Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well it is commonly taught that if you believe in Christ you will be saved and if you don't you will go to hell.

Did I somehow say something different from this?

Please tell me where I did. Anyone?

This has been my point. This is a simple statement. It is (arguably) right there in the scripture. (I say arguably because there are some that think it is not quite so clear. But so far they have not been persuasive.)

You don't need to understand where it is, precisely, that you go upon death and before the resurrection. You don't even need to understand the nature of the body you will receive upon resurrection. But if I have to say anything about it, I will stick to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. I will not try to read more into the limited things said than what was written.

I will not comment specifically on the other "what if" kind of things you bring up.

To All:

I will provide another post in a moment that will underscore my base. Where I am coming from. And if you really can't tolerate it after that, then I realize that there is a problem here that makes my participation nearly worthless.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did I somehow say something different from this?

Please tell me where I did. Anyone?

This has been my point. This is a simple statement. It is (arguably) right there in the scripture. (I say arguably because there are some that think it is not quite so clear. But so far they have not been persuasive.)

You don't need to understand where it is, precisely, that you go upon death and before the resurrection. You don't even need to understand the nature of the body you will receive upon resurrection. But if I have to say anything about it, I will stick to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. I will not try to read more into the limited things said than what was written.

I will not comment specifically on the other "what if" kind of things you bring up.

To All:

I will provide another post in a moment that will underscore my base. Where I am coming from. And if you really can't tolerate it after that, then I realize that there is a problem here that makes my participation nearly worthless.

There is no verse anywhere in scripture that says everyone who does not believe in Jesus will go to hell.

The closest verse you can get is to say that the "unbelieving" will be cast into the Lake of fire. But, as you have been so vehemently arguing you cannot assume that this must be equivalent to something spoken in another book. Especially since within the same context of the consummation of all things in Revelation it says that "the nations will bring their glory into the New Jerusalem". And in several places it says that the believers will "rule and reign" over the nations.

There are too many verses in the New Testament that would cause you to question that, for example the verse I already gave you, 2Peter 2:20-21

If every non believer is cast into the lake of fire how could it be "better" for someone to have never believed than after having believed to turn back from the right way?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But if I have to say anything about it, I will stick to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. I will not try to read more into the limited things said than what was written.

That will be a nice change. Can you itemize what I have spoken that was more than what was written?

[OBW]

A few posts back, MacDuff probably said some of what I would say better than I would. I will not say that I agree with him on some of his positions. And I surely would not simply take the Catholic position over that of Protestantism.

Except in a few things. And those seem to be the things that are underpinning the nature of the recent arguments. I do not simply agree with the Catholics on these. But note that they are at least rational and consistent in how they approach and deal with scripture.

Sola Scriptura was developed in response to some decrees of the RCC that seemed to fly in the face of what scripture actually said. Since the RCC's position is that the church is the final arbiter of what scripture means, they think it is their prerogative.

They are wrong. But the idea that scripture simply speaks clearly is nothing short of ludicrous. If we are going to dump the church, and go to scripture alone, then it becomes me and my Bible. And we all get to say. And we simply don't agree. (And look where that has gotten us.)

While I have no desire to even consider a regular "diet" of Masses, rosaries, Hail Marys etc., the fighting among the Protestants is proof that what they think is important about in understanding scripture is mostly garbage.

And in the midst of the fighting, for many it is ending.

What I note in so many posts and positions is that we have virtually all been part of (or are still part of) a group that made such a big deal about being free from the law. But despite this, we view whatever our position is as so important that everyone else ought to agree with it. Even when we dump the LRC, we want to make rules about how leaders ought to be (and whether there should even be leaders) or we are degenerate.

We mostly don't say it that strongly, but we look down our noses at a denomination simply because it is a denomination. We despise a preacher because he is paid. We think that the fact that there is someone who is primary among leadership is problematic.

But does the record in Acts ever suggest such a problem? It is clear that Peter took the lead at a time. At another time, it was James. There is no indication in the written account that this was a problem.

I don't say that there are no problems anywhere. But the problems are the actual problems, not the ones layered on by implication of purist theology.

And this is my beef, of sorts. I have seemed to take on some pretty strong opinions on things lately. But how often have you paid attention to the position I take? How often is it like the latest one here on life-after-death? We are poised to develop a new and better theology about how to say it right (and without intention, start looking down our noses at those who don't do it that way or agree with it).

