Go To Home Page
Messiah

Key: = Posted Today and Yesterday



'Theology Discussion Group'

Travel to the Highway home page and read our many fine articles and view the links to other sites by clicking on the blue The Highway logo in the upper right hand corner of this page.

« Forum Guidelines »

Total Messages Loaded: 568


Rod -:- Inspired -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:56:37 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Biblico-Theologico Approach -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:51:48 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Thanks -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 14:53:54 (PDT)

Rod -:- The Infirm Man -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 09:56:36 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: The Infirm Man -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:31:48 (PDT)

john hampshire -:- Tres Dias -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 23:05:45 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Tres Dias -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:02:43 (PDT)
_ stan -:-
Re: Tres Dias -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:17:55 (PDT)

Anne -:- God's plans for the reprobate? -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:14:06 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: God's plans for the reprobate? -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:36:58 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: God's plans for the reprobate? -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 23:46:33 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: God's plans for the reprobate? -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 05:38:10 (PDT)

Prestor John -:- Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Mon, May 29, 2000 at 11:33:46 (PDT)
_
ttrails -:- Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:37:22 (PDT)
_ Five Sola -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Mon, May 29, 2000 at 20:10:18 (PDT)
_ John P. -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Mon, May 29, 2000 at 18:06:29 (PDT)
__ Diacono -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 12:08:21 (PDT)
___ John P. -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:29:37 (PDT)
___ Tom.H -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 13:23:51 (PDT)
____ Diacono -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 06:49:59 (PDT)
_ John P. -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Mon, May 29, 2000 at 18:06:12 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:26:31 (PDT)
___ John P. -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 18:06:26 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:57:03 (PDT)
_____ John P. -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:14:10 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 09:44:26 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 13:10:58 (PDT)
______ John P. -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:49:58 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:39:38 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:11:52 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:27:19 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulative Principle -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 07:08:27 (PDT)
____ John P. -:-
Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 18:09:34 (PDT)

Rod -:- More 'Wattage' -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 14:09:22 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: More 'Wattage' -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 14:47:46 (PDT)

Tom.H -:- Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 09:26:38 (PDT)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 21:08:33 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:32:29 (PDT)
__ John P. -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 22:16:48 (PDT)
___ Prestor John -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?? -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 11:09:33 (PDT)
____ John P. -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:52:39 (PDT)
_____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sun, May 28, 2000 at 00:29:21 (PDT)
______ John P. -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sun, May 28, 2000 at 06:26:41 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?? -:- Sun, May 28, 2000 at 13:51:41 (PDT)
________ John P. -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sun, May 28, 2000 at 21:36:49 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Mon, May 29, 2000 at 11:14:10 (PDT)
__________ John P. -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Mon, May 29, 2000 at 16:58:00 (PDT)
_________ Rod -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Mon, May 29, 2000 at 06:33:46 (PDT)
_____ John P. -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:55:04 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?????? -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:59:36 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 06:20:16 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 10:18:38 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:48:29 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
aaah, but did he.... -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:02:51 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- Home Page SEARCH ENGINE -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 09:10:51 (PDT)
_
Pat -:- Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 05:04:37 (PDT)
__ monitor -:-
Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE -:- Sat, May 27, 2000 at 06:29:23 (PDT)
_ Anne -:-
Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:46:05 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 11:53:40 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 13:21:31 (PDT)

Mark -:- The T in TULIP -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 20:06:34 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: The T in TULIP -:- Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 13:06:00 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The T in TULIP -:- Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 15:22:32 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Exactly -:- Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 17:23:53 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:15:20 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 08:57:27 (PDT)
______ Anne -:-
Re: Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:42:52 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 13:36:08 (PDT)
_ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: The T in TULIP -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 14:32:03 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The T in TULIP -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:11:58 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:-
Re: The T in TULIP -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 22:19:52 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: The T in TULIP -:- Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:17:33 (PDT)

laz -:- Government in Heaven -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:21:56 (PDT)
_
Anne -:- Re: Government in Heaven -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:40:59 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: Government in Heaven -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 21:18:04 (PDT)

Anne -:- God's justice......what's it mean? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:43:49 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: God's justice......what's it mean? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:31:01 (PDT)
__ Anne -:-
Re: God's justice......what's it mean? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:27:42 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The WRATH of God! -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:08:41 (PDT)
____ Anne -:-
Re: The WRATH of God! -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:40:05 (PDT)

Tom -E -:- ????? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:18:44 (PDT)
_
Tom-E -:- Re: ????? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:22:19 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: ????? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:46:04 (PDT)

Eric -:- Whatever happened to the truce???nt -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:05:18 (PDT)
_
Anne -:- Anyone want to discuss infra vs supra? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:50:54 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:25:49 (PDT)
___ Anne -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:38:05 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:42:04 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:03:57 (PDT)
_____ Anne -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:54:15 (PDT)
______ 'Doesn't have a clue' -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:43:50 (PDT)
_______ Anne -:-
Oops! Sorry, Rod! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:05:00 (PDT)
________ Rod -:-
Still friends, of course! :> -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 21:41:03 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
What are Friends For? :-) -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:43:23 (PDT)
__________ Rod -:-
Re: What are Friends For? :-) -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:49:45 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What are Friends For? :-) -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:08:55 (PDT)
_________ Anne -:-
Re: Still friends, of course! :> -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 05:13:22 (PDT)
___ Chrystostomos -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:32:01 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:44:56 (PDT)
_____ Anne -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:44:31 (PDT)
_____ Chrysostomos -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:59:45 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:10:33 (PDT)
_______ Chrysostomos -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:22:09 (PDT)
_______ kevin -:-
Pilgrim how is this? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:53:13 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Pilgrim how is this? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:07:56 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:04:00 (PDT)
_______ Chrysostomos -:-
Re: Yep, it's a tough one! -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:57:41 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
Re: Anyone want to discuss... -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 09:38:15 (PDT)
___ Anne -:-
Re: Anyone want to discuss... -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:35:17 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
Re: Anyone want to discuss... -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:10:04 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Anyone want to discuss... -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:41:36 (PDT)
______ Eric -:-
Why does it fail? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:23:42 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why does it fail? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:55:15 (PDT)
________ Eric -:-
Re: Why does it fail? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 10:17:06 (PDT)
_________ Anne -:-
Re: Why does it fail? -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 11:09:00 (PDT)
__________ Eric -:-
Man does violate the will of God -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:32:05 (PDT)
___________ Anne -:-
Re: Man does violate the will of God -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:50:23 (PDT)
____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Man does violate the will of God -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:03:10 (PDT)
_____________ Anne -:-
Thank you, sir! -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:16:39 (PDT)

Tom -:- For fg re-righteousness -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 17:25:49 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: For fg re-righteousness -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:25:33 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: For fg re-righteousness -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 23:30:22 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: For fg re-righteousness -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 05:49:37 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:24:13 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:15:01 (PDT)
_______ freegrace -:-
Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:57:16 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:59:45 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:58:38 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:04:34 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: For fg re-righteousness -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 00:33:31 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: For fg re-righteousness -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:41:30 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: For fg re-righteousness -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:25:21 (PDT)

freegrace -:- 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:49:34 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:29:17 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:24:37 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:21:50 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:42:38 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:07:11 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Rutherford is Right..! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:49:22 (PDT)
_
GRACE2Me -:- Re: Rutherford is Right..! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:50:10 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
The simple truth -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:53:58 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: The simple truth -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:11:34 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
† WARNING!! † — to Freegrace -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:10:10 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
2 Cor. 5:21 -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:56:58 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:-
Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 05:17:37 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 14:15:42 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 10:34:30 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:-
Re: The simple truth -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:09:36 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: The simple truth -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:27:25 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Reply to Tom -- from below. -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 09:12:51 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: Reply to Tom -- from below. -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 11:45:08 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Reply to Tom -- from below. -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:58:15 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Sermon by A. Toplady -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:35:36 (PDT)
_
Anne -:- Re: Sermon by A. Toplady -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:43:46 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Sermon by A. Toplady -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:13:31 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Charles Finney -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:49:59 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Charles Finney -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:36:53 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Charles Finney -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:06:59 (PDT)
___ Anne -:-
Re: Charles Finney -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:23:24 (PDT)

Bro. Charles -:- Man does NOT speak through God -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:27:57 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Man does NOT speak through God -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 17:06:45 (PDT)
__ Bro. Charles -:-
Re: Man does NOT speak through God -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:20:30 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Man does NOT speak through God -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:41:15 (PDT)

Rod -:- Is everyone aware????? -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:53:08 (PDT)

laz -:- Confessing Christ -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:56:15 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Confessing Christ -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 17:20:27 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 18:34:50 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:14:39 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:44:51 (PDT)
___ Christopher -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 21:01:52 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:42:27 (PDT)
_____ Chrysostomos -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:26:52 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:01:49 (PDT)
_______ Chrysostomos -:-
Thanks, laz...n/t -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:48:16 (PDT)
_____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Confessing Christ -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 07:57:57 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Pauline Dispensationalist??? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:15:54 (PDT)
_______ Prestor John -:-
Re: Pauline Dispensationalist??? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 16:48:42 (PDT)
________ mebaser -:-
For the record -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 23:40:07 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: For the record -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:34:34 (PDT)
________ Rod -:-
Re: Pauline Dispensationalist??? -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at 17:39:49 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Pauline Dispensationalist??? -:- Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:38:51 (PDT)

monitor -:- Truce on Imputation -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 13:29:44 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Truce on Imputation -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:52:15 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Truce on Imputation -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:03:31 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Truce on Imputation -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:15:19 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Truce on Imputation -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:12:32 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Salvation is Impossible! -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 12:04:48 (PDT)
_
Marc D. Carpenter -:- Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:22:30 (PDT)
__ Marc D. Carpenter -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:24:19 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 20:24:37 (PDT)
_ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 14:45:31 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 01:03:23 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:31:45 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:44:03 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:59:21 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:14:55 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 08:13:48 (PDT)
_______ freegrace -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 08:35:52 (PDT)
________ monitor -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:18:16 (PDT)
_________ freegrace -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:15:32 (PDT)
__________ monitor -:-
simple question, fg -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:35:18 (PDT)
___________ freegrace -:-
Re: simple question, fg -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:49:05 (PDT)
____________ Five Sola -:-
Re: simple question, fg -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 20:31:09 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 13:17:54 (PDT)
___________ freegrace -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:37:12 (PDT)
____________ Tom -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:58:14 (PDT)
_____________ freegrace -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:20:25 (PDT)
______________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Salvation is Impossible! -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 16:48:30 (PDT)

freegrace -:- ...A Different Gospel? -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:14:09 (PDT)
_
Marc D. Carpenter -:- Re: ...A Different Gospel? -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:32:17 (PDT)
__ monitor -:-
Re: ...A Different Gospel? -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 19:15:23 (PDT)
___ CyberFish -:-
All I have to say... -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:30:11 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: All I have to say... -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 09:24:26 (PDT)
_____ Cyberfish -:-
Re: All I have to say... -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 19:48:14 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: All I have to say... -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:18:44 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: All I have to say... -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:31:56 (PDT)

freegrace -:- A Super-natural Faith -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:18:32 (PDT)
_
Eric -:- Re: A Super-natural Faith -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:40:00 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: A Super-natural Faith -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 08:20:48 (PDT)
___ Eric -:-
Respond to the question -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:05:03 (PDT)

GRACE2Me -:- Praying During Service -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 21:27:03 (PDT)
_
Eric -:- Re: Praying During Service -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:43:24 (PDT)

GRACE2Me -:- Input Regarding Ordination -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 21:15:20 (PDT)
_
stan -:- Re: Input Regarding Ordination -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 20:11:00 (PDT)

Rod -:- jsgirl, 'hit 'n' run' isn't polite -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:56:38 (PDT)

freegrace -:- What John Owen said ... -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 12:11:41 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: What John Owen said ... -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 17:57:41 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: What John Owen said ... -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:24:42 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What John Owen said ... -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 08:42:17 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: What John Owen said ... -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:27:42 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: What John Owen said ... -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 12:54:35 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Church History Timeline -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:35:26 (PDT)

laz -:- Imputation -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 16:44:05 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:22:02 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:22:14 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 09:07:14 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:41:46 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:13:21 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:53:58 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:42:31 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:23:26 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 05:44:44 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Assurance -:- Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:04:38 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:31:44 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:31:33 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: Imputation -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:34:10 (PDT)

Tom -:- For fg re-rightiousness -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 14:39:00 (PDT)

Rod -:- Two questions -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:38:14 (PDT)
_
GRACE2Me -:- Re: Two questions -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 21:20:37 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: Two questions -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 21:13:15 (PDT)
_ JohnS -:-
Re: Two questions -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:53:09 (PDT)
_ Tom -:-
Re: Two questions -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 14:31:37 (PDT)
_ Anne -:-
Re: Two questions -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 13:14:02 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:39:50 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:35:02 (PDT)
____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 00:53:47 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 16:15:04 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:20:32 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:07:23 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 18:50:33 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 14:55:19 (PDT)
_____ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 20:59:14 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:58:01 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Two more questions -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:20:50 (PDT)

jsgirl -:- predestination, the truth -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 09:04:53 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- any proof? -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 19:39:11 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
jsgirl, two questions--the truth? (n/t) -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 15:52:25 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: predestination, the truth -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:32:57 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: predestination, the truth -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:26:39 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: predestination, the truth -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 10:10:20 (PDT)
__ Anne -:-
Re: predestination, the truth -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:05:25 (PDT)
_ Anne -:-
Re: predestination, the truth -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 10:07:45 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 05:00:16 (PDT)
_
Tom -:- Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:53:19 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:04 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:10:45 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 16:17:04 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:33:17 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 08:16:19 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 10:19:08 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone -:- Wed, May 17, 2000 at 14:49:49 (PDT)

Tom -:- Freegrace -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 23:56:51 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Freegrace -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:19:22 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Freegrace -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:55:50 (PDT)
___ Just a question -:-
Re: Freegrace -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 06:22:23 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Heart . and Mind.. -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:58 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Heart . and Mind.. -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:44:16 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Freegrace -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 05:27:35 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
Answer this freegrace... -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 07:38:24 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: Answer this freegrace... -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:30:03 (PDT)

freegrace -:- A Progressive Salvation? -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 18:46:08 (PDT)

