For those who think they can “lose itâ€Â…

[Guest]

If that were the case, then God could reshape all of mankind and end all evil and misery and hate and violence and all things that offend without making any go to a place as horrific as hell. I find the god of Calvinism and reformed theology to be a hypocritical, bloodthirsty, inequitable, deceitful monster. The true God of the Bible mercifully bought all with his own blood and calls all to repentance and desires that all should be saved.

God has already provided a way for that - Christ Jesus.

And might I add that the Sermon on the Mount tells us how we are to live out the Christian faith - which, if followed by everyone would diminish hate, evil, and violence.

Evil is already defeated - the Cross defeated evil. We are to wait until Christ comes again to take the trash out!

 

[unred typo]

Well you know by now I am not a Calvinist…

I would but I keep getting you confused with golfjack….:wink:

 

[Guest]

I would but I keep getting you confused with golfjack….:wink:

I do not believe that golfjack is a Calvinist either.

I used to be a a strict 5 point Calvinist - however, over the years I have softened how they are lived out.

 

[unred typo]

Ahh... but what a mighty and Awesome God who knowing full well that:
1) we do not live up to the standards
2) cannot live up to the standards
3) won't live up to the standards
Yet - He still sent His Son, Jesus Christ, that while we were His enemies, to die on the Cross that He might buy us to redeem us. It is no longer I that God sees, but the righteousness of Christ. I have been hidden in the shadow of the Cross.

Sure, but we are capable of wanting to live up to the standards. If I may use this verse somewhat out of context to illustrate the concept: 2 Corinthians 8:12 “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.†God looks on the heart and takes into account our circumstances, and our intents. Is our sin brought about by a weakness of the flesh or an outright rebellion to the will of God? Are we willing to forgive the same sin against us? These are what I believe make the difference in how we are forgiven or not.

It is intersting that you bring up salt. As I am currently going through the Sermon on the Mount. If you don't mind, I am going to ask a few questions and then I will respond to your answers.

1) Does salt lose it's saltiness? If so, how?

2) What is the purpose of salt (there are two primary purposes)

3) Who was Christ speaking too at the Sermon on the Mount?

4) Are we to become salt, or are we already salt?

5) Who are we the salt too?

Let me end by saying this - if we lose our saltiness, we lose our usefulness here on earth - therefore our rewards will be few to nill - not that we have lost the love of Christ.

I believe that our first and primary reward for following Christ is life and the right to eat of the tree of life. Beyond that there may be crowns but as you say those will be few and far between. As for #3) Who was Christ speaking too at the Sermon on the Mount?, I would say that applies to as Jesus said: “whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them.†These are the gospel message that he came to bring that was rejected by the nation of Israel and accepted by the common people and those that believed Moses and the Gentiles after the gospel was sent to the ‘ends of the earth.’ To deny his words is to deny the Lord who bought us. 2 Peter 2:1 In fact the entire chapter of 2 Peter is a good read for someone who believes the sermon on the mount was just for the Jews, paying special attention to verses 19 and 20.

 

[unred typo]

I do not believe that golfjack is a Calvinist either.

I used to be a a strict 5 point Calvinist - however, over the years I have softened how they are lived out.

It was a just silly remark since vic confused us in another thread. I have no idea what golfjack is and I do attempt not to put labels on anyone, even those who describe themselves by such. It's more important what you believe than what you believe you are.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. jg, perhaps you should start a new thread. It seems senseless to me to discuss theology in the light of scripture if we are disputing whether or not certain scriptures apply. It just seems that it is going to be too easy to throw out any scriptures that doesn't fit into a certain theological POV by saying, "Well, that doesn't apply to the Body now does it!"

2. But, as I say, I am willing to listen. So, I'll not post more on this particular thread, but will wait to see if someone starts a thread on whether or not Hebrews applys to the Body.

3. AVBunyan, on the first page of this thread you said: Quote:
I doubt this thread will go anywhere but let’s try anyway.

Handy I feel you are being a bit unfair here - You admitted you haven't studied this area much - I do not just throw out verses that I don't have an answer for under the guise that they don't belong. If I do not have an answer then I'll tell you it is a tough passage.

