a list of our sins to God?[/b:41fb1a2c50]” Will you ever get around to giving me a direct answer to each of these questions? Or are they questions that you cannot answer?

[i:41fb1a2c50]Ephesians 5 tells us how we [b:41fb1a2c50]grieve the spirit[/b:41fb1a2c50]. 1John Chapter 1 tells us how to [b:41fb1a2c50]regain that fellowship[/b:41fb1a2c50].[/i:41fb1a2c50]

There is a giant ASSUMPTION in between these two sentences. You ASSUME that grieving the Spirit means losing fellowship. Yet, in spite of my repeated challenges to both you and ephesians, you have not presented a shred of evidence that grieving the Spirit and fellowship have anything to do with each other. Why couldn’t Paul have simply just told us how to “regain that fellowship” right in Ephesians 5? Wasn’t it awfully irresponsible of him to leave out such an important point?[/b]

Pastor Bill quote

Quote

Is he a cult? Probably not.

Testy says: are you aware of cult charactersitics? [www.refocus.org]

Testy

[i:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]Doctrine of rebound and maintaining fellowship [/b:be898b1b25]
This is a more in depth follow up to address some of the inaccurate understandings you have.
Lets look at Old Testament confession of sin.
The Levitical priesthood in the Old Testament was a habitual and continual confession of sin. Leviticus 5:6-10
Now when you sinned you needed to go see a Priest and present the sin offering for your sin and then the Priest would make atonement for you. Why was this not done once? Why every-time they visited the priest? The answer is Hebrews 10:1-3[/i:be898b1b25]

First of all, Galiban, is there any mention of losing and regaining fellowship here? As usual, No. Secondly, did the O.T. Jews go running to the priest to make a sacrifice every time they sinned? Obviously not. So can Leviticus 5 have anything to do with “rebound”?

This is part of the Levitical rituals designed to teach the Jews the righteousness of God and to foreshadow the coming Messiah who would wash away their sins. And these particular offerings in Lev 5 were for specific breaches of the Law, such as withholding testimony when one hears false witness (v. 1), touching an unclean thing or man (vv. 2-3), or failing to keep one’s oath, even when the consequences of the oath were not known (v. 4). In the Law, there were specific rituals related to specific breaches of the Law, in order to reveal to the Jews their sinful state before a holy God, and to reveal to them the future advent of the Son of God. As you said yourself, they were only required to make confession of these particular violations [i:be898b1b25]when they visited the priest[/i:be898b1b25]. It was not done every time they committed any sin, nor was it for the purpose of “regaining fellowship. “ As you said yourself, it was to make [i:be898b1b25]atonement[/i:be898b1b25]—the O.T. covering of sins which foreshadowed the Cross. I’m glad you cited Hebrews 10, because you are actually refuting your own argument. The main theme of the book of Hebrews is that [b:be898b1b25]no more sacrifice is required[/b:be898b1b25]. The writer (probably Paul) states repeatedly that those O.T. rituals should no longer be practiced, because the ultimate, final Sacrifice has been accomplished forever at the Cross—and it would be blasphemous to require any more sacrifice. You try to use the O.T. Levitical sacrifices to justify “rebound,” and then you quote the N.T. epistle that emphatically teaches that those same sacrifices are completely done away with, and it would even be blasphemous to go back to them! Come on Galiban, this is [i:be898b1b25]Rightly Dividing the Word 101 [/i:be898b1b25]here. I shouldn’t have to remind a “theologian” like yourself of such basic theological principles.

[i:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]Hebrews Chapter 10 Breakdown [/b:be898b1b25]
(Hebrews 10:1-3.) The writer explains that the confession of sins was a continual reminder and [b:be898b1b25]that confession was [/b:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]for the perfection/maturity of the worshiper[/b:be898b1b25].[/i:be898b1b25]

Galiban (the theologian), the whole point of this passage is that the O.T. sacrifices could [b:be898b1b25]not [/b:be898b1b25]make anyone perfect/complete!