Rod -:- God's righteousness -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 16:29:55 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: God's righteousness -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 06:58:37 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Upholding God's righteousness -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:34 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: God's righteousness -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:28:58 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: God's righteousness -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:20:23 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Preach it (HIM) Brother! :-) nt -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:24:12 (PDT)

f

reegrace -:- My reply to Five Solas... -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:48:52 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: My reply to Five Solas... -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 16:32:03 (PDT)
__ Just a thought -:-
Re: My reply to Five Solas... -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 17:01:21 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: To 'Non-thought'!! -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:18:06 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: My reply to Five Solas... -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 18:24:18 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Some are wired, and others are not. -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:29:24 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Some are wired, and others are not. -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:10:49 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Well done! -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:42:24 (PDT)

freegrace -:- The Righteousness of God Revealed -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:56:11 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: The Righteousness of God Revealed -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 13:14:06 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: The Righteousness of God Revealed -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:54:54 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Amost Children of God -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:50:56 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Once again, a serious error, freegrace -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:12:14 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: Amost Children of God -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:53:11 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Amost Children of God -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 08:50:01 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Amost Children of God -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:54 (PDT)

Rod -:- Defending the truth -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 15:20:01 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Defending the truth -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 23:01:43 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:07:28 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:40:46 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:43:52 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:42:15 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:03:24 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Defending the TRUTH -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:34:25 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
AMEN! n/t -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:51:53 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 00:06:08 (PDT)
_ Joel H -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 20:24:27 (PDT)
__ stan -:-
Re: Defending the truth -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 21:17:12 (PDT)
___ Eric -:-
Example of Arminian inconsistency -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 07:29:13 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Imputed Righteousness -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 05:07:15 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 20:16:40 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:19:41 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:11:14 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 07:07:38 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:12:18 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:39:45 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:08:32 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 09:06:29 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:52:42 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Imputed Righteousness -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 15:57:00 (PDT)

stan -:- For your possible interest. -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 09:39:13 (PDT)

GRACE2Me -:- Deacons and Elders -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 14:28:06 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: Deacons and Elders -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 15:09:59 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Cain and Abel both very religious -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 08:07:56 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: Cain and Abel both very religious -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 14:02:26 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Cain and Abel both very religious -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 11:58:19 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Proper understanding of the "way of Cain" -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 16:53:55 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Proper understanding of the -:- Sat, May 13, 2000 at 11:42:30 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Proper understanding -:- Sat, May 13, 2000 at 20:30:34 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: Proper understanding -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 04:43:48 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
Re: Proper understanding -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 13:08:13 (PDT)
_ Five Sola -:-
Re: Cain and Abel both very religious -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 10:43:24 (PDT)

Tom -:- Bottom Line -:- Sat, May 06, 2000 at 14:52:39 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Bottom Line -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 14:53:14 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: Bottom Line -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 15:15:55 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Bottom Line -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 19:28:38 (PDT)
____ Five Sola -:-
Re: Bottom Line -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 17:15:18 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Bottom Line -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 21:41:31 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 07:44:57 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:32:54 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 11:33:10 (PDT)
_______ freegrace -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:47:57 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 13:08:17 (PDT)
_________ freegrace -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Sat, May 13, 2000 at 14:54:46 (PDT)
__________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Sat, May 13, 2000 at 16:33:16 (PDT)
__________ Five Sola -:-
wrong! -:- Sat, May 13, 2000 at 16:17:41 (PDT)
___________ freegrace -:-
Re: wrong! -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 04:34:20 (PDT)
____________ Five Sola -:-
I agree! -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 19:53:34 (PDT)
_____________ laz -:-
Re: I agree! -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 13:30:43 (PDT)
______________ freegrace -:-
Re: I agree! -:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:35:44 (PDT)
______ Eric -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 09:02:35 (PDT)
_______ freegrace -:-
Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:53:45 (PDT)
_______ Anne -:-
This joke seems applicable..... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 11:24:33 (PDT)
________ Rod -:-
Re: This joke seems applicable..... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:34:25 (PDT)
_________ Bro. Charles -:-
The hole point is... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:48:36 (PDT)
__________ laz -:-
Re: The hole point is... -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:49:50 (PDT)
_________ Five Sola -:-
Kinds of Baptist..... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 17:52:51 (PDT)
__________ Rod -:-
Re: Kinds of Baptist..... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 19:45:53 (PDT)
_________ Anne -:-
Re: This joke seems applicable..... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:37:16 (PDT)
__________ freegrace -:-
Re: This joke seems applicable..... -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 05:20:07 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Bottom Line -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 06:17:28 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: Bottom Line -:- Sat, May 06, 2000 at 17:27:01 (PDT)

Five Sola -:- Dr. Boice. -:- Sat, May 06, 2000 at 12:10:21 (PDT)
_
Theo -:- ACE Update on the Web re Dr. Boice -:- Sat, May 06, 2000 at 15:21:30 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Dr. Boice. -:- Sat, May 06, 2000 at 12:53:47 (PDT)

Tom -:- Quiz for our Arminian Friends -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 13:02:19 (PDT)
_
Ambassador -:- Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends -:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:03:57 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:37:08 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends -:- Sun, May 14, 2000 at 14:56:56 (PDT)
_ GRACE2Me -:-
Good One!!! N/T -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 15:04:14 (PDT)

Rod -:- The 'problem' of church government -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 21:22:41 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 07:51:34 (PDT)
__ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 15:51:28 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Sat, May 06, 2000 at 14:57:21 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Sat, May 06, 2000 at 16:31:55 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Sun, May 07, 2000 at 09:31:51 (PDT)
______ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Tues, May 09, 2000 at 13:52:28 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Tues, May 09, 2000 at 23:28:45 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 11:17:24 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 09:33:28 (PDT)
_________ Rod -:-
'term limitation' and lack of leaders -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 11:24:00 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:-
Re: 'term limit... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 00:51:15 (PDT)
___________ Rod -:-
Re: 'term limit... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:41:11 (PDT)
____________ Tom -:-
Re: 'term limit... -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 15:22:29 (PDT)
_____________ Rod -:-
Apostles, elders, and deacons -:- Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 16:35:29 (PDT)
______________ Tom -:-
Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 00:20:43 (PDT)
_______________ Rod -:-
Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 01:19:05 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:-
Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 13:08:21 (PDT)
_________________ Rod -:-
Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 17:31:36 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:-
Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 23:28:47 (PDT)
__________ stan -:-
Re: -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 22:07:15 (PDT)
___________ Rod -:-
Re: -:- Wed, May 10, 2000 at 22:33:08 (PDT)
___ stan -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 20:15:37 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 09:01:43 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 10:42:46 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 11:55:07 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:32:53 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: The 'problem' of church government -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:45:27 (PDT)

Eric -:- Help needed -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:45:53 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: Help needed -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 13:24:45 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Help needed -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:39:02 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: Help needed -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:58:28 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: Help needed -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18:50 (PDT)
___ Eric -:-
For john hampshire -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 07:47:45 (PDT)

Mark -:- Honor Your Mother and Father -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 14:38:42 (PDT)
_
GRACE2Me -:- Re: Honor Your Mother and Father -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 15:07:33 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: Honor Your Mother and Father -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 17:45:42 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Honor Your Mother and Father -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 17:31:35 (PDT)

Tom -:- Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 4 -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 14:04:45 (PDT)

Jennifer -:- Faith -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 10:30:55 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Faith -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 06:33:47 (PDT)
_ Eric -:-
Re: Faith -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 13:42:59 (PDT)
__ Chris -:-
Re: Faith -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 21:41:00 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: Faith -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:37:02 (PDT)

GRACE2Me -:- Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:14:05 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- Children in worship -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:39:41 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 13:51:54 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 15:15:01 (PDT)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 19:37:57 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 19:53:09 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:15:51 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 08:19:50 (PDT)
_______ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:51:41 (PDT)
________ Five Sola -:-
Re: Children in worship -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 19:38:48 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:22:34 (PDT)
__ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 14:53:15 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 21:08:20 (PDT)
____ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 14:47:57 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 21:08:17 (PDT)

Rod -:- Atonement/Propitiation -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 13:28:42 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Atonement/Reconciliation -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:11:05 (PDT)

Rod -:- A question for the board -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:00:59 (PDT)

laz -:- Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:30:22 (PDT)
_
GRACE2Me -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 20:48:51 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:06:07 (PDT)
___ Anne -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:45:37 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:32:48 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:37:56 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:13:27 (PDT)
____ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 13:17:40 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:01:28 (PDT)
______ Five Sola -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:37:35 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:08:23 (PDT)
________ Five Sola -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:30:24 (PDT)
_________ Tom -:-
We live in igloos too n/t -:- Fri, May 12, 2000 at 00:34:29 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 11:55:30 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:57:52 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 17:01:15 (PDT)
____________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:01:47 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 21:23:02 (PDT)
______________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 12:05:53 (PDT)
_______________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 12:23:51 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:15:20 (PDT)
_________________ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:28:28 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:45:55 (PDT)
________________ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 12:31:55 (PDT)
_________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 19:29:38 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 23:28:33 (PDT)
___________________ Rod -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 00:12:21 (PDT)
____________________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 10:23:55 (PDT)
_____________________ Rod -:-
authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 13:17:13 (PDT)
______________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:42:01 (PDT)
______________________ Tom -:-
Re: authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:56:49 (PDT)
_______________________ Rod -:-
Re: authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18:48 (PDT)
________________________ laz -:-
Re: authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:23:38 (PDT)
_________________________ Rod -:-
Re: authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 21:37:18 (PDT)
__________________________ laz -:-
Re: authority in the local church -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 04:51:15 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:58:18 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 08, 2000 at 13:20:30 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 08, 2000 at 19:24:59 (PDT)
_________ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 09, 2000 at 00:23:27 (PDT)
_ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:36:42 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:39:42 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:50:59 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:40:02 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:35 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 06:59:30 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Weaker Sex -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:38:34 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:00:43 (PDT)
_________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 04:26:16 (PDT)
__________ Anne -:-
John, may I copy/paste a part of this? -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 06:15:05 (PDT)
__________ Anne -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 05:49:12 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 07:30:31 (PDT)
____________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 06:36:17 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 07:57:44 (PDT)
______________ laz -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 11:02:32 (PDT)
_______________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 05:59:53 (PDT)
________________ Rod -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:11:30 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 10:30:37 (PDT)
_________________ laz -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 11:40:05 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:14:00 (PDT)
_________________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 04:02:25 (PDT)
__________________ laz -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 20:27:39 (PDT)
__________________ Anne -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 05:43:05 (PDT)
___________________ Rod -:-
the sinfulness of sin -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 07:57:00 (PDT)
____________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: the sinfulness of sin -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:45:08 (PDT)
_____________________ Rod -:-
'The Love Book' -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:54:26 (PDT)
______________________ john hampshire -:-
Re: 'The Love Book' -:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 00:25:02 (PDT)
_______________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: 'The Love Book' -:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 07:46:11 (PDT)
________________________ Rod -:-
Re: 'The Love Book' -:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 11:36:13 (PDT)
_________________________ laz -:-
Re: 'The Love Book' -:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 13:01:33 (PDT)
_________________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: 'The Love Book' -:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 12:50:24 (PDT)
__________________________ Rod -:-
Re: 'The Love Book' -:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 13:07:06 (PDT)
____________ Anne -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 08:48:20 (PDT)

scott lewis -:- Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:10:21 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- my 2 cents :-) -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:51:33 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: my 2 cents :-) -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 13:34:44 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 12:59:27 (PDT)
__ Anne -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 18:21:32 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 01:29:03 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:52:58 (PDT)
___ scott lewis -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:33:47 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:31:56 (PDT)
_____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:58:48 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:35:42 (PDT)
_______ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:48:41 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:14:26 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:19 (PDT)
_________ Rod -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:34:34 (PDT)
_____ scott lewis -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:39:09 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:11:48 (PDT)
_______ scott lewis -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:18:51 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 08:21:12 (PDT)
_______ john hampshire -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:28:39 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:24:01 (PDT)
_________ laz -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:09:41 (PDT)
__________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 04:44:30 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 07:40:29 (PDT)
____________ laz -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:34:39 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 17:10:13 (PDT)
______________ Tom -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:30:04 (PDT)
_______________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 21:28:13 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:42:22 (PDT)
_________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 19:31:44 (PDT)
______________ laz -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 18:45:31 (PDT)
_______________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:20:30 (PDT)
________________ laz -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 06:25:22 (PDT)
_________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Civilian Pursuits -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 08:32:25 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:47:11 (PDT)
__ stan -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:17:20 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:04:29 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:32:49 (PDT)
___ Eric -:-
Are you suggesting -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 13:26:14 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Are you suggesting -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 14:14:01 (PDT)
_ Eric -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:19:26 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:58:03 (PDT)
__ stan -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:44:27 (PDT)
___ Prestor John -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:01:29 (PDT)
____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Publik Skools AND PARENTS -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:49:19 (PDT)
____ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:03:42 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:36:30 (PDT)



Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



Subject: Inspired
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:56:37 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
In John P's objections to restricting singing in the chruches, his central argument seems to be that only the OT Psaltry contains inspred songs. As such, the psalms are the exclusive songs, hymns, what have you, to be voiced in the public worship. All others are to be avoided as they do not come directly from the Lord God. If that were indeed true, it seems to me that we would also have to restrict preaching and teaching severely, curtailing all but the inspired messages contained in the Word of God. That principle, carried to that extreme would mean that 'preaching' would consist solely of Bible reading or recitation of memorized passages, no exegesis, no illustrations, no further comment. Only then could we be certain that the messages delivered were inspired, containing no error, for there are no inspired preachers/writers today. Yet we routinely accept that men may speak concerning the Scriptures in sermons and lessons, without being confined to mere quotation. Since the purpose of hymns is both to glorify our God and to inform the singer/reader, there seems to be no practical difference between singing hymns
based on Scripture and its principles and listening to a sermon prepared by an uninspired man who bases his message on the prayerful seeking of the exact meaning of Scripture.


Subject: Re: Biblico-Theologico Approach
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:51:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Amen!, brother.

