That They Be One

[OBW]

I was just reading a verse for unrelated purposes the other day and saw something I did not expect.

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

Where is the oneness in these verses? Looking at the surrounding verses, it would appear to be something common inside of each of the persons mentioned, not that they are simply the person next to them.

Still doesn't answer all the questions. But I wonder if this puts a hole in any kind of Jesus is now the Holy Spirit talk.

And a couple of years ago or so when we got into a discussion of the oneness of God in terms of Jesus dying on the cross. There was some discussion that God the Father could not actually turn away from the Son. I wonder if that was a correct analysis. The Father did not die on the cross. Neither did the Spirit. It was the Son.

Still doesn't answer all the questions.

But I'm asking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I was just reading a verse for unrelated purposes the other day and saw something I did not expect.

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

Where is the oneness in these verses? Looking at the surrounding verses, it would appear to be something common inside of each of the persons mentioned, not that they are simply the person next to them.

Still doesn't answer all the questions. But I wonder if this puts a hole in any kind of Jesus is now the Holy Spirit talk.

And a couple of years ago or so when we got into a discussion of the oneness of God in terms of Jesus dying on the cross. There was some discussion that God the Father could not actually turn away from the Son. I wonder if that was a correct analysis. The Father did not die on the cross. Neither did the Spirit. It was the Son.

Still doesn't answer all the questions.

But I'm asking.

It appears to me that oneness is vouchsafed. But then, I don't know what is meant by glory.

[Dancing]

Great question about the oneness.
Just some truth tid-bits and thoughts. In Hebrew the same word is the word for honour and glory. Kavod. It's primary meaning is "weight" which translates out to "value" in Biblical times.
This context (John 17) says that this is the honor(glory) the Father and Son hold for one another. Their appreciation for one another is perfect. They are in complete oneness. It's this appreciation, this "love", which (I believe this passage supports) is the glory(honor) the Son says He had with the Father before the world began (v. 24), which He prays we will have for one another, which will also make us one.

This has such profound implications for our personal relationships. We cannot love the unlovely except we know Him. (I can't even love myself otherwise) But His love is the greatest glory and honor we can bestow on another. And we know it's what will inevitably draw men to Him, into oneness with Him and us all.

[Dancing]

Sorry. This doesn't really address your question about their "jointness" or connection. But maybe it does....
How can they be the same person? The Bible just doesn't support WL's teachings which to me are mere mental acrobatics. I simply see it as being one of the mysteries which should be enjoyed more than understood at this point in our experience. The Bible shows they are distinct but one.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Sorry. This doesn't really address your question about their "jointness" or connection. But maybe it does....
How can they be the same person? The Bible just doesn't support WL's teachings which to me are mere mental acrobatics. I simply see it as being one of the mysteries which should be enjoyed more than understood at this point in our experience. The Bible shows they are distinct but one.

I might agree that it does not direclty address the question.

Except that it does address the question about whether to say that God is "one person" is really supportable. I know I like that kind of speaking. But I am now not so sure that is it really supportable.

And all the other verses that I have come up with (probably far from all that should be considered) do not seem to need it to be one way or the other. They just speak to what they speak to, not to this issue.

So maybe that description of the Trinity that mentions "persons" (plural) with respect to the Father, Son, and Spirit, but no mention of "person" with respect to the singularity/oneness of God is not as faulty as we might have thought.

My consideration of the One God is not diminished by this. I do not find fault in the general descriptions of God as a result. Just a different possible understanding of what some of it means.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by OBW

I might agree that it does not direclty address the question.

Except that it does address the question about whether to say that God is "one person" is really supportable. I know I like that kind of speaking. But I am now not so sure that is it really supportable.

And all the other verses that I have come up with (probably far from all that should be considered) do not seem to need it to be one way or the other. They just speak to what they speak to, not to this issue.

So maybe that description of the Trinity that mentions "persons" (plural) with respect to the Father, Son, and Spirit, but no mention of "person" with respect to the singularity/oneness of God is not as faulty as we might have thought.

My consideration of the One God is not diminished by this. I do not find fault in the general descriptions of God as a result. Just a different possible understanding of what some of it means.