[u:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]Hebrews 10[/b:be898b1b25][/u:be898b1b25]
[b:be898b1b25]1 [/b:be898b1b25]For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, [b:be898b1b25]can [u:be898b1b25]never[/u:be898b1b25][/b:be898b1b25] with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually [b:be898b1b25]make the comers thereunto perfect[/b:be898b1b25].
[b:be898b1b25]2 [/b:be898b1b25]For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
[b:be898b1b25]3 [/b:be898b1b25]But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
[b:be898b1b25]4 [/b:be898b1b25]For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

[i:be898b1b25]It was the constant reminder. This was but a shadow of the things to come. Though we have given up the sacrifice. The constant confession would [b:be898b1b25]persist for the perfection of the believer[/b:be898b1b25].[/i:be898b1b25]

Where in this entire chapter (or the entire book) does it say that [i:be898b1b25]anything [/i:be898b1b25]from the Levitical rituals would “persist for the perfection of the believer”? How many times does the writer have to tell us that these things have [i:be898b1b25]passed away?[/i:be898b1b25]

Also, your “constant confession” of “rebound” is very different from the confession of particular violations, or the offerings on particular holy days, performed by the O.T. Israelites. “Rebound” is a constant, minute-by-minute confession of all sins that would have been totally foreign to any O.T. Israelite. You talk about “grace” and the “finished work,” yet you impose a burden on Church-age believers that is far greater than anything that was required in the O.T. The whole purpose of the O.T. sacrifices was to foreshadow the ultimate final Sacrifice of Christ at the Cross—it was not to illustrate “rebound.” The atonement ritual performed in the O.T. represented the once-and-for-all Atonement that would be accomplished at the Cross and the complete forgiveness that comes with it—not attaining forgiveness over and over through some ongoing, repetitive “rebound” ritual.

I find it incredible that you would try to use the O.T. Levitical sacrifices to justify “rebound,” and then go to Heb 10, which emphatically teaches that those same sacrifices are done away with. You even said so yourself:

[i:be898b1b25]10:18 [b:be898b1b25]No longer is an offering needed [/b:be898b1b25]now that [b:be898b1b25]forgiveness for the sins we commit is complete[/b:be898b1b25].[/i:be898b1b25]

You try to use the Levitical offerings to support your “rebound” doctrine, and then you turn around and say those offerings are no longer needed. Since the offerings are no longer needed, how can they be used to teach “rebound” in the Church Age? (Especially when they had nothing to do with “rebound” even in the O.T.)

You say that Heb 10 teaches that we have to keep “rebounding” to keep getting [i:be898b1b25]forgiven[/i:be898b1b25], and then you turn around and say the point of this passage is that our forgiveness is [i:be898b1b25]complete[/i:be898b1b25]. Which one is it? Is it complete, or isn’t it? Is it a Finished Work, or is it not? Is it teaching us to keep getting forgiven over and over again, or is it teaching us to rest in the assurance that our forgiveness is complete?

[i:be898b1b25]10:19 Notice Brothers and sisters. This is to believers! We can operate as the High Priest did. We have the ability to enter the Holy of Holies by the Blood of Jesus Christ. Not for sacrifice but [b:be898b1b25]for [/b:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]fellowship[/b:be898b1b25]! [/i:be898b1b25][ASSUMPTION]
[i:be898b1b25]10:20 this verse states in a new and living way. [b:be898b1b25]This is the “rebound” which is discussed. [/b:be898b1b25][/i:be898b1b25][ASSUMPTION] We have a new way to have [b:be898b1b25]fellowship [/b:be898b1b25][ASSUMPTION] with the Shakinah glory that dwells inside of us. (That is where God resided in the Holy of Holies.)

Where is “fellowship” even mentioned here? Is it even mentioned in the entire epistle? Isn’t it strange that your “fellowship” passages do not even mention fellowship?

[u:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]Hebrews 10[/b:be898b1b25][/u:be898b1b25]
[b:be898b1b25]16 [/b:be898b1b25]This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
[b:be898b1b25]17 [/b:be898b1b25]And [b:be898b1b25]their sins and iniquities will I [u:be898b1b25]remember no more[/u:be898b1b25][/b:be898b1b25].

If God has promised us that He does not remember our sins, then why does He break fellowship with us every time we sin...and then make us come to Him in prayer to remind Him of every sin we commit?

[b:be898b1b25]18 [/b:be898b1b25]Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
[b:be898b1b25]19 [/b:be898b1b25]Having therefore, brethren, [b:be898b1b25][u:be898b1b25]boldness[/u:be898b1b25] to enter into the holiest [/b:be898b1b25]by the blood of Jesus,

How can we have “[b:be898b1b25]boldness[/b:be898b1b25] to enter the holiest,” when our fellowship with God can be broken at any moment, without us even realizing it?