A Biblical-theological understanding of the unfolding character of the history of redemption will see new songs and hymns composed with each chapter of God’s plan. When God executes His wrath or grace, it is time to compose new songs which celebrate these covenantal acts of God. This is why new songs are to be found in the historical books, before the Psalms and in the prophetic books after the Psalms. The mighty acts of God in every generation were put to music and sung. The people of God had the freedom to write new songs to praise God; they were never restricted to the Psalms. a. What did the people of God do before David was born? They composed songs as Miriam (Exod.15:20), Moses (Ps. 90) and Deborah (Judg. 5) did to celebrate the acts of God in their generations. b. How did David come to write the Psalms? There was no divine command for him to write the Psalms for worship services. Many of the Psalms were written for David’s personal edification when he was yet a shepherd boy. He had musical gifts and he had the freedom to exercise them in the public worship of God. If a sole psalmist would have been present when David introduced a few of his original songs into the worship service, he would have rejected David’s songs because Moses’ Psalm (Ps. 90) was the only Psalm which could have been sung. c. The presence of other authors included in the Psalms suggests that whoever had the gifts could exercise them for the good of God’s people. (See 1 Chron.15:22, where David hires a song writer, or 1 Chron.16, where David encouraged the priests to compose original vocal and instrumental music to praise God. d. After David, songs were composed to celebrate God’s mighty acts in each generation. (For example, see lsa. 5:1; 26:1; 42:10; Lamentations, etc.) To be sure, the people of God did not forget all the acts of God in ages past; they continued to sing all the old songs and hymns and Psalms from every generation. e. Even a careful reading of the Psalms will discover some Psalms which were written long after David. Some are even from the post-exile period. If the people of God were limited to David’s Psalms, why do we find Psalms from later periods included? The only answer is that the Psalms of David were not viewed as being the finalized hymnbook for the church. f. Finally, where in the Old Testament do we ever find a divine command to sing only the Psalms? There are examples of psalm singing but God never said to restrict ourselves to the Psalms. We are told to remember the acts of God in past generations but also we are told by God to sing new songs to celebrate the acts of God in our own generation (Pss. 33:3; 96:1; 98:1; etc.). The History of Redemption in the New Testament has the same unfolding character as the Old Testament. 1. The angels open up the age of the New Covenant with new songs, not old Psalms (Luke 2:13-14). These new songs celebrate the incarnation and the redemptive work of God the Son. It is apparent from the very beginning that the New Covenant will generate new songs of praise. 2. Mary celebrated God’s work within her by composing a glorious song of faith and confidence (Luke 1:46-55). Thus we begin the New Testament with original songs composed to celebrate the new acts of God in Christ Jesus. 3. Did not the crowds compose a new song to celebrate the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-38)? 4. Do we not find portions of several hymns recorded in the New Testament which show us that the early Christians composed new songs to celebrate the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ? (cf. 1Cor 13; Eph 5:14; Col 1:15-20; 1Tim 3:16; 2Tim 2:11-14; Jam 1:17; Rev 1:5, 6; 15:3; etc.) 5. Did not the Corinthian Christians compose their own distinctively Christian songs when they shared with their fellow saints in public worship (1 Cor. 14:26)? 6. As the New Testament begins with angelic songs, so it closes with heavenly songs. It is important to ask, Are they singing only the Psalms? No! They sing new songs to God (Rev. 4:11; 5:9-14, etc.). The New Testament people had the freedom to compose new songs to celebrate the covenantal acts of God in their own generation. 7. Are we told in the New Testament to restrict ourselves to singing the Psalms in church services? No. There is not a single verse in the New Testament where we are-told to sing the Psalms, and only the Psalms, in the public worship of the gathered church.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Thanks
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 14:53:54 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Thanks Rod and Pilgrim :-) I agree with you, unless God should shows me otherwise through His word. I think I am satified with the information I have read so far, to be reasonable sure on what to believe about the issue. I concider John. P to be a very dear brother in the Lord, but I will have to agree to disagree with him on this issue. I hope after he reads this post he feels the same way about me. Tom


Subject: The Infirm Man
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 09:56:36 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: I'd be interested in your thoughts. How do you assess the 'infirm' man of John 5:1-16? What are the indications of his character, both before and after being healed?


Subject: Re: The Infirm Man
From: john hampshire
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:31:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
His character? Not much to go on. He was sick, too weak to move quickly. He was despairing, perhaps feeling in need of pity. He had no one to put him in the water. I suppose Jesus used this pool because it suitably represented the reason He was sent. Bethesda = 'house of mercy' or 'flowing water', certainly Jesus is the house of mercy out of which living water flows. He picked the sick man to heal because He was 1) One of the elect 2) infirmed 38 years 3) Unable to help himself 4) a good example of salvation 5) It was the Sabbath and the Jews would be suitably angry 6) He planned to use this event to increase the rage that would lead to His death 7) He could use this event to speak to the multitudes about the Father. After being healed the man was in the temple. Jesus warns him to sin not, lest something worse than his earlier infirmities fall upon him. As in: Heb 10:29 'How much severer (worse) punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?' The part of this account that I find remarkable is the account of the messenger of the Lord that would in certain seasons trouble the water allowing the first in to be healed. I have read that the troubling may have been subterraneous gas bubbles. It would seem that people thought that it was a messenger of the Lord, rather than actually an angel. If people were actually healed of all kinds of infirmities then it must have been a miracle just as stated. But I still have problem with spirit-beings stirring physical water. And for what purpose? It is an inconsistent idea that angels heal people. I must contend, having just convinced myself, that it was 'thought' there might be healings available at the pool, and many believed that if they went into the pool after seeing bubbles (assumed to be from God since all healing is from God) they would be healed. Sound more like superstition than reality; attributed to angels by the sick. I would think the sick man had placed his faith in a superstition, yet Christ showed him where the reality was. I will assume this one sick man, out of a multitude of sickly people was God's elected one, and after the healing he was healed both spiritually and physically. The warning to “sin not” seems not unique to that man, but applies to all. Though the man was healed spiritually (I assume), he was not exempt from living in obedience to God, which should be his inner-desire. There is no way for the sick man to know he was spiritually healed except he 'sin not'. And perhaps, his earlier sin involved drinking or sexual immorality that resulted in his 'sickness'. john


Subject: Tres Dias
From: john hampshire
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 23:05:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anyone familiar with the Tres Dias program? Theology is non-demoninational supposedly reaching out to all Christians or searchers. Any concerns with this organization? john


Subject: Re: Tres Dias
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:02:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anyone familiar with the Tres Dias program? Theology is non-demoninational supposedly reaching out to all Christians or searchers. Any concerns with this organization? john
---
John,

Here's a quote from the web site Stan referenced, and found in their 'Essentials of Tres Dias'

TRES DIAS is based on the principles, the method, and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Cursillo movement initially proposed by Bishop Juan Hervas, Eduardo Bonnin and their fellow Christians. Each candidate goes through three phases of the TRES DIAS movement: the pre-weekend, the three-day weekend1 and the Fourth Day. TRES DIAS is a Christian ecumenical movement.

Enough said? hahaha

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Tres Dias
From: stan
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:17:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
http://www.tresdias.org/


Subject: God's plans for the reprobate?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:14:06 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Okay, riddle me this . . . . . I've been reading 'Knowing God' by J. I. Packer and he is talking about the plans God has for us, His adoptive children. But this set me thinking . . . . since God is omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't He, for all practical purposes, have a 'plan' for all His creatures, both elect and otherwise? How, precisely, do
our plans differ from those of the reprobate, except in our eventual eternal destinations? Anne


Subject: Re: God's plans for the reprobate?
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:36:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Okay, riddle me this . . . . . I've been reading 'Knowing God' by J. I. Packer and he is talking about the plans God has for us, His adoptive children. But this set me thinking . . . . since God is omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't He, for all practical purposes, have a 'plan' for all His creatures, both elect and otherwise? How, precisely, do
our plans differ from those of the reprobate, except in our eventual eternal destinations? Anne
---
Anne,

One major thing that differs between God's 'plan' for the elect and His 'plan' for the reprobate, is that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.' Within this 'all things' is also meant our Sanctification. We are always being 'conformed to the image of Christ' (Rom 8:29), made 'partakers of the divine nature' (Joh 1:12; 2Pet 1:4), and are destined to receive 'the inheritance of the saints' (Col 1:12; cf. Eph 1:11, 14, 18; Heb 9:15; 1Pet 1:4). In other words, after we have been made 'right' for heaven (Justification), we are then made 'fit' for heaven (Sanctification). :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: God's plans for the reprobate?
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 23:46:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
How, precisely, do our plans differ from those of the reprobate, except in our eventual eternal destinations? No doubt our regeneration, calling, salvation, justification, sanctification, and eventual glorification differentiate us from the reprobate in a very real way. Still, God uses all mankind for His purposes, so we fit into His predetermined plans to the same degree. I think there is merit in reminding the unrepentant sinner that God indeed has a plan for him. It just gets sidetracked (distorted) by some into: 'Do you know God has a plan for your life, He wants you to be saved'. There is also the insidious distortion for believers too: 'Do you know God has a plan for your life, He wants you to be ________'. Fill in the blank with: Happy, healthy, wealthy, victorious, Spirit-filled, on and on. The implication here is that whatever God's plan may be, it can be 'activated' or 'altered' if we only ask. Hence, God has not one plan, but many plans for your life, depending upon your responses and choices. Or we can say then, based on this type of theology, God has no plan for your life... YOU are responsible for all that happens; God is waiting to help empower YOU! john


Subject: Re: God's plans for the reprobate?
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 05:38:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, you said:
Or we can say then, based on this type of theology, God has no plan for your life... YOU are responsible for all that happens; God is waiting to help empower YOU! I agree with your post but wanted to add in the interest of playing the 'human responsibility' card (and to head off any charges of determinism/fatalism)...that God using ways and means known only to Himself, DOES empower us both to 'will and to do His good pleasure'. blessings, laz


Subject: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: Prestor John
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 11:33:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello! yes, I'm at it again, shall Scriptural worship include hymns or should the church only sing the psalms? Prestor John


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: ttrails
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:37:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello! yes, I'm at it again, shall Scriptural worship include hymns or should the church only sing the psalms? Prestor John
---
-- Well Prestor, I had a huge post going here, but changed my mind. Hi anyway!


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: Five Sola
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 20:10:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor, I would have to say hymns are acceptable. Unfortunately, I do not have much scriptural references. Since I grew up in a legalistic baptist church (fundamentalist) that I get a bit hesitant when exclusivity is given in any area (I know that some areas would warrant exclusivity as my handle even indicates :-) ). KJVonly-ism is a black plague on our churches today, immersion ONLY (sorry my baptist brothers) is a claim not permitted by scripture, and I would be hesitant in the area to say Psalms ONLY. Five Sola.


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 18:06:29 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
(continued) Here are some reasons for believing that the 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,' found in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 are speaking only of the Psalms contained in the Old Testament: (1) The Old Testament with which those who were apart of the churches of Ephesus and Colosse were familiar was the Greek translation known as the Septuagint (LXX). In this translation, we find that the OT Psalms used interchangeably as their titles the
same Greek words that were used by Paul in the two passages under discussion. For proof, consider the following (by Greg L. Price):
---

---

---
Begin Quote
---

---

---
b. 'Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' is a form of Hebrew parallelism wherein these 3 words do not indicate a distinction in the content of the song sung, but rather refer to the 3 words used in the Psalter of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) for the Psalms authorized by David. This Hebrew parallelism is found in both the O.T. (e.g. Deut.30:16; Ps.19:7,8) and in the N.T. (e.g. 2 Cor.12:12; Eph.1:21; Col.1:16,22). The fact that Paul uses one other instance of parallelism in Eph.5:19 (literally, 'singing and psalming with your heart to the Lord') seems to give overwhelming evidence that such was his intent in using psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We find the same type of parallelism used in the LXX in Ps.26:6; Ps.104:2; Ps.107:1 where singing and psalming are used, but no distinction in the content of song is intended by the two different verbs used. c. Since the LXX was used throughout the Greek speaking world, the designations *psalmois* (psalms), *humnois* (hymns), and *odais* (songs) were familiar expressions for the psalms found in the Psalter. In Ps.71:20 of the LXX (which is Ps.72:20 in our English version), all of the previous psalms of David (i.e. Psalms 1-71) are called 'the hymns of David.' Six of the Psalm titles use the word 'hymn' (*humnos*). Thirty-six of the Psalm titles use the word 'song' (*ode*). In fact, the title to Ps.75 in the LXX (which is Ps.76 in our English version) includes all three terms used in Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16: 'For the end, among the Hymns (*humnois*), a Psalm (*psalmos*) for Asaph; a Song (*ode*) for the Assyrian.' In the titles of the Psalms (as found in the LXX), all three terms found in Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 (hymns, psalms, and songs) are used interchangeably: 'a song of David among the psalms' (Ps.4); 'a psalm of David, a song' (Ps.64); 'a psalm of a song' (Ps.29,47,67,74,86,91); 'a song of a psalm' (Ps.65,82,87,107); 'a psalm of David among the hymns' (Ps.6,66).
---

---

---
-End Quote
---

---

---
-- Thus, it would not have been ambiguous or confusing to the first readers of Paul's letter that, when he used the terms, 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,' he was speaking of the OT Psalms -
He simply gave their titles. (2) Each word individually ought to be considered (in this context) as speaking of the OT Psalms. For, A. The word 'psalm' obviously refers to the OT Psalms, and has been interpetted that way by even many opposers of Exclusive Psalmody. B. The word 'hymn' was used by the gospel writers to describe the song sung by Jesus and His disciples during the Passover (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26). It was customary for the Jews to sing during the Passover the 113th through the 118th Psalms during the Passover ('The Great Hallel'); thus, we would expect that Jesus and His disciples likewise were probably singing these Psalms, which were recorded in the Gospels as, 'hymns.' C. The word 'songs' is modified by the adjective 'spiritual.' Which, in the Greek is *pneumatikos*. This word means 'Spirit inspired' the other two times it is used to refer to that which is written, in the New Testament: In Romans 7:14, the law is called spiritual and the words of scripture are called spiritual in 1 Cor.2:13. Thus, we have good Biblically warrant to believe these songs are Spirit-inspired (the Psalms of the OT). (3) The context of the passages intimate that these, 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' under consideration are Spirit-inspired Scripture. For, in Colossians 3:16, the apostle Paul commands us to, 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom;' and then he continues by giving us the means by which we may do this: 'teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, &c.' Thus, these songs are songs that are to be used as means of letting the 'word of Christ,' or Scripture, dwell in us. Furthermore, all of those in the church (whether new, and relatively ignorant Christians, or old, more mature Christians) are here commanded to, 'teach and admonich' their brethren by means of these songs. If we are to expect new and conscientious Christians sing in worship - teaching their brethren in good conscience (when they know so little) what better means to make their conscience clear than to sing that which God has inspired? They aren't ordained ministers who have been tested doctrinally by other lawfully ordained persons before they were permitted to convey the meaning of Scripture before the people by means of preaching; thus, they ought not have to 'preach another man's uninspired (technical sense) song to their brethren when teaching and admonishing them.' Now, I realize that the objection may arise that the terms, 'psalms, hymns, and songs,' have been used by pagans as referring to works other than the OT hymnal. However, from what is above related to you, I think that possibility is by far too weak to, with good conscience and in faith (which alone can rest in God and His word), sing songs other than those given to us in God's hymnal. And, whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. Love, John P.