The ancient language of One Divine Being or Substance but three distinct Persons is as good as it gets in this age. This language has stood the test of time and is the standard language for orthodox churches throughout the world. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Lee thrived on iconoclasm and novelty. I rest in the arms of what has been accepted through the centuries and is still received by orthodox churches....ONE SUBSTANCE...THREE PERSONS...Blessed Trinity!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The ancient language of One Divine Being or Substance but three distinct Persons is as good as it gets in this age. This language has stood the test of time and is the standard language for orthodox churches throughout the world. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Lee thrived on iconoclasm and novelty. I rest in the arms of what has been accepted through the centuries and is still received by orthodox churches....ONE SUBSTANCE...THREE PERSONS...Blessed Trinity!

No words in any human language can simply summarize the God of the Bible. Lee successfully convinced us that all Christianity was hopelessly flawed, and that he alone had the "goods' on God.

Initially many of us were attracted to his ministry because he appeared to be against systematized theology. Later on he developed his own, called "high peak."

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No words in any human language can simply summarize the God of the Bible. Lee successfully convinced us that all Christianity was hopelessly flawed, and that he alone had the "goods' on God.

Initially many of us were attracted to his ministry because he appeared to be against systematized theology. Later on he developed his own, called "high peak."

The three Ecumenical Creeds: Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian are not attempts to explain God. Quite to the contrary the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were written against Arius and those who applied human reason to the Holy Trinity. The language of those two Creeds is simply confessing what the Scripture confesses, nothing more and nothing less. Going beyond that always get us into trouble. Dame reason has its place but not in the Holy Trinity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Dame reason has its place but not in the Holy Trinity.

I love reason, as well, but if your reason alienates you from the fellowship you might want to re-consider.

It was probably after your time, but WL got in a big foofaraw about the Holy Trinity with a theologian in S. Cal. once. This guy, named "The Bible Answer Man", and WL went back and forth and back again. WL even printed a newspaper, I kid you not. Headline: "The Bible Answer Man has three gods." It was as dry as dust. I was "sold out" for the LC but I just couldn't make it through the articles; it was an unending stream of human logic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The ancient language of One Divine Being or Substance but three distinct Persons is as good as it gets in this age. This language has stood the test of time and is the standard language for orthodox churches throughout the world. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Lee thrived on iconoclasm and novelty. I rest in the arms of what has been accepted through the centuries and is still received by orthodox churches....ONE SUBSTANCE...THREE PERSONS...Blessed Trinity!

Please correct me if I make wrong conjectural leaps.

So bro Amcasci you therefore stand with the Holy Mother Church, the Roman Catholic Church (not the Eastern Orthodox).

And hold with the creeds developed by the Holy Mother Church.

And the books chosen as the canon by the Holy Mother Church.

Except you're not keen on the Papal System.

If you do have a Pope it's Martin Luther, who is long since gone.

Just being nosy ....

[UntoHim]

Harold, it's okay to be nosy, but it's not okay to be so inaccurate with what another poster has said.

I noticed you didn't actually quote Amcasci....and you didn't because you know that he said no such thing.

Go gettem Art!

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

Where is the oneness in these verses? Looking at the surrounding verses, it would appear to be something common inside of each of the persons mentioned, not that they are simply the person next to them. Still doesn't answer all the questions. But I wonder if this puts a hole in any kind of Jesus is now the Holy Spirit talk.

And a couple of years ago or so when we got into a discussion of the oneness of God in terms of Jesus dying on the cross. There was some discussion that God the Father could not actually turn away from the Son. I wonder if that was a correct analysis. The Father did not die on the cross. Neither did the Spirit. It was the Son.

WL took logic and ran it across the Bible, and in so doing found that he could discard millennia of Christian understanding of scripture. Here's the logic train we got presented with, as I remember it. "Hear, O Israel, The LORD your God is one God, and you shall have no other gods besides." So there is one God.

Next: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and was with God... and became flesh". So the one God became incarnated in the Son.

Next: "The Last Adam became the (a?) Life-Giving Spirit." So the one God, Jesus, is now the Holy Spirit.