[b:be898b1b25]20 [/b:be898b1b25]By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
[b:be898b1b25]21 [/b:be898b1b25]And having an high priest over the house of God;
[b:be898b1b25]22 [/b:be898b1b25]Let us [b:be898b1b25][u:be898b1b25]draw near[/u:be898b1b25] with a true heart in full assurance of [u:be898b1b25]faith[/u:be898b1b25][/b:be898b1b25], having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
[b:be898b1b25]23 [/b:be898b1b25]Let us [b:be898b1b25][u:be898b1b25]hold fast[/u:be898b1b25] the profession of our faith without wavering[/b:be898b1b25]; (for he is faithful that promised;)
[b:be898b1b25]24 [/b:be898b1b25]And let us consider one another to provoke [b:be898b1b25]unto [u:be898b1b25]love[/u:be898b1b25] and to [u:be898b1b25]good works[/u:be898b1b25][/b:be898b1b25]:

When the writer of Hebrews exhorts us to “draw near” to God, does he mention anything about confessing sins to recover fellowship? Once again, No. He commands us to have “faith,” perseverance (“hold fast”), “love,” and “good works.” And not the slightest hint of “rebound.”

[u:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]Hebrews 4[/b:be898b1b25][/u:be898b1b25]
[b:be898b1b25]9 [/b:be898b1b25]There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
[b:be898b1b25]10 [/b:be898b1b25]For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
[b:be898b1b25]11 [/b:be898b1b25]Let us labour therefore to [b:be898b1b25]enter into that [u:be898b1b25]rest[/u:be898b1b25][/b:be898b1b25], lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
[b:be898b1b25]12 [/b:be898b1b25]For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
[b:be898b1b25]13 [/b:be898b1b25]Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
[b:be898b1b25]14 [/b:be898b1b25]Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us [b:be898b1b25][u:be898b1b25]hold fast[/u:be898b1b25] our profession[/b:be898b1b25].
[b:be898b1b25]15 [/b:be898b1b25]For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
[b:be898b1b25]16 [/b:be898b1b25]Let us therefore [b:be898b1b25]come [u:be898b1b25]boldly[/u:be898b1b25] unto the throne of grace[/b:be898b1b25], that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Previously, in chapter 4, the writer also exhorts us to “come boldly unto the throne of grace.” Here, as in Heb 10, we are encouraged to have faith, “hold fast,” and have boldness, without the slightest hint of confessing our sins to be “restored to fellowship.” (Again, simple common sense... Here we have a prior chapter in the same epistle talking about the same things—a very obvious reason for comparison of scriptures.)

[u:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25]James 4[/b:be898b1b25][/u:be898b1b25]
[b:be898b1b25]6 [/b:be898b1b25]But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God [b:be898b1b25]resisteth the [u:be898b1b25]proud[/u:be898b1b25][/b:be898b1b25], but [b:be898b1b25]giveth grace unto the [u:be898b1b25]humble[/u:be898b1b25][/b:be898b1b25].
[b:be898b1b25]7 [/b:be898b1b25]Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
[b:be898b1b25]8 [/b:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25][u:be898b1b25]Draw nigh[/u:be898b1b25] to God, and he will [u:be898b1b25]draw nigh[/u:be898b1b25] to you[/b:be898b1b25]. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
[b:be898b1b25]9 [/b:be898b1b25]Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.
[b:be898b1b25]10 [/b:be898b1b25][b:be898b1b25][u:be898b1b25]Humble yourselves[/u:be898b1b25] in the sight of the Lord[/b:be898b1b25], and he shall lift you up.

Do any of these passages even mention restoration to fellowship or an instant restoration of the filling of the Spirit? As always, No. Drawing near to God has to do with faith, humility, perseverance, and prayer, as we grow spiritually and learn to trust Him and rest in His promises (“experiential sanctification”). It has nothing to do with “rebound.”