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: Diacono
To: John P.
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 12:08:21 (PDT)
Email Address: diacono@minister.com

Message:
Greetings in Christ John, I think that what we must keep in mind is Christian liberty. What may be right for me, may be wrong for you. Paul was clear in teaching this. Personally, I think that if are to say that the hymns by many writers were not 'spiritual' you'd have to take another look. The fact that they are not 'Scripture' does not mean that they are not 'spiritual'. I would be wrong to agree that hymns are not 'spiritual'. But even more than that, you have to go the next step. How are we to sing these songs? What kind of instroments are allowed to be used? Do we cant them, which is the proper form of 'sining' 'songs'. For the Jews did not actually sing as the heathens did. Do we only use the trumpet, lute, tamborine and drum? Can we use the piano? What about a guitar? Is a bass out of the question? Why, because the Law says not to use any other instruments? If so, I must ask the next question: Are we still under the Law? If under the Law, the yes, only psalms may be sung in the church. But if we are under the Law still, the there is no Church, because Christ did not fulfil the Law and release us from it. These are just the idle thinkings of a conservative baptist. I have a hard time agreeing with anything that calls for absolutes that are out side of Soteriology and Christology. Do not get me wrong, there are slew of importants issues out there, but when it comes to absolutes, and setting down legalistic laws, we really need to take a good close look at what we are doing, and see if that is in accord with our Christian liberties. In Christ, Diacono


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: John P.
To: Diacono
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:29:37 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings to you, too, Diacono: It is nice to see your reply. It raises some good questions. They primarily concerned my first point in the shorter of my emails. I wrote, 'First, we must have warrant from the Word of God for doing what we do in worship (aside from circumstantials). (Deuteronomy 12:32; Lev. 10:1-3; Mark 7:7; John 4:19-24; Colossians 2:23; &c.) This is necessary a necessary [Typo] understanding of worship before it is even worth discussing.' Whereas I began with the claim that we must have Scriptural warrant for all that we do in public worship, your claim is that we can do whatever we wish - or will - to do. My claim is that any position which says that we can do whatever we care to in worship is what the Bible calls, 'will worship' (Col. 2:23 AV). There is a lot I could write in defense of this, however, I will only use four passages to prove that we cannot do whatever we desire in worship (two OT and two NT). If you desire more, I recommend that you read a wonderful (short) book on worship by Kevin Reed. It is free on the Internet at the following address: <
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibW_ch0.htm> For now, however, consider the four passages I said I would use: From the Old Testament: (1) Deuteronomy 12:32, 'What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add therto, nor diminish from it.' This passage is in the context of the laws of the sanctuary; or, in other words, God is commanding the people of Israel to, when they enter the promised land, not worship God after the manner of the heathen (v30). So, after forbidding that the Israelites worship God to use the heathen means of worship to worship Him, He gave them a positive duty commanding them how exactly they were to worship Him. This manner of worshipping Him was to not add their own desired ways of worshipping Him, nor to take away from His commanded means. If you read the context, you will see this. This passage is not speaking of Sola Scriptura even though Sola Scriptura certainly is true. Rather, it is speaking of how we are to worship God. (2) Leviticus 10:1-3, 'And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.' This passage is an application of the command of God given in Deut. 12:32. Nadab and Abihu have decided to worship God by offering Him strange fire. God was displeased with this worship so vehemently, that He devoured them with fire from heaven. This ought to make us ask (with trembling), 'What, then, was it that made this fire strange?' The details of what made the fire strange can be debated, however, we know this much: They did something in worship which wasn't commanded. For, the text says of the strange fire that, '[God] had not commanded [it of] them.' (NAS - bracketed portions mine; I chose the NAS version here because modern English helps draw out the meaning in this text). Thus, God is serious about the manner in which He is worshipped. New Testament passages: (3) Mark 7:7, 'Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' Here, Jesus reiterates the doctrine propogated in Deuteronomy 12:32, showing its moral perpetuity in the NT. For, if it is vain worship to worship after the teachings and commandments of men, and traditions too (seen in the subsequent verses), then, by process of elimination, we either have to be commanded by God, angels, brute beasts, or beings of whom we know nothing. Unless were Mormons or enthusiasts, we don't get our worship from 'angels'; Unless we are over-environmentalists, we don't believe animals have any part in worship (and even if we were super-environmentalists, animals wouldn't teach us how to worship; they would be the object of it); and we certainly don't care about the commands of beings which may exist of whom we know not a thing (nor do most of us believe in any such thing). That leaves us with the necessity of having God's command if we desire our worship not to be 'vain.' (4) Hebrews 9:1, 'Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.' (emphasis added) In this passage, we find a couple important things: A. There were ordinances (*dikaioma* - which has the force of laws) of divine service (*latreia* - which refers to worship) in the First (or Old) Covenant. B. Not only were there these laws or ordinances of divine worship in the Old Covenant, the word, 'also,' is used to describe these ordinances or laws of worship. Now, that word intimates what? that something else of the like kind as the first *covenant* also has laws of worship. Conveniently, the immediate context (ch. 8) speaks of the second (or New) covenant. Thus, the New Covenant also has laws or ordinances of worship. Concerning instruments, I don't have time to get into the details. However, we do believe they are regulated by God, and that (as the faithful reformers and early church fathers believed) they are not to be used at all in public worship in the New Covenant. Our reasn is precisely because we are no longer under the Law. Please, however, since I don't have time to discuss more than one thread at a time (maybe two if one is easier - like the Watts thread), send me an email and I will send you Internet sources that will permit you to study this on your own. Then, maybe later, you can post your objections and I will respond with a Biblical defense. Please understand that I would love to have time to do this all day, but I simply don't. Love, John P. PS - Christian liberty is the liberty to obey God in simplicity of faith; thus, the church didn't have the liberty to add to worship whatever they desired. In fact, I suppose that there would even come a point where (as Tom H. wisely intimated) even you would limit others liberty. For instance, I'd suspect you wouldn't permit cookies and soda for the Lord's Supper, or oils for baptism. Thus, you are either determining how everyone else is to wroship God according to your own counsel and rule, or you must submit to the fact that God alone has the right to command how He is served in worship.


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: Tom.H
To: Diacono
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 13:23:51 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Diacono Although I agree that Paul talks about Christian liberty. He also uses it (Christian liberty) in a context. What I would like to ask you is, can you show me from scripture, how we can apply our Christian liberty to worship? Also if it can, to what extent are we allowed to take that? Would you say that Christian liberty even applies to contempory worship, where rock music is being used in the worship of God? Tom


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: Diacono
To: Tom.H
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 06:49:59 (PDT)
Email Address: diacono@minister.com

Message:
Diacono Although I agree that Paul talks about Christian liberty. He also uses it (Christian liberty) in a context. What I would like to ask you is, can you show me from scripture, how we can apply our Christian liberty to worship? Also if it can, to what extent are we allowed to take that? Would you say that Christian liberty even applies to contempory worship, where rock music is being used in the worship of God? Tom Tom, Let me start by quoting Paul in his letter to the Romans. “For one believeth that he may eat all thing; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateh not judge him that eateth; for god hat received him…. It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eatheth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Rm.14:2-3,21-23) Realizing of course that the particular context here is eating meat, the application goes beyond that, even into musical worship with song in the church. The argument has been made previously that ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’ But the context only partly supports that statement. Partly insomuch as the believer does not doubt that which he is doing, that he has faith that he is right before God in what he does. Paul speaks to one of the most controversial issues between Jewish and Gentile believers, that of eating meat, unclean meat at that. We all recall the rebuke that Paul gave to Peter for removing himself, and thus many other Jews, from eating with Gentiles. The reason for this is that the Gentile believers were eating things unclean to a Jew. Christ Himself said that it is not what man eats that makes him unclean but that whish comes out of his heart (and this all because the disciples didn’t wash their hands before eating). We all would heartily agree that eating meat, whether it be fish, chicken, beef or pork is of no consequence. Paul speaks specifically of meat offered to idols in 1 Cor. 10. The warning of eating food offered to idols here is not for the conscience of the believer, but that of the other. If eating the food will offend another, then for his sake, don’t eat it. Paul did not instruct the Romans or the Corinthians to stop eating meat. For that matter, he didn’t tell them to stop using any particular kind of music in their worship either. The non-Jewish believers would not have known the old Psalms, neither would their song pattern be like that of Jews. In fact, of all the instructions that the Jerusalem council could have given to the Gentiles, they limited it to “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” As we have already seen, the eating of meat is not a mandate because it is a sin, but because of the offense that it would cause to the Jewish believers. Where then is the forbidding of Roman music in church? It is not there. Surely Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, would have instructed them as to what type of songs are appropriate for worship. In fact, it is believe (and enough research to prove) that Paul himself either authored, or used portions of doxologies and early hymns in his letters. These could not have been the Psalms to which he was referring to in ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.’ The key to Christian liberty as applied to worship, especially corporate worship is this, do you doubt what you are doing? Do you have faith that what you are doing is right in God’s eyes. If the question be applied to up beat music, to worship songs, to hymns and songs not written in the Psalms, I can say yes. There is no convection in me, and thus no condemnation in such. If one finds fault, or is offended by such music in church, then that person needs to find another church that fits his acceptance in worship. It is not sin for the chuch is worshiping in true faith, and doubts not. I’m sure that this just opens up more questions. My reply is not meant to be a treatise in defense of my particular feelings on musical worship in church. How a church worships is between them and God alone. In Christ, Diacono


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 18:06:12 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings: Scriptural worship must only include Psalms. The chief passages from the New Testament which can be brought forth as witnesses against exclusive Psalmody are the two alluded to by Prestor in his
Subject for this message: Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. What I am arguing is that these passages are speaking only of the God-breathed Psalm book recorded in the Old Testament, under the titles of, 'pslams, hymns, and spiritual songs.' How does one get that? I will answer that in the next post. However, for the moment, I will just lay out my claims: (1) First, we must have warrant from the Word of God for doing what we do in worship (aside from circumstantials). (Deuteronomy 12:32; Lev. 10:1-3; Mark 7:7; John 4:19-24; Colossians 2:23; &c.) This is necessary a necessary understanding of worship before it is even worth discussing. (2) This warrant from Scripture must be clear enough that we can do that which we do in worship in faith and good conscience, otherwise it is sinful worship. 'And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin' (Romans 14:23). (3) The passages referred to by Prestor do not give warrant for singing anything other than Psalms, and even if stretched to argue against the exclusive Psalmody, they certainly do not warrant a certainty that we may sing songs other than the Psalms. (see next post for evidence) (Continuing) Biblical Worship www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibW_ch0.htm


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: Pilgrim
To: John P.
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:26:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John P.

So here we are again debating the untenable position of Exclusive Psalmody. :-) You want to base your view on two particular passages of Scripture, namely Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. From Greg Price's writings, you assert that Paul was referencing the Scriptures from the LXX; delineating between three 'groups' of psalms rather than three 'types' of songs. First of all I think it must be noted that 'the Reformers, the English Puritans, and the best modern Reformed commentators such as Hodge and Wm. Hendriksen all reject this interpretation of these two passages and including James 5:13. John Calvin, for example, said this on Col. 3:16:

Moreover, under these three terms he (Paul) includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way: a psalm is sung to the accompaniment of some musical instrument, a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; an ode contains not merely praise, but exhortation and other matters. He wants the songs of Christians to be spiritual, and not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles. (emphasis is mine). Another example can be drawn from Scripture itself. Is the reference to 'songs' in Rev.5:9 therefore to be understood as referring to the O.T. 'Psalter'?

Now let's move on the one of the passages in question, e.g., Eph:519 which reads:

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

For this text to teach 'Exclusive Psalmody' it must first speak directly concerning the public worship of God by the gathered church. The question therefore is, Does it do so? If it was speaking strictly of the public worship of the saints then what are we to make of the preceding verse which commands us 'to be filled with the Spirit'? Is this then to be restricted to the public worship? What about 'giving thanks'? (vs. 20). And what about 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.'; are wives only to submit themselves to their husbands during the public worship, and are free from offering submission when they leave the assembly? It seems clear that Paul is referring to all of life and not just to the public worship of God. 'Does this verse refer exclusively to public worship? Verse 19 primarily concerns personal edification just as verse 18 refers to personal filling, verse 20 to personal thanksgiving, and verse 21 to private mutual fellowship. The remainder of the passage concerns personal obedience in the home (22-6:4) or at work (6:5-9). Exclusive Psalmodists allow hymns and songs to be used for personal edification, but then point to Eph. 5:19 as proving exclusive psalmody. If this verse actually taught exclusive psalmody, it would mean that only the Psalms are to be sung in private for personal edification. But this position is unacceptable to nearly everyone.' Again, Eph 5:19 does NOT speak narrowly of only the public gathering and worship of God, but rather to the everyday life of all Christians. 'Notice also that the apostle said, 'Speaking to yourselves in Psalms and hymns an spiritual songs.' If this verse refers to exclusive psalmody in public worship, then not only must singing be done by the Psalms, but all speaking as well. All sermons, prayers, and lessons must be restricted to quotations from the Psalms if this verse teaches exclusive psalmody.'