Next: "There is one body and one Spirit, in which you were called in one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." So there can only be one Spirit. There cannot be more than one spirit.

So when John, on Patmos, sent greetings to the seven Asian churches, from Him who is and who was and who was to come, that was of course Jesus Himself on the throne, and from the seven flames burning before the throne, that was also Jesus, who is the Holy Spirit, sevenfold intensified, and from the One walking in the midst of the seven lampstands before the throne who's also, naturally, Jesus. So Jesus is simultaneously on the throne, burning in front of the throne (in seven places no less), and walking around in the midst of the seven lamps burning in front of the throne?

To me this contradicts everything we know about language, and how language conveys understanding. There's no indication whatsoever that John meant this writing to indicate something like that. Only WL's logic dictated that, so the apostle John had to be put in his proper place. But in so doing, I argue that the imagery of Revelation chapter 1 becomes nonsensical in WL's hands. My only question is: how could so many otherwise intelligent people sit through that kind of treatment? The only conclusion that I can come to is that we had to surmise that the apostle John hadn't carefully read through Paul's epistles (as WL had) and wrote in ignorant error, and this error persisted for centuries until WL came along and set everything right.

But I really doubt that. Instead, I see WL using logic like using a bulldozer to drive through a flower garden. And what a mangled mass he left behind; behold, all things are made new, indeed! The Bible got "processed" for us.

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The foundation of Lee's doctrine is his understanding of the Trinity!. Lee teaches "modalism," the idea that there is one God who reveals Himself in three different modes or stages. ...Lee's teaching destroys the distinction of persons in the Godhead.

In Revelation chapter 1 you can see the full effect of WL's teaching. All the details are dissolved. It's all just Jesus. It's all the Son. The Father is the Son. The Spirit is the Son. The seven churches, which are the Body of Christ, are the Son. The seven lamps are the Son. Maybe the seven angels, who are spirits, are really the Son (we know there can be only one Spirit, and that is Jesus. Ignore the number seven). Should I stop now, or should we keep going?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold, it's okay to be nosy, but it's not okay to be so inaccurate with what another poster has said.

I noticed you didn't actually quote Amcasci....and you didn't because you know that he said no such thing.

Go gettem Art!

I did say please correct me ... So thanks ... I can always depend on you ...

[OBW]

aron,

I started to use some quotes from your post, but decided against it. I think that anyone can find the relevant parts.

The thing to me that this reveals about the Bible is that is is more likely to be the actual writing of real people as they would talk and within what they would understand. Surely God gave revelation. And in some cases somewhat dictated the content of portions. But the actual writing was what the writers could muster. No claims that otherwise illiterate men were given dictation to transcribe word-for-word, thereby taking them out of the writing. No. That is not what we accept as God's word. It is written down by real people in the way that they can understand, and in many cases through what they saw and heard firsthand, not just what was handed down from others.

So when someone writes that the Word was God and that the Word become flesh, and then later wrote that the oneness of the Father and Son could be realized by Jesus' followers (and that the world could even see it an recognize it), then it should be evident that this writer did not somehow contemplate that the Word was both the Son and the Father who are simply the same because that would make the later prayer that we (human Christians) be one as they are one ridiculous and unable to be observed by anyone.

And it demonstrates that what the writer thought he was writing is very important. It is assumed that he is not some kind of idiot who just says contradictory things without noticing. Neither is he writing in a trance-like state the words supplied by a supreme being for our bafflement. So the ridiculous claim that "they are just the same" is not reasonable, or even logical, to be accepted.

That means that when you referred to Lee as taking logic and running it "across the Bible," you had to mean that Lee took a construct that appeared logical, but only after you bought the illogic that came before it. One of those "every thinking man knows that . . ." ruses that he used to get us to declare ourselves as thinking men as we take whatever Lee said (without thinking) and then follow on like sheep to the slaughter.

And Lee was not the first of the pied pipers of the LCM to do that. Nee did it almost as much. Just make statements and assume that everyone would accept them as true without thinking about it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

I was just reading a verse for unrelated purposes the other day and saw something I did not expect.