My position in this particular situation is that there is not really a position to take. We are so strong to try to figure it out — a la sola scriptura — and then apply our new-found theology as a yardstick to judge others.

I am not saying that there is no cause for getting things right. But the history from which we spring tends to push us to repeat the same errors that we now despise in Lee and the LRC. And that is thinking you got it right and judging everyone else for their error.

There is a place for getting it right. And that place is together. It is as the church. Not the Catholic church, or this denomination or that denomination. But as Christians willing to look beyond our petty preferences and search for truth together. I prefer immersion for baptism. Others sprinkling. I prefer believers baptism. Others take the words where whole households were baptized and do it on that basis of the household (and thus infant baptism). (BTW, do any of those groups believe, as a matter of teaching, that the infant is now saved?) But beyond these things that we differ upon, there is the core of the faith. And on this we agree. We may ultimately conclude that other positions are "right."

But we should always consider whether they are important. What does scripture actually say about it? Or is it just am implication?

And we should ask more questions than we answer. Even the scientific method of modernism finds answers by asking questions and seeking beyond what is known. Too often, our only question is where to find proof of what it is that we have already decided is true.

And when that is the exercise, then the postmodern position is far superior. Don't just tell me. Show me.

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Shw me how you are changed.

You claim that Christ makes you one. demonstrate it. I will assure you that just because there are two different groups meeting in different ways across the street from each other, that alone will not be seen as disproof of oneness. The fact that they come out together to live the gospel in the community without discord is proof that they are.

I obviously love logic. And, at some level, I love theology. But I hate theology that does not have meaningful impact on people's lives today. That picks through what is wrong with other Christians and how to avoid them. I hate theology that is at the cost of loving one another. And since there will be more than one way to understand what happens between death and the resurrection, I am happy for those who have come to peace because of their version (as a result of sola scripture — me and my Bible). But I hate the creation of a "this is the answer" when it has no bearing on love for one another — rather puts one more bullet in the gun of discord.

I do not say this concerning the core of the person of Christ and the core of salvation. Only concerning the periphery. And of all the things mentioned in scripture in any way, shape or form, what happens between death and the resurrection is one of the more unspecified items there is. I cringe at the very act of trying to "figure it out," especially to go to such lengths to defend the need to do so.

I do not believe that the need exists. Scripture itself, in its silence, seems to agree.

Figure it out for yourself if you want. Like your conclusions. Don't think they are "right" and others are "wrong." If it comforts you to go this route, then so be it. But to rejoin with others to defend the importance of the topic is to require a specific result which is to add one more cause for lack of unity in the body. One more new Christian denomination or splinter group.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

My position in this particular situation is that there is not really a position to take. We are so strong to try to figure it out — a la sola scriptura — and then apply our new-found theology as a yardstick to judge others.

I don't think anyone in this thread has really disagreed. While in the LRC we seemed sure we knew what happened, but I think the verses we have looked at have made a very strong case that at the very least the LRC position is not a strong one and, actually may be an erroneous one.

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not saying that there is no cause for getting things right. But the history from which we spring tends to push us to repeat the same errors that we now despise in Lee and the LRC. And that is thinking you got it right and judging everyone else for their error.

That is one reason why I stood firm on this discussion because I was clearly painted with that brush because I asked someone training children a question about their teaching. If you are saying the response I got was reminiscent of the LRC I wouldn't disagree. If you are saying that I am the one that is so sure I got it right it doesn't make sense, over the course of the discussion I have completely changed my understanding.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a place for getting it right. And that place is together. It is as the church. Not the Catholic church, or this denomination or that denomination. But as Christians willing to look beyond our petty preferences and search for truth together.

Isn't that what we were doing?

Originally Posted by OBW

I prefer immersion for baptism. Others sprinkling. I prefer believers baptism. Others take the words where whole households were baptized and do it on that basis of the household (and thus infant baptism). (BTW, do any of those groups believe, as a matter of teaching, that the infant is now saved?) But beyond these things that we differ upon, there is the core of the faith. And on this we agree. We may ultimately conclude that other positions are "right."

Paul taught headcovering, he explained it, he brought in the OT and created a solid NT teaching. But he also said if anyone seems contentious we have no such doctrine. The point is he didn't prohibit or discourage the study of the word, he just understood there are priorities. No one on this thread ever made a point that this topic is an item of the faith. Overcomers are not an item of the faith. The rapture is not an item of the faith. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't study it. There is no basis to imply that anyone on here has elevated this discussion to "an item of the faith".