Now to illustrate my point:

Handy - do you sacrifice lambs today? Of course you do not - Do you know why? Those passages deal with Israel as a nation under the law in the OT. I trust we agree here. The problem people have is this principle of Israel is also in the Gospels - Christ had not died yet - much of the OT and law were still in affect then.

The book of Acts is a transitional book dealing with God moving away from Israel for a time because of their unbelief and moving towards revealing (by Paul) the mystery of the body of Christ which was hidden from before the foundation of the world. So books written during Acts have to be considered with these movements in mind or else you will get confused.

Look what Paul said: 2 Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
One had better start with Paul, especially his prison epistles, and work from there. Folks today are going primarily to Jewish epistles and the Gospels first - it just will not work.

BTW - folks - please do not make the mistake by thinking I read and study only the Pauline epistles.

2. I think a thread broader subject on the body of Christ vs, Israel would be a good one for this is where much of the confusion lies.

3. Well, I guess I am wrong but...but.. I was hoping on discussing my two questions on:
a. What is justification-salvation? And...
b. What happened at salvation?

This has gotten a bit side-tracked but that's fine.

God bless

 

[jgredline]

Well you know by now I am not a Calvinist, but I do revere some of their theology and perseverance of the saints is one doctrine I believe. What you have just described is Hyper-Calvinism, which I don't care for either.

All He chooses in Christ and all that come to Christ are now constantly being reshaped by the Potter. He does not discard any of them.

Yep, A fellow calminianist.... 8-)

 

[jgredline]

Handy I feel you are being a bit unfair here - You admitted you haven't studied this area much - I do not just throw out verses that I don't have an answer for under the guise that they don't belong. If I do not have an answer then I'll tell you it is a tough passage.

Now to illustrate my point:

Handy - do you sacrifice lambs today? Of course you do not - Do you know why? Those passages deal with Israel as a nation under the law in the OT. I trust we agree here. The problem people have is this principle of Israel is also in the Gospels - Christ had not died yet - much of the OT and law were still in affect then.

The book of Acts is a transitional book dealing with God moving away from Israel for a time because of their unbelief and moving towards revealing (by Paul) the mystery of the body of Christ which was hidden from before the foundation of the world. So books written during Acts have to be considered with these movements in mind or else you will get confused.

Look what Paul said: 2 Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
One had better start with Paul, especially his prison epistles, and work from there. Folks today are going primarily to Jewish epistles and the Gospels first - it just will not work.

BTW - folks - please do not make the mistake by thinking I read and study only the Pauline epistles.

2. I think a thread broader subject on the body of Christ vs, Israel would be a good one for this is where much of the confusion lies.

3. Well, I guess I am wrong but...but.. I was hoping on discussing my two questions on:
a. What is justification-salvation? And...
b. What happened at salvation?

This has gotten a bit side-tracked but that's fine.

God bless

AV
Thanks...I was already putting my words together, but you did a good job 8-)

In response to your your two questions, I will give some very short answers with out getting into the ''legality'' of what Paul Meant..

a) We are born again and no longer belong to ourselves, we belong to Jesus and no one can pluck us from his hands and he will not loose a single sheep...
b) We are sealed by the Holy Spirit who will see to our perseverance...

Very short and incomplete answers, but should lead to good discussion... 8-)

 

[handy]

Handy I feel you are being a bit unfair here - You admitted you haven't studied this area much - I do not just throw out verses that I don't have an answer for under the guise that they don't belong. If I do not have an answer then I'll tell you it is a tough passage.

Sorry that I seemed to be unfair, really I am. It certainly wasn't my intention. I've read enough of your posts as well as jg's and vic's to be impressed with the fact that you all place your doctrines upon what you believe to be God's truth revealed via His word, and believe me, I respect that.

I'm just somewhat blindsided by a POV that truly I've never heard before or studied or understand. I've collected quite a library of reference materials from all kinds of scholars, plus have numerous links bookmarked, and I spent some time yesterday and this morning trying to find this outlook on the book of Hebrews. I didn't come across this view of Hebrews to better understand it and either confirm it or deny it.

So, rather than continue a discussion regarding salvation in which I'll be referring countless times to these texts, I'm going to back down for now, and instead start by looking up the link Vic shared with Golfjack on Clarke's commentary and dinking around the internet to see if I can find more information on this particular POV. If someone starts a Church/Israel thread, I'll probably be jumping in there.