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

LSM/LC theology of this verse is for any Christian who wants to be one as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one, you have to be one with LSM fellowship. That is more or less of what I was once told.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by awareness

Please correct me if I make wrong conjectural leaps.

So bro Amcasci you therefore stand with the Holy Mother Church, the Roman Catholic Church (not the Eastern Orthodox).

And hold with the creeds developed by the Holy Mother Church.

And the books chosen as the canon by the Holy Mother Church.

Except you're not keen on the Papal System.

If you do have a Pope it's Martin Luther, who is long since gone.

Just being nosy ....

The Creeds do not belong to the Roman Church but the the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and as a Lutheran I confess that faith as mine and I add to that confession the clear teaching of Justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. As to Popes...sin bends us toward creating false gods after our image and likeness. If I make Luther a god then indeed I have sinned greatly but to confess with the church through the ages the true faith is hardly Popery or idolatry. If the Pope had not insisted on being the infallible vicar of Christ on earth and had admitted that it is but a human organizational device and agreed to allow churches to preach the true Gospel then our situation today would be very different than it is. No one can claim to be the infallible vicar of Christ on earth. There is an excellent piece on this in the Lutheran Confessions titled "The Power and Primacy of the Pope.

BTW, are you being sarcastic in your comments. I could not quite tell.

I do know that the Eastern Church only confesses the Nicene Creed because it was the one approved by Nicean councils. I don't think this means they reject the Apostles' Creed as heresy but only to say that it is incomplete and was never given the imprimatur of an ecumenical council. I think the reason the Athanasian Creed is not part of the Orthodox confession because it was a mostly western shoot out but I am not certain of that.
ARt

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

BTW, are you being sarcastic in your comments. I could not quite tell.

awareness has a bit of humor and sarcasm in most everything he writes.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

awareness has a bit of humor and sarcasm in most everything he writes.

Yes he seems to be our "iconoclast in chief", assuming (perhaps rightly) that idols and graven images still lurk in most of our thinking. So he tips everything upside down, or at least sideways, to see if it cracks under the strain. He had a friend named Hosepipe who was double the fun, but who got run off, eventually.

Harold, if you still see your friend Hosepipe out there, tell him we remember his spirit. I hope he's well.

[aron]

When listening to the Psalms, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: I began to hear distinct “voices” emerge.

I began to hear the speaking Holy Spirit to the Son, like Psa 121:7,8 “The LORD will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul. The LORD will guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forever.”

The very Human Son, incarnated, frail and malleable, receives by faith the word delivered to Him by the Holy Spirit. The Father will never let Him (the Son) go. The Holy Spirit says, “He (the Father) will give His angels charge concerning You (the Son), lest You (the Son) strike your foot against a stone.” (91:11, cf Luke 4:10). The Holy Spirit from Heaven declares the Father’s unfailing love to the Son here on earth. The word of God is the Spirit’s speaking to the Son.

I also hear the Father: “You (the Son) are My Son, this day I (the Father) have begotten You (the Son)” (Psa 2:7) The Father is speaking to the Son. “Sit here at My right hand until I make all Your enemies Your footstool.” (110:1, cf. Matt 22:44) The Bible is the Father is speaking to the Son.

And of course, I can hear the Son: “I will praise You (the Father) in the midst of the assembly.” (Psa 22:22) The Son is speaking to His Father. “Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth” (31:5), and “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsake Me?!” (22:1, cf Matt 27:46) and “O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit” (30:3 [see e.g. Acts 2:25-28, cf Psa 16:8-11]).

Of course the entire book is not so simply divided. There is also the repentant sinner in Psalm 51, and the forgiven sinner in Psalm 32: “Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, 'I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.' And you forgave the guilt of my sin.” But even here God’s mercy has advanced itself: “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." Luke 22:32; see e.g. Psalm 51:13 “Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, And sinners will be converted to You.” Jesus as the High Priest of God conveys the sinner’s prayer, and alone validates it.