[i:be898b1b25]We can now approach God in this new and living way. This is stated in the present tense and should be a continual action. This is the disclosed description from God. The curtain that is still in front of the Jews is open to us. Hebrews is tying into the understanding of the “Mechanical Truth” of our Royal Priesthood. He is describing why and how by the “Systematic Result”.[/i:be898b1b25]

Your own “Hebrews Chapter 10 Breakdown” is a refutation of your own doctrine. You try to use the O.T. sacrifices to teach “rebound”—confessing our sins for forgiveness—and then you cite a chapter from the N.T. where those sacrifices are done away with and forgiveness is complete! You stumble all over yourself trying to make this doctrine work...and then you throw your favorite technical terms at us one more time, and expect us to take you at your word. It doesn’t matter how much you ramble on about “mechanical” and “systematic” results—you still won’t be any closer to proving your doctrine from the Bible.

To Everyone:

I was told by one of Thieme's lieutenants that "...when you finish your service with the Marine Corps, you can come back and join our army". I remember as a teenager how much zealous hatred of Communists and Muslims I had acquired from Thieme's indoctrination training. Thieme taught that they were satanic. As I grew older I realized that Jesus does not have this hatred of Communists and Muslims. Thieme did have this hatred. The Corporate MIC (military industrial complex) teaches this hatred. WAR PROFITEERS teach this hatred. I remember, as a teenager I was forced to listen to Thieme. Eventually my identity was broken down. After that I remember how I could not wait to become a "Army Ranger, Marine Corps Recon or Navy Seal" So I could die for the honor of the United States, christianity, Berachah and my family and especially to be remembered on the Berachah prayer list. Not being capable of keeping up Thieme's teaching of the "super-grace" role with it's repetitive rebound mantra and with a visceral self-hatred of who I was, it was much simpler to cut my life short by dying for christianity in the status of "super-grace" while in combat, in the US military special forces. Besides I might posthmously be awarded the congressional medal of honor. Thieme often read congressional medal of honor winner's citations from the pulpit. Is this any different than a Muslim Jihadist strapping on a explosives belt and dying for Islam and family? Is this any different than Al Qaeda recruiting, training, and motivating recruits using cultic methods? Is this any different than Muslims making films of themselves so they will be remembered? I say it's not. After suffering a nervous breakdown and reading my little greek lexicon for myself, I realized that what Thieme taught could not be christianity. I had food, housing, and college fund promises revoked because I told my parents that Thieme was "not for me".

What was it Thieme said? "The Army Rangers sure love those ""Berachah boys"" How many Berachah boys work for Blackwater? Blackwater (right-wing mercenary christian corporation) is recruiting special forces soldiers of the USA. Blackwater operates outside of US law A blackwater security contractor makes 20,000 dollars per month, while a regular US soldier taking the same risk earns at best 1/5th of that salary. Blackwater operated domestically during Katrina and is setting up operation in every US coastal state.

2 part series Blackwater
[www.democracynow.org]
[www.democracynow.org]

2006 Republican Congress has made it easier for the President to declare Martial Law. see section on Martial Law. [www.democracynow.org]

If the president declares Martial Law, Blackwater would be there to enforce right-wing christian totalianarism over democracy. Extreme right wing-christians don't mind an authoritative fascist "one world order" as long as it is a right-wing christian authoritative fascist "one world order". Sounds kinda like "Taliban".

Jesus did not say "by this sign conquer", Constantine did. Jesus said "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves". Constantine selected the books of the bible (council of Nicea). There was no separation of church and state in Rome. The Ceaser was the head of the church, the "Pontifus Maximus." The Pope carries this title to this day. If used incorrectly the "Roman bible" can used by extremists as a blueprint for Roman christian fascist Imperialism.

I'd also like to point out that Thieme taught from a so-called "christian pulpit" that Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon should all be attacked and conquered. This was in the early 1970s!

People need to speak out thier door, before the right-wing fascists corporations gain enough power to kick in your door.

Don't say I didn't warn you.


Truthtesty

[i:d19f5d96e6]At this point your belief would come in that now we have the “Completed work of the Cross” This is not an inaccurate doctrine. We were [b:d19f5d96e6]completely forgiven [/b:d19f5d96e6]for our sins. True! We will never be judged for those sins. True! The confession of sins does not in anyway affect our salvation. True! We will only be judged for our works/deeds at the judgement. Not sins. Only one sin, that is unbelief, can stop you from entering heaven.
That is positional truth![/i:d19f5d96e6]
[i:d19f5d96e6]To further explain this; we were [b:d19f5d96e6]positionally forgiven [/b:d19f5d96e6]our sins at salvation, we are [b:d19f5d96e6]experientially forgiven [/b:d19f5d96e6]our sins as we confess them inside the function of our Royal Priesthood/Universal Priesthood, and we are [b:d19f5d96e6]ultimately forgiven [/b:d19f5d96e6]all sins in the eternal state.[/i:d19f5d96e6]