 

[Guest]

Sure, but we are capable of wanting to live up to the standards. If I may use this verse somewhat out of context to illustrate the concept: 2 Corinthians 8:12 “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.†God looks on the heart and takes into account our circumstances, and our intents. Is our sin brought about by a weakness of the flesh or an outright rebellion to the will of God? Are we willing to forgive the same sin against us? These are what I believe make the difference in how we are forgiven or not.

How can you illustrate your point by using a verse that you know you have taken out of context?

We are only able to wanting to live up to the standards because of being saved by Christ first. The un-regenerated is not able to live up to those standards or have the desire to live up to Christ's standards as illustrated in the Sermon on the Mount.

I believe that our first and primary reward for following Christ is life and the right to eat of the tree of life. Beyond that there may be crowns but as you say those will be few and far between.

I believe you misunderstood - for those who have accepted Christ, our reward is in Heaven when our works are refined through the fire - those that are deemed good will be turned into jewels, those that are not will be burned up. It will then be our pleasure to lay our jewels and crowns at the feet of Christ.

As for #3) Who was Christ speaking too at the Sermon on the Mount?, I would say that applies to as Jesus said: “whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them.†These are the gospel message that he came to bring that was rejected by the nation of Israel and accepted by the common people and those that believed Moses and the Gentiles after the gospel was sent to the ‘ends of the earth.’ To deny his words is to deny the Lord who bought us. 2 Peter 2:1 In fact the entire chapter of 2 Peter is a good read for someone who believes the sermon on the mount was just for the Jews, paying special attention to verses 19 and 20.

Please understand that I did not say that the Sermon on the Mount was only for the Jewish audience. But it is important to know who Jesus was speaking to. It helps one understand the meaning of salt and being a light on the hill.

I believe that the Sermon on the Mount teaches us what it means to live as a Christian. Unfortunately too little teaching is done from the Sermon on the Mount in today's church.

I believe that all believers should be taught the Sermon on the Mount - and that it should be the guiding light for all believers.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. sorry that I seemed to be unfair, really I am. It certainly wasn't my intention.

2. I'm just somewhat blindsided by a POV that truly I've never heard before or studied or understand.

1. Actually - I was a bit harsh and unreasonable - my apology - I appreciate your attitude here.

2. Below is a quick post on the basics fo what I believe to be a scriptural method of bible study - Right Division - feel free to comment - sorry it is a bit long but maybe save you some time from searching the Internet.

What is Dispensationalism or Right Division?

This is an often-asked question and I will seek to give an answer without going into much detail.

God already has a plan that was settled in eternity. This plan will not change. The scriptures is that plan written down. We see from the scriptures how God revealed His great plan a bit at a time. Though God never changes how he deals with men and nations has changed as His plan was revealed.

If all you had were Genesis then you would not have all that God has revealed. You would know of Creation, the Flood, the Calling of Abraham, and how Jacob’s family ended up in Egypt but there is more. During this time God gave commands – He told Adam and Eve to put on skins and get out of the garden. He told Noah to build an ark if he wanted to survive. He told Abraham to believe some land would be his and he would be the father of a great nation. Basically God promised Abraham his descendents would have a big plot of land some day but the story doesn’t end here.

But then God gave you Exodus and more of His plan was revealed for now we see Israel made a nation and given the law. God had a plan for Israel and that was they were to be a nation of kings and priests to dispense God’s blessings to the rest of the nations in God’s eternal kingdom. Israel would be fulfilling this plan from the land God promised to Abraham back in early Genesis. From Exodus until Matthew we see Israel’s continuing failure to be what God called them to be. During this time God was giving the prophets visions regarding this future kingdom and a coming Messiah to bring in this eternal, earthly kingdom. When Israel finally went into total rebellion God turned them over to captivity and then brought them out again. Starting with Exodus 19 you are under the Jewish law.

Now, notice this whole time the church, as we know it is non-existent. God knew there was to be the church; the body of Christ but God was not ready to reveal this body yet for He was still dealing with Israel as a nation.

When Jesus shows up in Matthew he is basically there to “bring in†this kingdom that was promised by God to Israel. Jesus came to Israel to bring them together for the future kingdom. At this time the Old Testament law is still in effect though it is in our “new Testamentâ€Â. Jesus comes to bring in this kingdom and is rejected just like God planned it. We know now that Jesus had to die for the sins of the world but up to that time this fact was basically hidden from all. We know this plan now but back then it was hid from them.