This is contrary to the "Processed God" model of WL, where everything is Christ. The Father is Christ, the Son is Christ, and the Spirit is Christ. The Body (the Church) is Christ, and so forth. All the pronouns like "I" and "you" and "He" have dissolved into meaninglessness.

And WL's Economy of God metric has the psalmist writing, usually as "natural" or "fallen concepts", except where NT convention dictates that it be called a "revelation of Christ". Otherwise it is panned, or ignored. When in fact it may be the word of the Father speaking to the Son, or the Son speaking to the Father, or the Holy Spirit speaking to the Son, or Father. It is not the word of the fallen psalmist, occasionally revelatory of Christ. No, it is what we have known all along: it is the Word of God.

There are distinct "persons" speaking here, thus the pronouns "I" and "You" and "Me" and "He". Certainly there are distinct voices. They are all one, yes. But they are not indistinguishable. The WL interpretive metrics erase these distinctions. The only way WL could get away with this is in a place where his speaking has essentially supplanted the Word of God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The Creeds do not belong to the Roman Church but the the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and as a Lutheran I confess that faith as mine and I add to that confession the clear teaching of Justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. As to Popes...sin bends us toward creating false gods after our image and likeness. If I make Luther a god then indeed I have sinned greatly but to confess with the church through the ages the true faith is hardly Popery or idolatry. If the Pope had not insisted on being the infallible vicar of Christ on earth and had admitted that it is but a human organizational device and agreed to allow churches to preach the true Gospel then our situation today would be very different than it is. No one can claim to be the infallible vicar of Christ on earth. There is an excellent piece on this in the Lutheran Confessions titled "The Power and Primacy of the Pope.

BTW, are you being sarcastic in your comments. I could not quite tell.

I do know that the Eastern Church only confesses the Nicene Creed because it was the one approved by Nicean councils. I don't think this means they reject the Apostles' Creed as heresy but only to say that it is incomplete and was never given the imprimatur of an ecumenical council. I think the reason the Athanasian Creed is not part of the Orthodox confession because it was a mostly western shoot out but I am not certain of that.
ARt

I suppose that since I was indoctrinated as a Southern Baptist from diapers, I let a little sarcasm leak out from time to time. Please don't take it personal.

I confess I'm very curious as to how someone can leave the local church and take on the Lutheran faith. Not that I have anything against Lutherans. All that I've met and talked to seemed to be good people, trying to live a good Christian life.

I just think that it is likely that there was a lot of cognitive dissonance in the process of going from Nee/Lee to Luther. And am curious of how that journey went, and if it relates to my journey, after the local church, in any way.

Was it a "going back?" As in going back to your cradle religion? That might help me understand.

I'm just trying to figure you out bro Arthur. Sorry if I've got you wondering if I'm just pulling your leg.

See my post on your Testimony Thread.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by awareness

I suppose that since I was indoctrinated as a Southern Baptist from diapers, I let a little sarcasm leak out from time to time. Please don't take it personal.

I confess I'm very curious as to how someone can leave the local church and take on the Lutheran faith. Not that I have anything against Lutherans. All that I've met and talked to seemed to be good people, trying to live a good Christian life.

I just think that it is likely that there was a lot of cognitive dissonance in the process of going from Nee/Lee to Luther. And am curious of how that journey went, and if it relates to my journey, after the local church, in any way.

Was it a "going back?" As in going back to your cradle religion? That might help me understand.

I'm just trying to figure you out bro Arthur. Sorry if I've got you wondering if I.'m just pulling your leg.

See my post on your Testimony Thread.

Well...cognitive dissonance is a good way to put it. When I left the LC I spent another year and a half in Cleveland and lived part of that time in an old church near the zoo. I don't know how to describe the work being done there. Warren Campbell an assembly of God pastor was the director. He also served a Covenant church on the west side and I attended there. It was a period of great confusion to say the least. I then moved to Mansfield ohio and became part of Grace Haven farm which became Grace Church Ray Nethery was the main teacher. He was part of the New Covenant Apostolic Order it was a teaching ministry and I studied and soaked up much of contemporary evangelicalism going back and forth with the charismatic thing which was very big at the time. Kevin Springer was asked to go to Ann Arbor Michigan to start a house church associated with Grace Haven. He asked me and several others to go with him. In Ann arbor I began attending Concordia College, a college of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. After much study I decided that Lutheran Confessuons were on target being both catholic and evangelical. I joined a local lcms church, went off to seminary and the rest is history. Of course this cannot plumb the depths of all the struggle with understanding the Sacraments, etc. I hope this helps. If you want to discuss it further, ask some specific question and I will attempt an answer.