This is a perfect example of what Thieme’s convoluted technical system produces. We now have, not one, not two, but [i:d19f5d96e6]three [/i:d19f5d96e6]kinds of forgiveness! Do you have a shred of proof for this, Galiban? If we are indeed completely forgiven already, then there is no need for this so-called “ultimate” forgiveness that we have to wait for eternity to receive. We can have the confidence of complete forgiveness right now in time. We do not have to wait for eternity for our forgiveness to be complete. Simple common sense, Galiban: If we are still waiting for some kind of “ultimate” forgiveness, then our forgiveness is not complete at all. God cannot partially forgive sins, Galiban. He can either completely and eternally forgive us for our transgressions against Him through the perfect sacrifice of His Son at the Cross, or He ca nnot forgive us at all. When God forgives, He forgives all our sins [i:d19f5d96e6]completely and eternally[/i:d19f5d96e6]. Our sins are washed away, and can never come between Him and us again. Forgiveness is completely accomplished by the Cross of Jesus Christ the moment we believe in Him. And to say that our forgiveness is not yet finished is borderline heresy. It compromises the [u:d19f5d96e6]Finished[/u:d19f5d96e6] Work of the Cross.

Thieme finally realized he was teaching a contradiction, with all these different “forgivenesses,” so he finally gave up on it, and decided to totally deny that forgiveness ever even took place at the Cross. And this is outright heresy. This is probably the fourth or fifth time I’ve challenged you and the other Thieme followers here on this issue, and I’ll continue to challenge you until you give me a direct answer.

[i:d19f5d96e6]However, your sins must be continuously recognized by you, you must be experientially sanctified and you must be cleansed from those sins. [b:d19f5d96e6]I point back to the “foot washing”.[/b:d19f5d96e6][/i:d19f5d96e6]

You really are so much like ephesians. You just refuse to give me a direct answer my questions. You seem to think you can get around them with a vague statement like “I point back to the ‘foot washing.’” But this does not answer any of the questions I have challenged you with. So I’ll repeat them again (from my 02/17 post): “When our Lord Himself explains the lesson behind the foot washing, [b:d19f5d96e6]does He mention [u:d19f5d96e6]anything at all[/u:d19f5d96e6] about confessing sins or regaining fellowship? [/b:d19f5d96e6]If “rebound” were true, this would certainly be an ideal place in the Bible to tell us about confessing our sins for restoration to fellowship. But our Lord says nothing of the kind. He says He has given us an “example” of how we are to treat one another. He commands us to “wash one another’s feet.” [b:d19f5d96e6]If the washing of the feet refers to confessing our sins for forgiveness, then [u:d19f5d96e6]how can we possibly wash each other’s feet[/u:d19f5d96e6]? Do we [u:d19f5d96e6]cleanse each other’s sins[/u:d19f5d96e6]? Why are you [u:d19f5d96e6]inventing another explanation[/u:d19f5d96e6] of foot washing, when our Lord has already given us a crystal clear explanation Himself?[/b:d19f5d96e6]” Why is your explanation of the foot washing completely different from the Lord’s? And if “rebound” was already known and practiced throughout the O.T., and was known and practiced by the disciples during Jesus’ ministry, then why would He have to teach it to them at the end of His earthly ministry by washing their feet? I’m still waiting for answers to my questions, Galiban.

[i:d19f5d96e6]However, your sins must be continuously recognized by you, you must be [b:d19f5d96e6][u:d19f5d96e6]experientially[/u:d19f5d96e6] sanctified [/b:d19f5d96e6]and you must be cleansed from those sins. I point back to the “foot washing”.