So, Israel rejected their Messiah and lost their kingdom offer. During Acts this kingdom offer is renewed one last time – they reject it. Israel rejected God the Father in the OT, the Son in the gospels and now the Holy Ghost in the Acts period. So, is God’s plan finished? Of course not, God raises up a converted Pharisee, Saul, who becomes Paul and starts to reveal the body of Christ which God had planned from before the foundation of the world – i.e. eternity. Paul is the one God chose to bring us this new plan. His epistles tell us of this new church, which was hidden from the OT folks but now, revealed to those in that day by Paul. When God is finished building His church then this age will end with the church being pulled out and He will resume His dealings with His chosen people, Israel during the Tribulation. At the end of this Tribulation period God will make the believing remnant of Israel that he brings through this tough 7 years to be His true people by putting His law into their hearts and making them anew and then bring the nation into their land to start the kingdom He promised to Abraham and the Jews in Exodus 19. Israel will finally be the nation of kings and priests to dispense God’s blessings to the other nations in the kingdom. They will rule and reign from Jerusalem.

What about the church that left before tribulation? The church of today (the body of Christ) will still be in the heavenly places displaying the manifold wisdom of god in heaven.

Now, why all that? We have the completed plan in our hands in a King James Bible to marvel at God’s infinite wisdom and grace. What we can do is look back and see how worked out this plan starting at Genesis 1 and finishes up in Revelation 2.

Right division tells us what instructions and commands went with each age. Right division tells what people and the instructions for those people go with what age that is being written about. From Gen. 1 to Exo. 19 you are dealing with folks and God’s instructions for them. After the law is given you are dealing with Israel and the instructions God gave to them. The Gospels carries on with these instructions. In Acts you have a transitional period where God is going from Jew to the church and the instructions, which go with that period. And now Mid Acts or so until Philemon you are dealing with the church, which is Jesus’ body and the instructions for it which we get from Paul.

So, right division tells us what is for us and what is for them, which is Israel, and other folks in other times before and after our time. What you need to know is what is doctrinally for you today and what is doctrinally for the other folks in other ages.
What you do not want to do is mix all those instructions together. That is why there is so much confusion today – the applying of instructions meant for others to us today and trying to make instructions for us fit other folks in other ages.

Moses, David, the Prophets, gave us those instructions for the OT and the law. The Gospels gave us those instructions for the coming kingdom and other teachings about Jesus. Acts is a transitional book from the Jewish kingdom to the church. Paul gave us our instructions for us today mainly from Romans thru Philemon. You have Hebrews thru Revelation for those future tribulation times.

The message in the OT was:
Adam – put on some clothes and get out of the garden!
Noah – build a boat!
Abraham – believe you will father a great nation!
Israel – keep the law and sacrifice a lamb!

The message in the NT was and is:
Gospels – hey Jews, believe that Jesus is your messiah!
Church – believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!
Tribulation - hey Jews, believe that Jesus is your messiah!
Kingdom – Hey folks your King is on the throne – keep his commandments

I trust this helps. Many will present this a different way and see things different but this is how I would introduce one to what is right division.

I’m sure I could have done a better job but there it is – I’ll proof read it later so forgive all mistakes

God bless

Finally - here is a link of links interested:

http://av1611bible.com/links/rightdivision.htm

 

[Guest]

AV - I believe you meant NT the second time, not OT.

 

[AVBunyan]

AV - I believe you meant NT the second time, not OT.

Thanks - scribal error :-D - there may be more - the gears are slipping.
It appears you read it - thanks

God bless

 

[stranger]

Hi AV,

The trouble with outlines is you 'compile a filter' through which you read the scriptures. Call this a doctrinal system of thought, or theology or whatever. Anything outside that system will essentially be unavailable to you. Jg (Excuse my using you as an example) in calling himself a calaminist has attempted to address the very issue I am trying to point out. If for instance jg would stay within the framework and bounds of Calvinism - he would exclude himself from access to Armenian aspects of the faith not taught or rendered due consideration in Calvinism. So if you are a single system 'ist' take it to heart.