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: John P.
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 18:06:26 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings again, Pilgrim, it has been a while, brother. :) I thought you would get involved - that is good. Let me deal quickly with your arguments (as I'm running short on time): (1) Calvin, Hodge, and others, believed psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs could be interpretted as more than merely the Psalms of David. I grant this. However, the Westminster Divines, Matthew Henry, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, St. Augustine, and more, maintained exclusive Psalmody, and hence, either advocated the interpretation that I gave concerning these passages, were moving in that direction, or completely disassociated these passages from the context of worship at all. (2) I did not present these verses as an argument
for exclusive Psalmody. Rather, I interpretted them to refute an objection against it. What is the significance? I don't think they have to be speaking of public worship. I think the fact that the OT worshippers sang their worship tunes from the Psalter because of divine warrant, we need warrant that this command of God has been abrogated. From these passages, people attempt to prove that other songs have been added to the worship of God; this I deny, and this is what I was attempting to prove. Thus, in my first sentence, I didn't say, 'Here are two passages that prove Exclusive Psalmody'; rather, I wrote, 'The chief passages from the New Testament which can be brought forth as witnesses against exclusive Psalmody are the two alluded to by Prestor in his Subject for this message: Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. What I am arguing is that these passages are speaking only of the God-breathed Psalm book recorded in the Old Testament, under the titles of, 'pslams, hymns, and spiritual songs.'' Notice, I approached my first two emails as a refutation of an expected objection; not as a positive argument for exclusive Psalmody. For, if there is no positive warrant from Scripture (whether necessarily inferred from Scripture's plain teaching, or expressly commanded) to sing songs other than the OT Psalms, then you are without an argument for the practice. Besides, if these verses were commands to sing songs other than the Psalms (which it would have to be if it is a command, and your interpretation is correct), then the Westminster Divines, and the men above mentioned (plus more), continually committed a sin of omission: they didn't sing religious songs by men (at least not in public, private, or family worship). (3) You wrote, 'Exclusive Psalmodists allow hymns and songs to be used for personal edification, but then point to Eph. 5:19 as proving exclusive psalmody. If this verse actually taught exclusive psalmody, it would mean that only the Psalms are to be sung in private for personal edification. But this position is unacceptable to nearly everyone.' The Regulative Principle of worship does not apply to times other than worship. Thus, even if this passage is referring to times other than public worship, it does not forbid us to sing other songs for personal edification throughout the day. However, in (organized) private, domestic, or public worship, I do not know of any exclusive Psalmodists who sing other songs from those of the Psalter. (4) About the 'Speaking' objection, in which you claim that, if this passage is referring to only public worship, then we may only speak the Psalms. I agree, IF two conditions were met: A. We could prove that the word 'speaking' isn't being used in a strange manner referring to 'singing,' and, B. This is speaking of public worship only. I have no problem claiming that this passage is not explicitly referring to public worship. All I'm claiming is that it does give no warrant to the opposers of exclusive Psalmody to defend their singing other songs - which Augustine condescendingly and condemningly called, 'the poetic effusions of human genius.' In conclusion, the basic assumption on which almost the entirety of your objection to exclusive Psalmody lied was that we believe Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 are speaking of the public setting of worship. We can agree with you, that these are speaking of the setting outside of worship, and still not have our argument weakened in the least. Thus, your argument was impertinent. For Christ's Crown and Covenant, John P.


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: Pilgrim
To: John P.
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:57:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,

Very few Reformed people would ever argue against the use of Psalms in public worship. In fact, most all have argued for their inclusion. On the Regulative Principle, however, I would have to strongly disagree that it is to be limited ONLY to public worship, but rather in is an all encompassing principle that affects all of life; public worship being but one of its applications, albeit a very important one. The Puritans who developed this Principle surely applied it to their everyday lives as no one can contest. At the time of the Reformation, the Reformers established the basic principle that so far as the public worship of God is concerned, whatever is not commanded by Scripture is forbidden. This principle was necessary in order to give a clear reason for the exclusion of the mass, prayers for the dead, prayers to the saints, rosary services, etc. The Reformers wanted to re-establish the pure worship of the apostolic church. The regulative principle was their main instrument by which they sought to do this. Since nearly all Reformed Christians accept this principle, it is surprising that exclusive psalmists claim that the regulative principle of worship forbids the introduction of uninspired hymns in New Testament church services. 'If it is not commanded, it is forbidden' is thought by them to be the main argument for exclusive psalm singing in the church. But this principle in no way gives support to the sole psalmists' argument, as will be seen by the three following reasons. A. The Reformers and the Puritans who established this principle and fought for it, never understood it to mean the exclusion of uninspired hymns from church worship.

1. Did not Calvin include uninspired hymns in the Geneva Psalter? Yes. 2. Did not the first Scottish, English and Dutch Psalters include uninspired hymns? Yes. 3. Did not the Puritans who developed this principle actively engage in the writing of hymns (Baxter, Henry, Bunyan, etc.) and publish them (Owen)? Yes. 4. Even the great lights of the Evangelical Awakening were not opposed in principle to the singing of uninspired hymns in the services, (Whitefield, Romaine, Wesley, Toplady, Williams, etc.).

If the very framers and the greatest expounders of the regulative principle never derived exclusive psalmody from the regulative principle, this casts suspicion that the present use of the principle for exclusive psalmody is based upon a misunderstanding of the principle itself. B. This misunderstanding arises out of a confusion between the essence of the act of worship and the circumstances attending worship. Dr. J . I. Packer has pointed out this distinction as being fundamental to the Puritan concept of the regulative principle of worship. 1. Scripture alone tells what makes up the essence of worship. God has revealed to his people that there is to be (1) a gathering together for (2) the preaching and teaching of the Word, (3) the administration of the sacraments, (4) church discipline, (5)prayers, (6) singing, (7) fellowship, and (8) collection of offerings. The Romanists sought to add the Veneration of the Saints, worship of Mary, masses for dead, adoration of images, auricular confession, penance, candles, rosaries, etc. The Reformers and Puritans refused to add any of these things to the essence of worship. Nothing is to be added except it be a rule of Scripture. This is the clear teaching of Chapter XXI in the Westminster Confession of Faith. 2. On the other hand, the circumstances of worship are a matter of Christian liberty and practicality. The early churches met in the temple and in synagogues until driven out by the Jews. Then the home was the place of the churches until the congregations grew too large; then they had to go into the fields to worship. When Christianity was legalized, believers built places of worship. The design of the building, the presence of pews and organs, even the clothing of the minister belongs to the circumstances of worship. The vestment controversy of Owen's day was not over the issue of whether or not a minister could wear vestments, but whether or not the minister must wear vestments as part of the essence of worship. Whether or not you have musical instruments accompanying your singing, or whether you sing the Psalms or uninspired hymns are issues belonging to the circumstances of worship. C. Even if we were to grant that regulative principle of worship will dictate the material to be sung in the worship service, where do we find in Scripture any explicit commands concerning congregational singing? Even if we were willing to grant that Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 did directly and exclusively refer to public worship, these passages clearly include hymns and songs as well as the Psalms. D. I must agree with the Reformers, the Puritans, and the best Reformed commentators in their understanding of the regulative principle of worship, i.e. that the regulative principle cannot be used to establish exclusive psalmody.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: John P.
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:14:10 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Brother Pilgrim, (beware of typos, this is long, uneditted, and quickly typed) I think you are mistaken in your arguments (or at least the conclusions you draw from them). Because of the length of it, and the various different arguments presented, I will reply paragraph by paragraph (highlighting major points). (1) In your first paragraph, you claimed the regulative principle applies to
all of our life, not merely to public worship. By this claim, you have demonstrated one of two things: A. You either don't believe in the Regulative Principle of worship, but rather what others believe; or B. You have not made the appropriate distinction between how our lives are regulated and how worship is - thus leading you to us the term 'Regulative Principle,' sounding as though it is the same thing in worship and life, while at the same time having two different understandings of the term. Why do I say this? Let me give an example of how the regulation in life is different from that of worship. (My example:) Nadab and Abihu, rather than being priests, were ordinary merchants. As they moved from one location to another, they sold a certain product - I know not what. However, one day, they noticed a distinct and bad odor. 'You know Nadab,' said Abihu, 'I bet we could make a ton, without sinning, by selling censor-like pans, incense, and matches! That would cover the odor when the people burnt the incense!' 'No, no, Abihu; (replies Nadab) We ought not sell it so quickly. First, let's see how the people like the smell by trying it ourselves! Don't you think?' 'Good idea!' Poof! They light a fire in a censor like devise, in order to burn incense for the purpose of 'perfuming the camp.' Did they sin? No. Why? Because in our ordinary life - independant of formal (or public, private, or family) worship - they were certain that there was no prohibition, nor principle that would lead to the prohibition of burning incense in a censor-like devise for the purpose of covering a bad odor. However, had Nadab and Abihu not been merely merchants doing this as a business endevour, but were (as they were) priests and doing this in the public worship setting, because they had no express commandment to do this in the worship of God, they were consumed by the wrath of the Almighty. I hope you see the difference. Thus, if you desire to deny this difference, you either deny the regulative principle of worship or you deny the regulative principle of life by saying Nadab and Abihu were not in sin in their hypothetical business endeavor; if you accept this difference, then you must confess that your claim, 'I would have to strongly disagree that it [Regulative Principle-JP] is to be limited ONLY to public worship, but rather in is an all encompassing principle that affects all of life;' contains ambiguity which allows you to change your understanding of the regulative principle when you speak of worship or its application to non-formal-worship life. For, the regulative principle of life is what most today think we may do in worship: anything not forbidden; while the regulative principle of worship is what most today despise: nothing can be done in worship (as to elements of worship) except that which is commanded or warranted by good and necessary inference. (2) Now I'm going to skip a few paragraphs, and continue on to your 'A - B - C - D' points. Starting with point A: In this point, you essentially are claiming that those whom we claim to be the great expounders of the Regulative Principle of Worship, denied exclusive Psalmody. Let me deal with your four questions (which you answered for us): 1. About Calvin's including uninspired hymns in the Geneva Psalter. In my most recent post, I discussed this. So I won't get into it for the time being. I agree that Calvin was not an exclusive Psalmist - however, he was moving in that direction his whole life, and even held a position of exclusive singing of inspired songs. However, I would simply state that the presense of hymns in the Psalters of the various reformed churches does not intimate they used them in worship. 'What!' you say? 'That is an absurd claim!' No - their Bibles also contained the apocrypha. I don't suspect you would argue that they used the apocrypha in worship (expressly contrary to the WCF). 2. This point was that various churches included hymns in their Psalters. See last two sentences of previous point. 3. Your next claim is that some of the Puritans actively engaged in writing hymns. I wouldn't have a moral problem writing them either (although I likely wouldn't spend my time doing that). I have even - impromptu - sung little songs of my own; this doesn't make me an opponent of exclusive Psalmody. 4. First off, I wouldn't call Wesley a light in any way. Secondly, you neglected to mention Edwards. That was because he was plainly an exclusive Psalmist. In his 'History of Redemption,' Part V, he wrote, 'Another thing God did towards this work [the work of redemption-JP], at that time, was his inspiring David to show forth Christ and his redemption, in divine songs, which should be for the use of the church, in public worship, throughout all ages.' (p. 554, Works of Jonathan Edwards; v. i. - Banner of Truth) Concerning the rest of them, I agree with you on some, but others I am ignorant and am going to have to take your word for it - which I do. B. Now, to deal with your second major heading, which you subdivided into two points, ultimately leading to the conclusion that Psalms and hymns (and instruments made their way into the discussion here, though they don't belong for the time being) are a part of the circumstances of worship. Your two claims were these: (1) 'Scripture alone tells us what makes up the essence of worship.' You certainly are not going to get an argument from me. However, you continue to list off the ordinances / elements of worship which are among those which make up the essence of worship. Among this number is 'singing.' Then, you appealed to the Westminster Confessional Standards (WCS) in order to show that they agree that Scripture alone make this distinction between that which is of the essence of worship and that which is circumstantial. Amazingly, the Westminster Standards teach not merely that singing is an ordinace or essential element, but rather that Psalm singing is an ordinance of God. Furthermore, in all their details about what goes into worship as elements, they (conspicuously) neglect to mention anything but the Psalms. Consider their Directory for Publick Worship: _____Begin Quote______ 'Of the Singing of Psalms: IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family. In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord. That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.' _____End Quote______ They even got into the details about how the psalms ought to be sung in order to make it possible for the illiterate, children, or impaired-seeing elderly could sing along! And, lo, they - being non-exclusive Psalmodists - forgot to mention that other songs can be sung! Furthermore, it is amazing that the singing of Psalms and instrumental accompaniment are merely circumstantials now, when, in the Old Covenant, God treated them as elements. Now, without Scripture changing them from non-circumstantials, how, I pray you, did they insta-become circumstantials? Location became a circumstantial, when it wasn't before - but we have express warrant for that change (John 4:19-24); where is the warrant for that change when it comes to the substance of the songs we sing, and the instruments that accompany them? It doesn't exist. (2) Secondly, you claim that (or at least intimate without qualifying) that in the time immediately following the legalization of Christianity, organs were present in the Church. Pilgrim, you claim to know church history, and I believe you do (as a brother); but how the fact that even the most pro-instruments-in-worship Church historians (Schaff, for instance) will only say that instruments were introduced in worship at earliest as a remotely acceptable practice in the 8th century escaped your notice, I cannot answer. I suspect that you just were writing fast, and didn't explain that to us because of a mistake that we make when rushing (which is understandable). However, it is hard to imagine that the Christian church, having come out of the Jewish church which used instruments, could have been taught by Jews (the apostles) who would have used instruments in worship when Jewish, would have ceased the practice if they did not believe instruments were regulated and non-circumstantial. Even in the 1200's Aquinas claimed that they were not in the majority of churches because the churches did not wish to Judaize! --But I am now working on a tangent, and must stop. We need to stick to Psalms, please. I simply couldn't overlook this error. C. Thirdly, you claimed (and I quote), 'Even if we were to grant that regulative principle of worship will dictate the material to be sung in the worship service, where do we find in Scripture any explicit commands concerning congregational singing? Even if we were willing to grant that Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 did directly and exclusively refer to public worship, these passages clearly include hymns and songs as well as the Psalms.' -We find warrant from Scripture to sing in the congregations from Hebrews 2:11,12, ' Heb 2:11-12, 'For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church (*ekklesia*) will I sing praise (*humneo*) unto thee.' Thus, in the church, there will be singing; see also 1 Cor. 14:26, where, in the public worship, they were bringing forth 'psalm' (*psalmos*) to sing. Thus, we have warrant to sing in worship. Secondly, you have simply begged the question by assuming what nobody has been able to prove (with certainty) for as long as the debate has existed, viz. that the 'hymns and spiritual songs' in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 are other than the Psalms. You have to prove that - not just claim it. Saying, 'these passages clearly include hymns and songs as well as the Psalms,' is merely a proof surrogate (a claim of fact without evidence to defend it). D. Finally, you say you must agree with, 'the Reformers, the Puritans, and the best Reformed commentators in their understanding of the regulative principle of worship, i.e. that the regulative principle cannot be used to establish exclusive psalmody.' First, I would argue that, at best, you can grasp at only a percentage of these people who would agree with you; Second, I would argue that, although I respect many of these men greatly, I nevertheless base my argument for this position on Scripture. Thus, that is where the center of our argument ought to lie. However, I don't mind bringing more witnesses to the stand for our position. One more note: about Matthew Henry's quote. (1) The Psalms of David are a typical title used by men throughout church history to refer to the book of Psalms. I am surprised that you - who appear to have read some historical literature - would be ignorant of this. (2) You wrote, 'Henry used the conjunction and to distinguish between 'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the Scripture. If anything, to the first-time reader, Henry is making mention of three types of songs, of which the Psalms are but one type.' Whether they are, 'the Psalms of David,' or, 'spiritual hymns and odes,' it is clear they are songs from Scripture. Furthermore, as I continued in my post, I did not claim that this quote of Henry's was a sound argument establishing (without possible objection) my claims; rather, I said it was a strong argument (as those who study philosophy know, the difference between these terms is vast; for, a sound argument is one that is deductively valid with all the premises true; whereas a strong argument could still be stronger by bringing in more facts, &c.). Thus, when he only speaks of the 'psalms' as 'ordinances' of worship, the conspicous lack of mentioning 'hymns and spiritual songs,' gives us a strong argument for concluding that he believed that only the psalms were an ordinance, and that either (1) hymns and spiritual songs were considered to be Psalms by Henry, or (2) he believed hymns and spiritual songs to be songs other than the psalms, and no part of public worship anyhow. The other possibility - which seems unlikely from the above quote - is that he didn't believe in Exclusive Psalmody, and I am wrong (which doesn't change the fact that Scripture teaches it). Pilgrim, brother, I am saddened by your argumentation. I feel as though you are being dishonest (whether wittingly or unwittingly) with what you are writing. Lord willing, I would repent if this position of mine is faulty; however, it has yet to proven such. In fact, I think your arguments have only assured me more of my position. I would ask the same from you; I fear being wrong, and I suspect you do too. I realize our 'reputations are on the line' because people are watching and reading along. All of us, both you, myself, Diacono, Tom H., Prestor, Five Sola, &c. need to be humble enough to sacrifice our reputations for Christ's truth. I pray you are willing to do that. I will be praying for you. In Christ, John P. Sorry about the typos, again. It's too late to check the whole of this.