The older I get, the less I know for sure but the little I do know I am more sure of than ever. Thanks be to God for his unspeakable grace and mercy to me a sinner!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

In Ann arbor I began attending Concordia College, a college of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. After much study I decided that Lutheran Confessions were on target being both catholic and evangelical.

After leaving the LC I met with a Finnish-Lutheran group that was very conservative. It was quite a shock to the system after the LCs. I was peddling WL material at that time, still considering him to God's voice of the current age. They tolerated me, and took me into their homes and meetings, for which I'm grateful.

Originally Posted by Amcasci

He was part of the New Covenant Apostolic Order it was a teaching ministry and I studied and soaked up much of contemporary evangelicalism going back and forth with the charismatic thing which was very big at the time

I have questions about the "charismatic thing" and the "New Covenant Apostolic Order" as you experienced it. Eventually, looking back, I came up with the idea that the Little Flock/LC experience was charismatic at heart, being experiential to the point of sensorily overwhelming, as we chanted, recited, declared, prayed, sang, shouted, jumped up and down and waved our arms and pumped our fists, even occasionally screamed at meetings. This, I believe, weakened us to suggestions from leadership. If the meeting could get into a fever pitch then they could say "The sky is green" from the podium and we would shout it enthusiastically.

Lo and behold you now are prepped for some ambitious ones to declare themselves the new Uber-Bosses, i.e. God's Apostles for the church today. WL fit this model to a "t", being presented as the sole apostle of the present age, so great that when he died his devotees declared that the age had turned and no more apostles could exist! I kid you not - they were so devoted to their LC experience that they abandoned all pretense of being biblically-based and let their experiences be the sole guide.

Today I see the "charismatic" experience, especially when it is unchecked by reason and sought as a thing in and of itself, as a potential pitfall. In our LC parlance it was "turn to your spirit" and so forth; the theme being don't think but shout. Your experiences with post-LC charismatics might help others to see their own in a better light. We tend to focus on ourselves and lose perspective; if we see others' experiences we can gain the faint beginnings of objectivity, and circumspection. In the LC such objectivity is almost completely lost.

If you feel like sharing it might benefit some of our readers who are trying to make sense of their LC experience. Thanks in advance. I know it's been a lot of years and maybe you don't care for re-living the details of the past, and if so that's fine.

[Amcasci]

Aaron,
By charismatic I meant the movement that emphasized speaking in tongues and healing. I was on and off with that for a short time. The New Covenant Apostolic Order was Jon Braun, dick ballew, jack Sparks, Pete gilquist, ray Nethery and another man whose name slipped away. They had all been buddies in campus crusade for christ, departed from that and all kept in touch working at various ministries. The NCAO became very authoritarian not unlike lee. The whole authority submission thing was rampant in many quarters in those days. The Wor of God catholic charismatic community in Ann arbor was very authoritarian. Eventually most of the NCAO ended up in the antiochian Orthodox Church. Ray Nethery broke with them and the Mansfield Ohio church became Covenant Renewal Churches or some such name and very a,in to Vineyard churches.

I am so at home in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Holy baptism unites me to all who believe and are baptized in His Name. Sadly we are not all agreed in doctrine but doctrine is not the bogey man...sin is. True doctrine is healthy and life giving as Paul plainly taught and false doctrine is damning. I would much rather be in submission to doctrine, than to a Lee or any abusive authoritarian leader and there are many. It is the way of our old Adam.