What I am saying is that 'such reading of scripture over many years' forms a bias towards how the word is interpreted. Consider the example of a Calvinist - his library will include certain works of a certain theological disposition. Over time anything remotely different to his system of thought will be perceived as 'unbiblical'. Yet we know that across another theological boundary a staunch Methodist will perceive EXACTLY the same thing about the Calvinist. The expression I developed for this is 'emphasis distortion' . . .

The situation becomes even more vexing when Pastors sign confessions of faith promising to adhere to them within the denominations they represent. It is not uncommon over time for them to develope 'silent dissent' (borrowed term from Francis) concerning some doctrine. The crisis developes and may lead to the Pastor leaving the church who he thought at one time 'was the very one God called him to'.

How to escape this dilemma? Set aside the wheel burrow of self interest and self preservation of the group (if you are on a salary few can bite the hand that feeds them) as prime motives. Having lightened your load - start again as a pilgrim in the simplicity of faith, return to your first love of Christ and if that is not readily attainable you have an immediate objective in sight OR. . find out where you left the narrow path where you stopped seeking the Lord and return. In two words this paragraph can be summaries as START AGAIN.

There is no particular target group that this post is aimed at, once in a while visit other denominations, read what the other side of the fence writes without 'a view to finding fault' - some folks never do this. May the Lord bless all pilgrims who are travelling to the celestial city.

 

[Guest]

Hi AV,

The trouble with outlines is you 'compile a filter' through which you read the scriptures. Call this a doctrinal system of thought, or theology or whatever. Anything outside that system will essentially be unavailable to you. Jg (Excuse my using you as an example) in calling himself a calaminist has attempted to address the very issue I am trying to point out. If for instance jg would stay within the framework and bounds of Calvinism - he would exclude himself from access to Armenian aspects of the faith not taught or rendered due consideration in Calvinism. So if you are a single system 'ist' take it to heart.

What I am saying is that 'such reading of scripture over many years' forms a bias towards how the word is interpreted. Consider the example of a Calvinist - his library will include certain works of a certain theological disposition. Over time anything remotely different to his system of thought will be perceived as 'unbiblical'. Yet we know that across another theological boundary a staunch Methodist will perceive EXACTLY the same thing about the Calvinist. The expression I developed for this is 'emphasis distortion' . . .

The situation becomes even more vexing when Pastors sign confessions of faith promising to adhere to them within the denominations they represent. It is not uncommon over time for them to develope 'silent dissent' (borrowed term from Francis) concerning some doctrine. The crisis developes and may lead to the Pastor leaving the church who he thought at one time 'was the very one God called him to'.

How to escape this dilemma? Set aside the wheel burrow of self interest and self preservation of the group (if you are on a salary few can bite the hand that feeds them) as prime motives. Having lightened your load - start again as a pilgrim in the simplicity of faith, return to your first love of Christ and if that is not readily attainable you have an immediate objective in sight OR. . find out where you left the narrow path where you stopped seeking the Lord and return. In two words this paragraph can be summaries as START AGAIN.

There is no particular target group that this post is aimed at, once in a while visit other denominations, a read what the other side of the fence writes without 'a view to finding fault' - some folks never do this. May the Lord bless all pilgrims who are travelling to the celestial city.

Stranger - could we not label the approach that you 'outlined' above with an '-ist' and then it violate the very thing that you just wrote?

 

[stranger]

Stranger - could we not label the approach that you 'outlined' above with an '-ist' and then it violate the very thing that you just wrote?

Hi aLV,

To answer your question you could. But I don't have a label - and so long as it is not an 'ist' it would be between the Lord and His disciple. There is nothing that I could call others to that resembles any 'ist' I know.

These discussions are not new - many Christians prefer to be known as 'Christian' without feeling the need for further elaboration that the word 'ist' implies. In the new testament a church was distinguished from another by 'location'. . . I recall having a brief discussion with you about anabapt-ist tradition and we did not get very far - I can't help but see that this is a fence surrounding your faith that somehow marks its perimeter. For arguments sake, imagine an anabaptist who has never attended another denominational church and has only ever read anabaptist literature and has not taken part in internet forum discussions. Furthermore, when he reads about other denominations the books are always written by an anabaptist. Plug in whatever denomination you like and you will arrive at the perimeter fence that I describe - a little further out in some places and a little further in in others. Now - what would you do if arriving at the perimeter fence - God wants you to travel beyond it?