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: Pilgrim
To: John P.
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 09:44:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,

In the first attempt to rebut my arguments, you have not offered any convincing argument at all. I still maintain, being in complete agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith, that the 'Regulative Principle' is two-fold in its application. This is nothing more than restating Sola Scriptura. The 'Regulative Principle' has NEVER been restricted to the aspect of public worship but rather it has been applied to ALL OF LIFE. Do you really think that Chapter XX 'Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience' was exempt from the 'Regulative Principle'? Hardly! What you are positing, is a very narrow definition and use of 'Regulative Principle' that is to be restricted only to public worship, and then switch over to the Lutheran position for everything else (whatever is not forbidden is allowed). Sorry, brother, but this is inconsistent and hypocritical and self-serving. I don't buy it, and neither has the Reformed churches historically. This is something you and your little 'group' have been trying to foister on us and it hasn't worked. :-) 1) A non sequitur argument! 4) Are John and Charles Wesley, in your estimation, Reprobates? If not, then why are they to be excluded from the history of the true church? Although I admire Jonathan Edwards and have read most all that is publicly available of his writings, he is not the 'all and all' source of infallible truth. The Scriptures are 'sole and final authority in ALL matters of faith and practice.' B) Psalms ARE to be sung in the churches! Again, no one should argue with this tenet and I certainly am not. The issue is whether or not the SCRIPTURES teach that ONLY Psalm singing is permitted in the public worship of God's people. The 'proof' of this has not been made by you or anyone else that has been incontrovertible as history shows. As to the 'Directory for Publick Worship' it is non-binding, being an uninspired document. And this again is another example of your 'group's' attempt to bind the consciences of men by documents written by men that are not necessarily normative for all the people of God. NO 'covenant' and/or document written by men is able to bind the consciences of men, as the WCF itself states clearly. The fact that it 'fails to mention other songs' is no argument against them being sung in the public worship. The point being made was that the INSPIRED songs need to be carefully used so as not to 'add or subtract' from them. C) You clearly missed the point here concerning Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in trying to use them in contradictory ways. If they do teach, which they don't, that 'Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' are ONLY a triad designation for the O.T. Psalter, there is nothing in these texts that restrict them to public worship. It's an either/or, brother, not 'both/and' as you have tried to use them for your purposes. D) Another instance of hypocrisy on your part, if I may say so? All along you have been making reference to 'so and so' said this, and this, etc. about the use of Psalms only in public worship, but NO exegesis of a text yourself to prove your position. Whereas I certainly did offer an exegesis of Eph 5:19 to show that it does NOT teach that the singing of 'the Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' are but the O.T. Psalter nor is there any reference to public worship in that text whatsoever, and cannot be. I mentioned, for example, William Hendriksen who was a solid Dutch Calvinist and more than able and highly respected N.T. scholar. It was to his EXEGESIS of these texts that I was referring to. I think that one must refute his exegesis from Scripture to be a valid argument, and not simply making a presumptive deduction from something Matthew Henry wrote. Lastly, I object to your accusation that I am being 'dishonest' in my argumentation. This indeed is an attempt to cast a dark shadow upon my personal integrity. Ad hominem arguments generally result in the opposition of what was intended by them. I would suggest that at this time there just isn't going to be any 'proof' that will convince you that your position is in error. What you are not willing to allow is that there have been, are and will be many very conservative, biblically minded and godly men and women who will disagree with Exclusive Psalmody, who are just as convinced that it is wrong as you are they it is correct. This of course begs a more important question: 'What of those who disagree with you?' 'How do you view, therefore, those who reject the Exclusive Psalmody? Is there salvation in question?' It seems to me that Scripture would encourage the singing of Scripturally derived New Testament songs. The Psalms, albeit legitimate songs to be sung, are yet 'types and shadows' of the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning work. It would seem rather strange that God would restrict the church from singing the name of Jesus and/or the completion of His redeeming work. Again, Rev. 5:19 does clearly show that the 'saints' sing this type of song. No doubt that one's eschatological position has some bearing on this matter. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 13:10:58 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim As I look at this thread, I can not help but notice that there is conflicting information about what people such as Baxter, Henry, Bunyan believed. For instance you said: 3. Did not the Puritans who developed this principle actively engage in the writing of hymns (Baxter, Henry, Bunyan, etc.) and publish them (Owen)? Yes. While John said that these very people believed in Exclusive Psalmody. If you could show proof that these great men of the faith, were not Exclusive Psalmists, I think it would go a long way, to show the truth of this matter. But that is only my oppinion, for what that is worth;-) Tom


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: John P.
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:49:58 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Just a quick note, Tom. First, I think what Pilgrim was claiming and what I am claiming are consistent with one another. He is merely saying (as far as I can tell) that these men
wrote hymns; I don't doubt that they did - I simply deny that they sang them in public worship. Secondly, I didn't mention Baxter or Bunyan. Although I would expect them (at least Baxter) to sing Psalms only, I wouldn't doubt that either of them would take a different position. For both had significant doctrinal errors in other areas. In defense of my claim that men can write hymns and yet not include them in worship, consider the words of a man that wrote them: Matthew Henry. He wrote the following in his commentary on Col. 3:16: 'We must admonish one another in psalms and hymns. Observe, Singing of psalms is a gospel ordinance: psalmois kai hymnois kai odais-- the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture, and suited to special occasions [i.e., worship - JP], instead of their lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship. Religious poesy seems countenanced by these expressions and is capable of great edification. But, when we sing psalms, we make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, unless we are suitably affected with what we sing and go along in it with true devotion and understanding. Singing of psalms is a teaching ordinance as well as a praising ordinance; and we are not only to quicken and encourage ourselves, but to teach and admonish one another, mutually excite our affections, and convey instructions.' (from Matthew Henry's Commentary) Notice in this quote that Henry chiefly believes that this passage is speaking of the Psalms of David, especially at special occassions; whereas he believes other songs may be permitted by this passage in other circumstances as edifying. The singing of Psalms, according to Henry, is conspicously set apart from the other uninspired songs; for, Henry does not even hint that anything can be called 'ordinances' of worship, except the Psalms of David. He even quotes each of the Greek words for 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,' and then immediately calls them, 'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture,.' So, although I don't necessarily agree with every part of Henry's interpretation, this quote of his certainly fits into what I said concerning him and the other men I used as witnesses for the exclusive Psalodists cause. I wrote, 'the Westminster Divines, Matthew Henry, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, St. Augustine, and more, maintained exclusive Psalmody, and hence, either advocated the interpretation that I gave concerning these passages, were moving in that direction, or completely disassociated these passages from the context of worship at all.' Henry was an advocate of this interpretation I presented, plus believing it could hint at a little more (thus, 'he was moving in [our] direction.'). Nevertheless, I need to get back to writing Pilgrim. As I said, this was just a quick note. I will be more thorough in addressing Pilgrim's arguments in my response to him. Love, John P.


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: Pilgrim
To: John P.
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:39:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,

From the quote you offered by Matthew Henry, I see NOTHING that would even hint that he held to the view that psalms only should be sung in public worship. To use your quote,

the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture, and suited to special occasions, instead of their lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship. Religious poesy seems countenanced by these expressions and is capable of great edification. But, when we sing psalms, we make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, unless we are suitably affected with what we sing and go along in it with true devotion and understanding. . . etc.

Henry used the conjunction and to distinguish between 'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the Scripture. If anything, to the first-time reader, Henry is making mention of three types of songs, of which the Psalms are but one type. Secondly, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever about using Psalms exclusively in public worship in this quote. This is assumed by you and yet to be proven. The fact you chose to quote Matthew Henry where he is making commentary on Col 3:16, is a blatant contradiction on your part is it not? For in a previous reply, you were more than clear that Eph 4:5:19 and Col 3:16 did NOT address public worship. But here you quote Henry in an attempt to show that Col 3:16 does in fact make reference to public worship. You can't have it both ways. Paul in Col 3:16 either is referencing the singing of Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs for public worship or he does not. My contention, and exegesis shows that it is the later, and it is quite clear that Matthew Henry's comments do not restrict the singing of 'Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' to the public worship of God. Further, to imply that Matthew Henry is saying that anything but Psalms is therefore 'lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship' is to totally misconstrue what the man is actually saying. Here, Henry having established that it is proper to sing 'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture,' he compares these to what the heathen Colossians in their pagan worship sing, i.e., 'lewd and profane songs'. The comparison is NOT between the Psalms and all other uninspired songs. Lastly, in like manner, he (Henry) says, 'But, when we sing psalms, we make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, . . .' he is not making a bifurcation between the Psalms of David and 'other' songs, but simply he is saying that whatever is sung, it must be sung from a heart that is moved by the grace of God unto a transformation of life that bespeaks of godliness. If one were to press yet even further and for the sake of argument agree that he is isolating the Psalms, it proves too much. For he doesn't just make mention of 'the Psalms' but rather the Psalms of David. Without question, the O.T. Psalter consists of far more than the songs written by David. Thus would we then have to conclude that even the large remainder of the inspired songs in that book could not be included for either worship or personal edification, if the 'odes and spiritual songs' were in fact nothing more than 'the Psalms of David'?

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:11:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,

I agree that such information would be very helpful. Since my time is very much taken up with other things, I really can't afford to dig through my library for specific instances to give you. However, I would offer you these bibliograhpic references which cover these details to a great extent: Benson, Louis F. 1910-1914. The Hymnody of the English Speaking Churches. Princeton Theological Review (July, 1910; 1912-1914). Benson, Louis F. 1915. The English Hymn: Its Development and Use in Worship. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press. Reprint. 1962. Benson, Louis F. 1926. The Hymnody of the Christian Church. New York. Reprint. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1956. Benson, Louis F., DD., The hymns of John Bunyan, Published: New York city, The Hymn society, 1930. Benson, Louis F. in the following articles in the Princeton Theological Review c. 1915f:

'Development of English Hymnody'. X:39 'English Hymnody, Its Later Development'. VIII:353 'Hymnody of the evangelical Revival'. XII:60 'Hymnody of the Methodist Revival'. XI:420 'Liturgical Use of English Hymns'. X:179 'Watts Renovation of Psalmody'. X:399, 606; XI:85.