Art

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

Well...cognitive dissonance is a good way to put it. When I left the LC I spent another year and a half in Cleveland and lived part of that time in an old church near the zoo. I don't know how to describe the work being done there. Warren Campbell an assembly of God pastor was the director. He also served a Covenant church on the west side and I attended there. It was a period of great confusion to say the least. I then moved to Mansfield ohio and became part of Grace Haven farm which became Grace Church Ray Nethery was the main teacher. He was part of the New Covenant Apostolic Order it was a teaching ministry and I studied and soaked up much of contemporary evangelicalism going back and forth with the charismatic thing which was very big at the time. Kevin Springer was asked to go to Ann Arbor Michigan to start a house church associated with Grace Haven. He asked me and several others to go with him. In Ann arbor I began attending Concordia College, a college of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. After much study I decided that Lutheran Confessuons were on target being both catholic and evangelical. I joined a local lcms church, went off to seminary and the rest is history. Of course this cannot plumb the depths of all the struggle with understanding the Sacraments, etc. I hope this helps. If you want to discuss it further, ask some specific question and I will attempt an answer.

Well put and informative. Thanks much. You've had an interesting journey.

I've followed the journey of many that have left the church. Seems they go in all kinds of directions. Some to a mental hospital. Some to drinking. Some to eastern new age spiritual paradigms. Some to nothing at all, no God, no Jesus, no Bible, no church, no interest.

And some fall back on evangelicalism of some sort, my cradle religion. I left my cradle religion when I came into the local church. When I left the local church I left to forms of Christianity behind. And I can't go back to either. I did try to go back to different forms of evangelicalism, but found no fit.

So congrats to you that you've found a fit.

I've been told more than once, by different people, down thru the years, that, my local church experience damaged me. If being a misfit is any indicator of that I guess it's true. My local church experience did result in me developing a very stout independent mind. I stopped getting out of my mind, which was necessary to stay in the local church. Now I see, with certainty, that I was truly out of my mind, to even join the local church.

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The older I get, the less I know for sure . . .

Seems, the more I learn the less I know. And I learn it way toooooo late to be any count.

Originally Posted by Amcasci

. . . but the little I do know I am more sure of than ever.

All I can know for sure is, the Awareness writing these words at this moment. I can't even be sure of the Awareness reading these words at this moment ... but I give it the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks Amcasci. And I will, if you hang around, since you don't mind, prolly ask more questions along the way.

Thanks be to God for his unspeakable grace and mercy to me a sinner!

And to me, a human primate.

[Amcasci]

So...mr, awareness... Where are you now? Are you a Christian and if so with whom do you worship?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Amcasci

So...mr, awareness... Where are you now? Are you a Christian and if so with whom do you worship?

I'm now a cult of one. Can't seem to fit into any group with a membership greater than one.

I'd meet with the meetinghouse Quakers if they had one that wasn't a couple of hours away. They meet in silence, seeking Christ within, that they call the inner teacher. I couldn't cause problems there.

I can't fit in because my questions -- not my answers, which I don't offer -- disturb the sheep.

I'm glad for you tho ... even tho I don't get it ... yet.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't fit in because my questions -- not my answers, which I don't offer -- disturb the sheep.

My questions seem to disturb the sheep as well. Here and at church. I do self moderate at church. Asking whether a salvation that must be worked out with fear and trembling can be obtained as a permanent, unshakable fact in one brief encounter with a Roman Road tract, a persuasive guide, and a sinner's prayer is controversial, to say the least.

[OBW]

And yet I can be one with those folks.

And I can be one with people who know and understand progressive salvation just as I can with those who know and understand event salvation.

I was reading something on that a few days ago and the writer was noting that people who grow up in typical evangelical churches that teach a salvation event often have problems when they can't point to a line in the sand on day X but instead came to believe bit by bit and at some point were believers. And on the opposite side, there are some who just don't get what they were taught over all those years and then suddenly it all clicks and they are excited about it and it sort of scares their spiritual peers. I am comfortable with both even though I have been raised within and continue to meet with those who preach the salvation event. 60 years and counting now, although the first few I was not very aware of much, and I have to say that my salvation was not very "event" oriented. I believed before I knew a lot or prayed any particular prayer, and yet there were events that I sometimes pointed to (plural because I was raised in an Arminian group where you had the opportunity to redo your salvation every so often).