Originally Posted by OBW

But we should always consider whether they are important. What does scripture actually say about it? Or is it just am implication?

And we should ask more questions than we answer. Even the scientific method of modernism finds answers by asking questions and seeking beyond what is known. Too often, our only question is where to find proof of what it is that we have already decided is true.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression you were objecting to us asking these questions? That was also my reading of Macduff's understanding as well.

Originally Posted by OBW

And when that is the exercise, then the postmodern position is far superior. Don't just tell me. Show me.

That was the point of what Ohio was doing by bringing in the accounts and testimonies of those who have been resuscitated.

Originally Posted by OBW

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Shw me how you are changed.

I did. I shared the testimony of the Buddhist that died and saw Jesus.

Originally Posted by OBW

You claim that Christ makes you one. demonstrate it. I will assure you that just because there are two different groups meeting in different ways across the street from each other, that alone will not be seen as disproof of oneness. The fact that they come out together to live the gospel in the community without discord is proof that they are.

I obviously love logic. And, at some level, I love theology. But I hate theology that does not have meaningful impact on people's lives today. That picks through what is wrong with other Christians and how to avoid them. I hate theology that is at the cost of loving one another. And since there will be more than one way to understand what happens between death and the resurrection, I am happy for those who have come to peace because of their version (as a result of sola scripture — me and my Bible). But I hate the creation of a "this is the answer" when it has no bearing on love for one another — rather puts one more bullet in the gun of discord.

Once again this doesn't make sense. If I made a big issue of this why do I meet with this group? Why do I have my children go to the Catechism class? The level to which you and others appear to have lept to ugly conclusions is extremely offensive. I said I meet with a group, my children went to a Catechism class, they taught this, and I asked the person teaching the class privately for a verse reference. From that you jump to this idea that I am condemning others for teaching things different from my understanding. That is insulting.

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not say this concerning the core of the person of Christ and the core of salvation. Only concerning the periphery. And of all the things mentioned in scripture in any way, shape or form, what happens between death and the resurrection is one of the more unspecified items there is. I cringe at the very act of trying to "figure it out," especially to go to such lengths to defend the need to do so.

I do not believe that the need exists. Scripture itself, in its silence, seems to agree.

Figure it out for yourself if you want. Like your conclusions. Don't think they are "right" and others are "wrong." If it comforts you to go this route, then so be it. But to rejoin with others to defend the importance of the topic is to require a specific result which is to add one more cause for lack of unity in the body. One more new Christian denomination or splinter group.

You misread what I said about this being evidence that the LRC is blind, like Laodicea. I wasn't basing this on the fact that they teach that Christians don't go to heaven when they die. I do this because they mock and ridicule others for teaching that Christians go to heaven. There is a very big difference. This is why I asked "do you read the posts".

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't say that there are no problems anywhere. But the problems are the actual problems, not the ones layered on by implication of purist theology..

Well, I arguably "layered on" problems in my previous discussion of the organization of the fellowship of believers (i.e. the church), whether that organizing tendency was a problem in and of itself. I mostly saw my questioning as a public thought exercise, but as you point out the danger is that 1) there is really no way to prove if my hypothesis (say, "organizing is bad") is right or not (rather to take a stubborn satisfaction that no one can dislodge me from my position), and 2) that even if I gain a gaggle of admirers of my ideas --- Look, everyone, here is the most penetrating analyses yet!! --- really, what has it changed? What practical alternative does it offer? Really, none; except for me the freedom of being able to think "differently". For that experience alone, I am grateful. But beyond that, probably nothing good was done.

And certainly this recent thought exercise of mine (of course I speak not for other posters) has been similar. My question might have been posed thus: In the parables of Jesus, what do we see of the connections between this life and the life to come? And my attempts to tease meaning out of details like "owing 50 measures of wheat versus 100 measures" and so forth really doesn't go anywhere definitive. There is of course a "big picture" which most readers sense anyway, however they articulate it.

Originally Posted by OBW

We are poised to develop a new and better theology about how to say it right (and without intention, start looking down our noses at those who don't do it that way or agree with it)...

I appreciate your taking the time to critique in detail. I see the value in your commentary.