In these books and articles, Benson documents a plethora of instances of hymns being written and used in the Church from the period of the Reformation onward. Further, the very early Church also wrote and sang uninspired hymns which also can be documented by several notable Church historians, eg., Kenneth Latourette. I know where this volume is in my library, so I can supply quotes for you later on if you are interested. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:27:19 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim Do you know where I can find that information, without buying them myself? Tom Tom


Subject: Re: Regulative Principle
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 07:08:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Gee, why not try a search on the Internet? There is also a possibility that Regent College library would have some if not all of the referenced titles. :-) And then again, sometimes you just have to rely on the integrity and reliability of the source Tom!! In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs
From: John P.
To: John P.
Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 18:09:34 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Significant correction: I said that the OT worshippers sang their 'tunes' from the Psalter. The 'tunes' are rather the music to which we sing the words of a song. What I meant was, 'songs from the Psalter' -
not tunes.


Subject: More 'Wattage'
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 14:09:22 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: I have deleted this post, due to more research and the questionable nature of the "Address to the Diety" Watts is supposed to have made. See the post below for my views on this subject.


Subject: Re: More 'Wattage'
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 14:47:46 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
As Prestor John points out below: 'Well sir I found the quote at a oneness site. If you go to the site you can find the same quote. With this quote you can also find a little story about how this particular treatse was recalled from general publication by Watts on the entreaties of his friends. If Watt's really believed this particular heresy would he then recall the books? Also his character and his godliness are well known and attested to by many people in the Reformed Churches would his hymns have been added to the hymnal if he had been an anti-trinitarian? I think not. Plus I also believe that more evidence must be presented then just this supposed article written by him.' I would have to heartily agree. I later found the 'oneness site' he mentions in that post, and read the 'little story.' It seems highly unlikely that it happened as related. Fifty copies sold, recalled successfully, burned by Watts, but one survived the flames? Possible, but very suspect. It is more likely that, when he expresses his theology in his hymns, such as the one I posted below and 'When I Survey the Wonderous Cross,' identifying 'Christ my God,' that this is an indication that his theology was correct on the Trinity.


Subject: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Tom.H
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 09:26:38 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
I was sent these quotes recently, concerning Isaac Watts. Not sure I want to sing songs written by a non-Trinitarian. What do you think? Quote #1: 'Dear and blessed God, hadst thou been pleased, in any one plain scripture, to have informed me which of the different opinions about holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians, had been true, thou knowest with how much real satisfaction and joy, my unbiased heart would have opened itself to receive and embrace the divine discovery. Hadst thou told me plainly, in any single text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three real distinct persons in thy divine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of divine doctrine; but I should have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the only rule of my faith. Or, hadst thou been pleased so to express and include this proposition in the several scattered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience might, with care, find out, and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all my reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into my soul. —Holy Father,—how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as this? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons, going to make up one true God, be so necessary and so important a part of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament, and the New, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understanding?'—Watts’ Works, vol. 7, pp. 476-7. Leeds ed. Quote #2: In a letter to Dr. Coleman of February 11th: 1747, accompanying his volume on 'The Glory of Christ,' Dr. Watts says, 'I think I have said every thing concerning the Son of God which Scripture says; but I could not go so far as to say, with some orthodox divines, that the Son is equal with the Father.'


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Prestor John
To: Tom.H
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 21:08:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What I think is that this set of quotes came from a Oneness site and is from a supposed treatse that was burned except for one copy. I think that the credibility of the people sending these things to you are in question and that you should be discerning in regard to this and see if he ever wrote anything else. Or at least to see if you can get the original treatse. One thing that I have noticed is that any of these people who espouse these types of heresies will go to great lengths to get some christian of history on their supposed side by chopping and pasting bits and pieces of their works together in an order that wasn't what was originally issued. Prestor John A Solemn Address to the Deity www.omniabc.org/watts.html


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Rod
To: Tom.H
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:32:29 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, It's interesting that the last paragraph of the first quote seems to be at direct opposition to the second. I'd like to know more to nail down his stance for sure. It would be interesting to know also if the second quote was taken out of context. Did he actually mean what it says or did additional explanation reveal that Watts meant that the Lord Jesus was subordinate to the Father necessarily
because He came to earth to do His Father's will, subordinating Himself to the Father willingly so that lost men could be redeemed?


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: John P.
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 22:16:48 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings, First, to Prestor: The first quote didn't come from a oneness site (believe it or not). Rather it came from a book by Reverend Gilbert M'Master, D.D. He held (strictly) to the Westminster Standards. Unless you would say that they are not orthodox, then it probably isn't good to presume the person presenting these quotes is a heretic. If you are interested in reading his appendix on Mr. Watts, it can be found on the Internet at the following address: Second (still to Prestor), the first quote was cited as being found in the seventh volume of the Leads edition of 'Watts' Works,' with the page numbers: 476-477. So unless M'Master was willing to explicitly cite a location which would easily allow the readers of his time to prove he has forged the quote, then it is likely the quote is legitimate. Thirdly (to Rod): You asked, 'It would be interesting to know also if the second quote was taken out of context. Did he actually mean what it says or did additional explanation reveal that Watts meant that the Lord Jesus was subordinate to the Father necessarily
because He came to earth to do His Father's will, subordinating Himself to the Father willingly so that lost men could be redeemed?' I think that in the quote Watts' was teaching a different kind of inequality from that of the functional inequality of the Father and the Son. I gather this from Watts' distinguishing himself from some 'orthodox' divines. Those considered orthodox certainly believed in a functional inequality, while a real equality in substance. Fourthly: I don't think these quotes are that difficult to understand, however since I don't have Watts' works, I cannot study to see if these quotes are legitimate. I suppose - though I think it is unlikely - that someone who held to the Westminster Confessional Standards, has as good a reputation as M'Master, published these claims before the eyes of the public (subject to testing by these same people at his time) while making them up of his own fancy. In fact, even if these quotes could not be found in the modern edition of Watts' works, I would still hesitate to say M'Master lied (and also Doddridge - who can be quoted as a source believing Watts was anti-trinitarian). So here is my question: Does anyone have Watts' works? If so, has he written anything called, 'The Glory of Christ,' which was published in them (or, does someone have a book entitled, 'The Glory of Christ' by Watts?)? M'Master often cites that book by Watts. Also, does anyone have that letter to Dr. Coleman? I think that if we could see these we would have a more sure ground to stand on in believing Watts was anti-trinitarian. I suspect that M'Master wasn't lying (maybe that is just naive), but, if it can be proven otherwise, that would certainly be good news for Watts' sake (not as though the proving of this would change his actual state, but it is always a happy and good thing to be able to have a stronger hope for someone's salvation). I hope someone out there has Watts' Works (it would be great if it was the Leeds Edition. Love, John P. Sorry about any typos. Dr. Watts and the Trinity - M'Master www.covenanter.org/McMaster/Psalmody/psalmapdx.htm#back6


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Prestor John
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 11:09:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well sir I found the quote at a oneness site. If you go to the site you can find the same quote. With this quote you can also find a little story about how this particular treatise was recalled from general publication by Watts on the entreaties of his friends. If Watt's really believed this particular heresy would not he then have recaledl the books? Also his character and his godliness are well known and attested to by many people in the Reformed Churches would his hymns have been added to the hymnal if he had been an anti-trinitarian? I think not. Plus I also believe that more evidence must be presented then just this supposed article written by him. Prestor John Armchair theologian, curmudgeon and esperantist Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:52:39 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Dear Preston, Could you please give us the address to that site? It would be interesting to see what they have to say. I'm sorry if I sounded as though I was hostile to you; I assumed (wrongly, and I apologize) that you were guessing that the quote probably came from a oneness site whereas I knew that it came from a book written by an orthodox theologian over a century ago. Secondly, yes, I do believe that hymns could have been written
and included in hymnals by heretics since Arminians also are published in most supposedly 'Reformed Hymnals.' Thirdly, it is begging the question to assume that Watts was godly (I actually hope he was, but...) - unless potentially denying the Trinity doesn't make a person ungodly, I think that this is what is question we are trying to answer. Sincere love, John P. Still Water Revival Books www.swrb.com/


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Prestor John
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sun, May 28, 2000 at 00:29:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear John P, First it is
PRESTOR not Preston as in Presbyter Johannes the mythical priest-king of the middle ages. If your an old dodger like me bump up your font size and quit being so vain. }:^{) Second I included the site with my first comment but I'll include it again there it is on the top take a look. Lastly, it sounds to me like you are one of those that are exclusively psalmody, if I am wrong then I am sorry, but it seems to me that your motives are also suspect. After all Watts wrote hymns and if you are against the singing of hymns then perhaps you would be seeking to discredit the man for your own agenda. This is all speculation you understand, I could be beating a wrong path here. If so I apologise. Prestor John Armchair Theologian, Curmudgeon, Esperantist Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem THE SITE IS HERE! www.omniabc.org/watts.html


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, May 28, 2000 at 06:26:41 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Dear Prestor, Greetings. Thank you for the site. I'm sorry I missed it on the first post of yours. I'm sorry if I have done anything to provoke you. I sincerely did not intentionally call you 'Preston' out of any malice. Secondly, please don't jump to conclusions about my motives (I understand that you qualified your questioning them - so I don't claim that you are necessarily at fault). I have expressed twice (as I recall) that I would not desire a person to condemn themselves by being antitrinitarian (whether they were hymn writers or not). Luther wrote hymns, and I would not dare desire to slander him by saying he was antitrinitarian. What profit is there in me intentionally slandering someone in order to prove a position? God forbid I do that! I swear before God almighty that I do not desire to slander anyone - whether I agree with them theologically or not. God help me to be sincere! Thirdly, yes, I do believe in only singing the O.T. Psalms in the public worship of God. However, that is a position that I defend chiefly with the Bible. If you were to ask anyone who I debate concerning this issue where I believe the support for this position comes (whether from church history chiefly or the Bible supremely), I certainly affirm the latter of the two - and I try to express that as much as I can. Fourthly, if M'Master did slander Watts (whether wittingly, by being a wilfull deceiver, or unwittingly, too quickly using secondary sources - as I sinfully may have done), then that grieves me. I certainly hope that it wasn't wilful deception, and, hoping all things, it would take strong evidence for me to suppose that he would do something so popish and heinous. Fifthly, so you know the reason why I am on the computer at this time in the moring on the Sabbath day, I would just like to say that I am only here so that I could write out that, if, after we see Watts' Works, we find that these are forged, then I apologize for too quickly assuming that a citation was legitimate (it is simply amazing to me that from now on, I am going to even have to check out the legitimacy of apparently clear citations!). I don't have any desire to go into the public worship of God this morning believing that I have possibly slandered and orthodox (possibly ordained - I don't know much of Watts' life except he was short and wrote hymns and 'psalms' and Logic texts, plus some) man. So, I am sorry. This is on record publicly. Love, John P. PS - Sorry about typos, again, if there are any. Also, possibly in the future, we can discuss exlusive Pslamody and its biblical warrant.


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Rod
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sun, May 28, 2000 at 13:51:41 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
John P, Though I don't see what 'ordination' by men has to do with it, I assume Watts was processed through an ordination ceremony of his denomination. I base that assumption on the fact that a couple of sites identify him as a Congregationalist pastor. There are plenty of 'ordained' people who have fallen into error, however, and that, in itself, is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Based on Watts' works, available to us in a large body of hymns, English versions of the psalms, etc. which are attributed undoubtedly to him, his own testimony seems to be refutation enough of the anti-Trinitarian charge.


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: John P.
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, May 28, 2000 at 21:36:49 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Rod and others following along: I have not given a little thought to this today. Since the time of worship and the conclusion of a Bible study in which I am a participant, I have read, meditated on, thought about, prayed concerning, &c. what to think of Watts' position. I am still not convinced one way or the other. For instance, here are some more hymns of his which
seem to make it obvious that Watts was trinitarian: 'Glory to God the Trinity, Whose name has mysteries unknown; In essence One, in persons Three, A social nature, yet alone.' (Hymn 29, Book III; The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts) and, 'To praise the Father, and the Son, And Spirit, all divine, The One in Three, and Three in One, Let saints and angels join.' (Hymn 30, Book III, Ibid.) Now, I realize that, to many - including me at first - this appears to end the subject with the conclusion that Watts was a trinitarian. I hope that is correct - sincerely. However, these hymns, and the fact that a oneness site promote Watts as anti-trinitarian, are not arguments that in any way affect the argument presented by M'Master in the 19th century unless M'Master used [numerous and various] sources which all were forged. For instance, about 150 years ago, M'Master already mentioned that: 'it is notorious, that every Anti-trinitarian, who has read his [Watts'] works, claims him as of that school.' Thus, what we think sounds like an argument against Watts' being anti-trinitarian (in that a oneness site uses Watts' to defend their position), 148 years ago was an argument for Watts' being anti-trinitarian. Furthermore, concerning the fact that Watts' wrote in a language that sounded orthodox much of the time also was not ignored by M'Master. He wrote: 'He often used the language of the orthodox, but claimed the right to explain the terms in his own way, and to press them into an agreement with his own peculiar opinions. Thus scraps taken from his works may be, as they have been,—with what degree of intelligence and honesty we say not,—adduced to prove him orthodox, while taken in their full and proper connexion they prove no such thing, but the reverse.' In fact, M'Master claims (the verity of which claims we must discover by searching to see if his quotations are legitimate) that Watts only believed there was one eternal person in the Godhead (the Father), while at the same time did beleive the Son and the Holy Ghost were persons - yet not divine in the most literal sense. Thus, for Watts to say that God is 'three in one,' or that there are 'three persons' - as is implied by M'Master concerning Watts - is not contradictory to what Watts believed (though erroneous). For, to Watts, (says M'Master) 'The Godhead of the Father and of the Son is the same.' For, as M'Master further claims Watts' belief to be, 'The Godhead is a unit. It is one.' However, 'According to his scheme, in that Godhead, naturally and eternally, there is but one Person, the Father. The pre-existent soul, or spirit, of Christ is a mere creature—has no Deity of its own; but as an exalted and favoured creature is related in a near friendship with the Father, and in virtue of this relation, or created union—can lay some claim to Deity.' Thus, to say Christ is divine - if Watts was applying his own meaning to the orthodox language in some instances - is not inconsistent with what Watts would have believed supposing M'Master's claims are true. Furthermore, M'Master calls other witnesses to testify against Watts: 'Such (says M'Master) were the [i.e., Anti-trinitarian] opinions of Dr. W. written and left on record by himself; and thus have these opinions been understood by Bradbury, Doddridge, the two Edwardses, Erskine, Anderson, Willson, Ely, &c.' Throughout the letter written by M'Master, he cites where some of these men wrote about Watts' being Anti-trinitarian; at least one of whom knew Watts' personally (Doddridge, who was Watts' 'personal friend, companion, and admirer.'). I hope that you all have read that site - or intend to. I'm not out to get Isaac Watts; but, now that the subject has been raised, I certainly don't desire to be guilty of slandering the man by believing and propogating errors concerning him (whether I be defending him when he was wrong, or condemning him when he was correct) - so I think it is important to figure this out. In fact, earlier today, I almost wrote a letter to one of the web-sites which has published this work by M'Master, defending Watts and asking them to remove the book because I thought it was slanderous. But then I reread M'Master's work, and (for that time in history) it is well-documented and dealt with the various arguments which have been raised in defense of Dr. W. So now - as I have already said - we need to just figure out whether or not the sources used were faithful to Watts' doctrinal positions or forged. In Christ, John P. M'MASTER's Letter about Watts; Please Read. www.covenanter.org/McMaster/Psalmody/psalmapdx.htm#1


