|
Post by mod3 on Apr 15, 2010 10:56:18 GMT -5
professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=15752&post=336346What the LWD amounts to is that no man can come to the Father except through the workers. You must have come across people who believe that? I have never heard this belief promoted either. The problem stems, I think, from people who get confused on issues of theology which, after all, can be quite complex. Ecclesiastical issues (those pertaining to the church) are quite different from salvific issues (those pertaining to salvation). Whilst I have heard throughout my nearly 20 years of professing that the Fellowship is the "only true way" and that other "worldly churches" are wrong and false (an ecclesiastical perspective), I never heard the conversant belief that people could only come to the Father through the Workers (a salvific matter). I agree that there are implications and undertones in all of this, because the term "fellowship" and "gospel" are often used interchangeably by the Friends. To "receive the gospel" is to enter the Fellowship; to enter the Fellowship is tantamount to receiving the gospel. But it would be a gross over-simplification to suggest that that is all there is to it, or worse, that the Workers teach the heresy that you cannot know God except through their works or mediation. The Workers, I believe, do teach Christianity, even if sometimes it is bogged down in secondary matters. They may not always do it perfectly; they may not preach our individual favoured doctrines. But they do, for the most part, preach Christ and him crucified, and the necessity to follow him. There is a robust doctrine of sanctification, which is to say, that once saved we must labour to be a holy people; even (as the great Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul writes) "pummeling our own bodies if necessary to bring that is pleasing to God" into them. That is the strength of the fellowship; the most attractive thing on offer: the promotion of how to live a Christ-filled life.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Apr 18, 2010 16:28:42 GMT -5
professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=15752&post=336346I have never heard this belief promoted either. The problem stems, I think, from people who get confused on issues of theology which, after all, can be quite complex. Ecclesiastical issues (those pertaining to the church) are quite different from salvific issues (those pertaining to salvation).Whilst I have heard throughout my nearly 20 years of professing that the Fellowship is the "only true way" and that other "worldly churches" are wrong and false (an ecclesiastical perspective), I never heard the conversant belief that people could only come to the Father through the Workers (a salvific matter). I agree that there are implications and undertones in all of this, because the term "fellowship" and "gospel" are often used interchangeably by the Friends. To "receive the gospel" is to enter the Fellowship; to enter the Fellowship is tantamount to receiving the gospel. But it would be a gross over-simplification to suggest that that is all there is to it, or worse, that the Workers teach the heresy that you cannot know God except through their works or mediation. The Workers, I believe, do teach Christianity, even if sometimes it is bogged down in secondary matters. They may not always do it perfectly; they may not preach our individual favoured doctrines. But they do, for the most part, preach Christ and him crucified, and the necessity to follow him. There is a robust doctrine of sanctification, which is to say, that once saved we must labour to be a holy people; even (as the great Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul writes) "pummeling our own bodies if necessary to bring that is pleasing to God" into them. That is the strength of the fellowship; the most attractive thing on offer: the promotion of how to live a Christ-filled life. So if it is true that the Ecclesiastical issues (those pertaining to the church) are so different from the salvific issues (those pertaining to salvation) a choice should be made to ignore or toss aside the one pertaining to the church, for there is no benefit in serving it?
|
|
|
Post by responding on May 19, 2010 10:30:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure what is understood by the LW doctrine. But there's a verse that might apply.... 1 John 4:6 "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood." NIV
What do you think of the apostle John when you read this? Whatever you call his doctrine, I believe he had the right to make this statement. So I would be hesitant to condemn anyone who feels the same way about his belief.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on May 19, 2010 15:45:19 GMT -5
I'm not sure what is understood by the LW doctrine. When people use the phrase Living Witness Doctrine (LWD), they are usually referring to the idea that a person can only be saved by hearing the gospel spoken/told directly by another person who has heard the gospel passed in a continuous chain all the way back to Jesus or one of the other apostles and disciples mentioned in the New Testament. The LWD means that a person cannot be saved by simply reading and understanding the gospel written in the Bible. The LWD also means that a person cannot be saved if the gospel preacher doesn't have that continuous chain back to the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on May 19, 2010 16:03:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure what is understood by the LW doctrine. When people use the phrase Living Witness Doctrine (LWD), they are usually referring to the idea that a person can only be saved by hearing the gospel spoken/told directly by another person who has heard the gospel passed in a continuous chain all the way back to Jesus or one of the other apostles and disciples mentioned in the New Testament. The LWD means that a person cannot be saved by simply reading and understanding the gospel written in the Bible.
The LWD also means that a person cannot be saved if the gospel preacher doesn't have that continuous chain back to the beginning.Would it be possible to entertain the notion that there may be some who are attached to a continuous chain back to the beginning in the form of one link back to God? Consider this verse: "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." Eph 2:18 Does that offer any clarity?
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on May 19, 2010 18:43:40 GMT -5
Would it be possible to entertain the notion that there may be some who are attached to a continuous chain back to the beginning in the form of one link back to God? In the sense of 2Tim2, yes: 1Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.And so on it goes, the gospel message. But according to strict adherents of LWD, Paul himself could not have been saved! (let alone William Irvine) Are you implying that the gospels were actually written by the people they are named after? With a statement like this, there's no use in continuing a conversation based on scripture. 'Responding', your defense of scripture as God-inspired is appreciated. Would you loosely associate with the label "evangelical Christian"? From wikipedia, evangelicalism: Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian theological stream which began in Great Britain in the 1730s. Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: - A belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again") - Some expression of the gospel in "effort" - A high regard for biblical authority - An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by responding on May 21, 2010 3:19:38 GMT -5
'Responding', your defense of scripture as God-inspired is appreciated. Would you loosely associate with the label "evangelical Christian"? As an answer I'd just say this much.... If the various theories presented here aren't backed by scripture, they don't impress me. And if they contradict the Bible in any way, it's evidence to me where they originate. I've discovered occasionally that where some find contradictions that shake their faith, in the same verses I've found significant perspectives of the same truths. These experiences have strengthened my faith in the Bible as the word of God. We just need to be more patient with ourselves and others until some scriptures become clear to us. (And shake off all the old traditional thinking that blinds us to what we read.)
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on May 22, 2010 22:56:08 GMT -5
As an answer I'd just say this much.... If the various theories presented here aren't backed by scripture, they don't impress me. And if they contradict the Bible in any way, it's evidence to me where they originate. Great response, thanks! (And shake off all the old traditional thinking that blinds us to what we read.) aah, traditions. Something in us humans that finds comfort in them. They can blind us to so much, can't they? On the other hand, some good traditions can be very useful.
|
|