As an aside to address [b:d19f5d96e6][u:d19f5d96e6]positional[/u:d19f5d96e6] sanctification [/b:d19f5d96e6](John 13:14-15). We are to deal with all others on the basis of their position in Christ. Not according to the sins they have or are committing. When we do this we understand that Jesus has [b:d19f5d96e6]washed their feet [/b:d19f5d96e6]and they are [b:d19f5d96e6]now positionally cleansed[/b:d19f5d96e6] from their sins.[/i:d19f5d96e6]

[b:d19f5d96e6]John 13:14 [/b:d19f5d96e6]If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
[b:d19f5d96e6]John 13:15 [/b:d19f5d96e6]For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Wait a minute. Hold on. First this passage was teaching “rebound,” and now it’s teaching “positional sanctification”? I thought that our feet being washed meant “rebound” and [i:d19f5d96e6]experiential [/i:d19f5d96e6]sanctification? Now you’re saying it means “positional cleansing” from sins? Which one is it? You’re stumbling all over yourself, Galiban the mechanic. How do you answer these questions: If the washing of the feet refers to positional sanctification, then how can we possibly wash each other’s feet? Do we positionally cleanse each other’s sins?

The foot washing does indeed represent how we are to deal with others; the Lord’s own simple explanation makes that crystal clear. But there is nothing in this entire passage to indicate that it represents “rebound.” And it cannot possibly represent “positional sanctification.” Our positional sanctification—our eternal standing [i:d19f5d96e6]in Christ[/i:d19f5d96e6]—is already completely accomplished and unchangeable; it is not dependent in any way on an ongoing mandate for the Christian life, like washing one another’s feet.

There is nothing “systematic” about your entire argument, Galiban. You have yet to present a shred of scriptural evidence or any legitimate reason whatsoever for connecting 1 John 1:9 to any of your “rebound” passages. You have only created imaginary “highways” based on empty assumptions.

[i:d19f5d96e6]I do realize I Have “dumbed” down years of theological study and a lot of terminology is unfamiliar. I cannot relay years of doctrinal study in just a post on a forum.[/i:d19f5d96e6]

Thank-you so much, Galiban the “mechanic,” for “dumbing down” your advanced theology for the benefit of lower-class Christian “swine” like us! Of course you cannot fit years of study into a chat forum posting, but you should certainly be able to show some kind of clear, logical reason for connecting one scripture to another. Yet all you’ve been able to do is throw up a smokescreen of technical terminology, and try to hide the fact that you cannot answer my questions.

In closing, Galiban, allow me to remind you of a statement from your previous post:

[i:d19f5d96e6]...another false teacher that touts a seemingly convincing arguement that is not based upon doctrinal understanding but on judgmental viewpoint and [b:d19f5d96e6]legalism[/b:d19f5d96e6].[/i:d19f5d96e6]

After you accused me of teaching “legalism,” I responded with a point-by-point comparison of our respective doctrinal views, demonstrating that it is actually your doctrine that is legalistic. To this point, you still have not responded. I would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

So long for now, Galiban the mechanical theologian...

Liberty

To brainout:

Joint (860) (haphe from hápto = to connect, adjoin) refers to a juncture or point of contact of one part of body with another. Joints or parts of contact are very important among the members of Christ's body even as the joints are to the body (see note Colossians 2:19). Spiritually, these joints receive their nourishment from the Head, Christ (see note Colossians 1:18), but how we are joined together with other members of Christ's body affects the whole body of Christ, the Church.

SUNARMOLOGEW means "a harmony of thinking; a unity of words or ideas; concord in thinking", with emphasis on accuracy because the thinking is based on God's word.

SUMBIBAZW from sun - sun 4862 and bibazo (to force; causative (by reduplication) of the base of 939); to drive together, i.e. unite (in association or affection), (mentally) to infer, show, teach:--compact, assuredly gather, intrust, knit together, prove.

IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A "RIGHT" PASTOR HAVING SOLE AUTHORITY OVER HIS OWN CONGREGATION. THERE IS SOME CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS PAUL HAS WITH PETER AND JAMES. PAUL WAS NOT ONE OF THE ORIGINAL APOSTLES. PAUL NEVER MET JESUS IN THE FLESH. SO IF THERE IS A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN WHAT JESUS SAYS AND WHAT PAUL SAYS, WELL JESUS WINS THAT DEBATE HANDS DOWN.

Truthtesty

So I will not reply to you.

To brainout:

Even though you were addressing someone else in your post, I'll answer the question.

brainout quote posted: 03-24-2007 07:49 AM

Quote

You wrote, back on 2/12/2007: "Many thought Paul was a cult. Many believers gave him the nickname, "the abortion." Did you know that?"
Would you mind telling me where you learned this? I'm interested in this kind of information. Thank you in advance for your time, and if you're not interested in answering the query, please don't.

Testy says: Paul called himself the abortion 1 Corinthians 15:8


Testy