 

[Guest]

Hi aLV,

To answer your question you could. But I don't have a label - and so long as it is not an 'ist' it would be between the Lord and His disciple. There is nothing that I could call others to that resembles any 'ist' I know.

These discussions are not new - many Christians prefer to be known as 'Christian' without feeling the need for further elaboration that the word 'ist' implies. In the new testament a church was distinguished from another by 'location'. . . I recall having a brief discussion with you about anabapt-ist tradition and we did not get very far - I can't help but see that this is a fence surrounding your faith that somehow marks its perimeter. For arguments sake, imagine an anabaptist who has never attended another denominational church and has only ever read anabaptist literature and has not taken part in internet forum discussions. Furthermore, when he reads about other denominations the books are always written by an anabaptist. Plug in whatever denomination you like and you will arrive at the perimeter fence that I describe - a little further out in some places and a little further in in others. Now - what would you do if arriving at the perimeter fence - God wants you to travel beyond it?

God cannot have one travel beyond the fence that He Himself built within the Scriptures.

The issue would be the abuse of the 'fence" - if one were to believe that they were a Christian just because they attended an AnaBaptist church, or because they were born into an anabaptist family.

It is the abuse that is the problem, not the systamatic theology/outline/fence.

 

[lovely]

stranger,

I was very blessed by your posts. I believe that God is challenging us to consider His doctrine only...this is Christ's example. I know I fall way short of actually doing this in a complete manner, but so far it's one of the deepest blessings of my life. Thanks for your insight, the Lord bless you.

 

[stranger]

God cannot have one travel beyond the fence that He Himself built within the Scriptures.

The issue would be the abuse of the 'fence" - if one were to believe that they were a Christian just because they attended an AnaBaptist church, or because they were born into an anabaptist family.

It is the abuse that is the problem, not the systamatic theology/outline/fence.

Hi aLV,

In this discussion, anabaptist can be substituted for other denominations OK - so nothing personal.

Whether you want to travel onwards is up to you. The lesson from the twelve tribes of Israel upon occupying the promised land comes to mind. Some Israelites (tribe?) stayed on the wilderness side of the Jordan because the land was 'good' there - they did help the other tribes fight for Canaan. Who built their 'fence'? Not God but the they themselves. In time that tribe was overrun. I think the word comfort zone comes to mind.

A Sovereign God does anything He wants to without limit and there is ample space outside of scripture, meaning, situations in life that occur - can have no precedent in scripture - and if there is a precedent in scripture it can be veiled from our sight for many, many years (afterwards)

But have you never heard of 'thus far and no further'? If a man is 'content' in a spiritual sense why would he be motivated to travel? Pilgrims are discontent until 'they possess the pearl of great price and grasp it in there hands. It should not satisfy us to 'know' that there is such a pearl - this to is a fence.

But the systematic? More on that later. God bless you.

 

[Guest]

Hi aLV,

In this discussion, anabaptist can be substituted for other denominations OK - so nothing personal.

Whether you want to travel onwards is up to you. The lesson from the twelve tribes of Israel upon occupying the promised land comes to mind. Some Israelites (tribe?) stayed on the wilderness side of the Jordan because the land was 'good' there - they did help the other tribes fight for Canaan. Who built their 'fence'? Not God but the they themselves. In time that tribe was overrun. I think the word comfort zone comes to mind.

A Sovereign God does anything He wants to without limit and there is ample space outside of scripture, meaning, situations in life that occur - can have no precedent in scripture - and if there is a precedent in scripture it can be veiled from our sight for many, many years (afterwards)

But have you never heard of 'thus far and no further'? If a man is 'content' in a spiritual sense why would he be motivated to travel? Pilgrims are discontent until 'they possess the pearl of great price and grasp it in there hands. It should not satisfy us to 'know' that there is such a pearl - this to is a fence.

But the systematic? More on that later. God bless you.

Stanger, I understand what you are saying - however, without some type of fence, the pilgrim can also get off track! There still needs to be a compass, or map, or fence, to make sure the pilgrim is following the correct path.

Without it - then other things start to creep in - slowly and subtly at first - Just as the tribes began to absorb neighboring religions and pagan rituals.