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Prestor John
To: John P.
Date Posted: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 11:14:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John P: Not to rehash this any more but seeing how M'Master mentions these men (Edwardses, Erskine, Anderson, Willson, Ely, &c) I would think that perhaps they would have written denouncements of Watts' position. If they were trinitarians themselves is there any records of them saying such about Watts? If not, then again I think that says alot about what they did think about Watts and that it was in favor. As I said I'm not trying to keep this going I'm just wanting to see a good man's name remain in the clear. I figure you'd do the same too. Prestor John Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 16:58:00 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Prestor, I certainly hope to keep a good man's name clear: but there are two names on the line in this discussion - and we mustn't forget that. Watts
and M'Master. To acquit the one from the accusations against them, is to condemn the other in some way or another. So, I hope you are willing to consider that. Secondly, I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you would have read the letter by M'Master, you would have found that he did quote these men (and gave a particularly clear citation for where he got Doddridge's statement). That is why I keep recommending that people read that site - at least understand what he is saying (I don't intend on quoting the whole thing). Not trying to promote hard feelings. Love, John P.


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Rod
To: John P.
Date Posted: Mon, May 29, 2000 at 06:33:46 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
John P, I went to the site linked and read some of the article. In the first paragraph we find this statement: 'The Doctor’s sentiments concerning the Redeemer, will be found in his 'Discourses on the Glory of Christ.' The edition of the Discourses now before me is that of 1746,' Obviously then, all one needs to do is to come up with a copy of that title (with adequate evidence that it is of Watts' authorship) and examine it. There is none to be found on the web, as far as I can tell,
not even on the oneness site. You'd think they'd move Heaven and earth, so to speak, to find it, wouldn't you. I do note that the article you referenced mentioned the highly questionable 'Address to the Diety' employed on the oneness site, quoting it. I stand ready to denounce Watts or anyone else who denies the Lord Jesus Christ, but the evidence I have from Watts' pen is that He calls Him: 'Savior, Sovereign, Maker, Lord, God, Redeemer,' and several other designations identifying Him as the Second Person. The witness of his words seems to be that he had an orthodox view of the Lord Jesus. Until more concrete proof can be offered, I must defend Watts, as I defend the salvation of the Wesleys. It is a dangerous thing to bring into question the salvation of a person on such flimsy evidence as has been offered so far. 'Wherefore, I give you to understand that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit' (1 Cor. 12:3).


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: John P.
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:55:04 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Oops. Not: 'I think that this is what is question we are trying to answer.' But: 'I think that this is the question we are trying to answer.' Sorry.


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Rod
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:59:36 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
John P., You are of course exactly right when you suggest that examining the writings of the man himself is the correct mode of discovery. While I don't have any of his letters or other prose available, I do have access to at least one old standard hymn. Hymns, as you know, necessarily express theological standpoints. I offer this one as evidence that Watts, when he wrote it, had a pretty good grasp of the Nature of the Sovereign Lord. At The Cross: Alas! and did my Savior bleed, and did my Sovereign die? Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I? Chorus: At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light, and the burden of my heart rolled away, It was there by faith I received my sight, and now I am happy all the day. Was it for crimes that I had done, He groaned upon the treee? Amazing pity! grace unknown! and love beyond degree! (Chorus) Well might the sun in darkness hide, and shut his glories in, When Christ the mighty Maker died for man the creature's sin. (Chorus) But drops of grief can ne'er repay the debt of love I owe: Here, Lord, I give myself away--'Tis all that I can do. (Chorus) Except for that sappy, 'And now I am happy all the day,' line, that's pretty sound, it seems to me. There's a lot of basic stuff in a short song. I've heard it said that Luther espoused the idea of a Bible and a good hymn book in the hands of every Christian, the idea being, apparently, that each was to enable the believer to become more spiritual by being more and more aware of the Nature of the Lord.


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: laz
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 06:20:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
JohnP and Rod - might this be a good example of someone that from all indications fully trusted in Christ's finished work (even imputation), contended for the Faith, fought the good fight,....a person with fruit galore to 'prove' his faith to be a legitmate one (not 'easy believism') ... who was therefore of the Elect and saved? My point again being that doctrine (e.g., imputed righteousness and even the Trinity) DOES NOT SAVE ... but Christ saves ...despite sometimes what our minds might be thinking....for is it not God whom CONDITIONS and JUDGES the heart? laz


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 10:18:38 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, I see Pilgrim beat me to this answer, yet I still want to say what I was going to say in response. I can offer a mass of evidence of posts here that I have thoroughly repudiated the notion of salvation by faith in 'imputed righteousness.' But, though I would not want to have to put together a list of the 'Standard Attributes Whereby to Identify Christians,' I would certainly include in such a list the affirmation from the heart of the Trinity. Any Christian, being gifted with faith by grace, being led by the Spirit of the holy God, and being taught by godly men, must embrace the Trinity. I am on record here and in other places for endorsing the statement that, 'Christians are Trinitarian.' These quotes seem to cast some doubt on Watts, but they are for me, at least at this point, based on the very little info I have, open to serious examination.


Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian?
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:48:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz,

Oooooops! I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the MOST essential doctrines of the Christian Faith which is 'inherent' in the faith given at regeneration. The newly regenerated sinner might not know much at all about the Trinity; economic relationships, etc. but one thing that MUST be embraced in the heart is that faith in the Lord Christ INCLUDES the FACT that the LORD Jesus Christ is God incarnate. (cf. the Athanasian Creed). In the case of Isaac Watts, of whom I know little other than the hymnody that he wrote, this man was more than capable intellectually of comprehending what the doctrine teaches. And this man was surrounded by men who fully embraced and taught the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, he wasn't your average, run-of-the-mill 'pew sitter'! Thus, there is no excuse why he should not have embraced it. Whether or not he denied it is still to be determined here at least! :-) Let's not make the fatal mistake of throwing out ALL doctrine as being necessary unto salvation. A truly regenerate man/woman may not articulate verbally 'doctrine', but the heart surely embraces it, for the person and work of Christ MUST be known to a certain degree else one would never BELIEVE on Christ. The regenerate person, by virtue of that regeneration is convicted of sin, acknowledges the supremacy of God, the deity of Christ, the sufficiency of His atoning sacrifice and the need of His righteousness to be his own; [this is NOT the same as 'putting one's trust in the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness'].

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: aaah, but did he....
From: laz
To: Tom.H
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:02:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
AAAH, but did he believe in imputed righteousness? ROFLOL!!!!!!!! laz


Subject: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 09:10:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Everyone,

The Highway web site is getting quite expansive, over 420 pages at last count and I thought it was about time to add a Search Engine to the home page to facilitate browsing the site. Now you can simply type in a subject, title, author, etc. in the Search window and presto, the results will be displayed much like Yahoo, Excite or any of the major search engines. The use of 'quotes' is recommended if you are looking for something that contains more than one word, eg., 'rock music' or 'false gospel', etc. I hope this addition will aid you in finding many articles which previously have been unknown to you on The Highway. ENJOY!

In His Service, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE
From: Pat
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 05:04:37 (PDT)
Email Address: reform@worldspy.net

Message:
Where is the highway site ?


Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE
From: monitor
To: Pat
Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 06:29:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Where is the highway site ?
---
Pat...you be on it! haha! (actually, you are on the THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION ROOM) If you click up at the upper right corner on 'THE HIGHWAY' logo at the top of each DISCUSSION room (some musical notes can be seen just below the logo)you will go to the Highway's HOMEPAGE and find the Search feature right at your disposal. monitor click HERE for HOMEPAGE www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/


Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:46:05 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
How neat, Pilgrim! What a great feature! Thank you for taking the trouble to provide it for us. ;-> Chow down! Anne


Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 11:53:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
yeah...it's simply too cool! laz


Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 13:21:31 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Ya man, far out and funky dude! Tom


Subject: The T in TULIP
From: Mark
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 20:06:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I was having a discussion with someone about whether we are basically good or bad. This person answered yes to both. Their argument goes something like this. We were created in God's image, that is good. When we fell we became broken but parts left over were still good just not assembled. the unassembled parts lead to evil but not complete evil because the image of God still resides within us. They argue that the logical conclusion of Depravity is that no human being is of value and that we are no longer in the image of God in any way, otherwise we would be partially good. Please offer your comments. I belive that the good that exist within in us comes only from the working of God and not ourselves but this proves to be too simple for the argument I heard. Please provide scriputre wherever possible with your reply. In Christ, Mark


Subject: Re: The T in TULIP
From: Rod
To: Mark
Date Posted: Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 13:06:00 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Mark, You are of course right when you say that good can only come from God. You have also received some very good answers to date. The 'good' concept is the key here. Your friends are looking upon 'good,' as Pilgrim pointed out, as 'relative,' that is, comparative good. When man is compared to man, some are better than others, as other men judge things. The fact that man can do some things which are noble in human terms clouds the mind and brings us to a faulty conclusion. Additionally, we are confused on the issue when we fail to grasp what the Bible's real message is about the nature of God and the nature of man. john and Pilgrim have pointed out some excellent Scripture in relation to this. Most telling are Luke 18:19: '...None is good, except one, that is, God;' and Is. 64:6: '...all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.' If men took the Scriptures literally on such definitive statements, there would be no difficulty understanding this, but we are so unable to discern absolute truth so clearly stated that we can read it and not comprehend the depths of the statements. There are countless other statements which pronounce the same standard of judgment. They run throughout the Bible. In fact, Galatians instructs us that the purpose of the Mosaic Law was to demonstrate to us that 'goodness' is an impossible standard for us to meet. The Law represents God's standard, the
minimum requirements to be blameless before God. If we think about it that way it's very illuminating. There is no room whatsoever for failure in violating the Law. It pronounces an absolute requirement for man which has no room for error; it is a system designed to reinforce that man is helpless to do actual good and to induce guilt for his sin, so that God can graciously provide cleansing blood to wash his filthy rags clean. The spirit of the law is detailed by the Lord Jesus in these statements: 'Master, what is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, Thou shalt love thy negithbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets' (Matt. 22:37). No one can meet that standard for goodness. There is no one who can say that he has absolutely loved the Lord God impeccably for every monent of his life and his fellow man as himself. And that is the only measure of good. How do we know that is the only measure? We refer back to the Lord Jesus' statement: 'None is good, except one, that is, God.' There is nothing in man that we can pronounce 'good,' since he is flawed in every aspect of his being. We're required to demonstrate goodness by loving God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. See how far short we fall: 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of his heart was only evil continually' (Gen. 6:5); 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?' (Jer. 17:9, cp. Mat 15:19); 'For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing...' (Rom. 7:18); 'Because the carnal mind is enmity against God...' (Rom. 8:7). Take those statements literally, and we have no difficulty understanding the concept. For example, when we read the "carnal mind IS enmity against God," we see that enmity aginst God is all it consists of. There is nothing else in man's motivation which allows him to act, but his oppostion to God and His will. Thus, every thought and motive of such a person is void of any good whatsoever, being totally separated from God. To claim that fallen man retains any good is to be ignorant of the measure by which 'goodness' is to be truly judged. He is a sinner through and through and cannot do good because that would mean that he had some merit within him. Goodness is a quality belonging solely to the Lord God and the reason man needs a Savior. Just because man is not as bad as he can be doesn't change any of that. To assert that man has any inherent goodness at all, when judged by the proper standard, nullifies grace and is an affront to a holy God. The fact that we must have righteousness imputed to us by grace is proof of that fact.


Subject: Re: The T in TULIP
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 15:22:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

Amen, brother! The problem is indeed that men refuse to accept the testimony of the Spirit against them, but 'exchange the truth for a lie'! What lies at the bottom of men's refusal to accept God's indictment against them and HIS evaluation of their true nature is that men just can't take the insult. 'Surely,' they say, 'we can't be ALL bad!? Their MUST be some good thing in me!' And even such statements like this are testimony enough of man's inherent wickedness in that they dare question the Almighty Who knows us better than even we ourselves. This even contrives against the gospel of the grace of God in Christ, for God, knowing how destitute fallen men are; that they possess no godly inclination whatsoever, that He Himself is dishonored and profaned in the lives of the best of men, that all men see themselves as having the power and knowledge of God (Gen 3:5) and therefore have no need of a Sovereign LORD to rule over them, even though He is most merciful and full of grace. God, knowing full well our hopeless condition determined to save a remnant of us poor needy sinners and took upon Himself the incomprehensible task and humiliation to suffer in our stead, thus paying the infinite demand of the law and enduring the incomprehensible punishment due us. Why, if there was the slightest 'chance' that even one solitary man could redeem himself; even if he was able to incline himself to receive God's grace, would the Son of the Most High have suffered the eternal wrath of His Father so as to save him? Many years ago, I had the privilege of hearing the late Dr. John Gerstner give a lecture on the depravity of man. He began by making an apology to the audience for what some others have been known to say in that they compared fallen man to that of a rat! He said that was indeed an unpardonable insult and that he begged forgiveness for these men for having denigrated the good name of all rats! He went on to compare fallen man to the deceased man Lazarus who laid four days in the tomb, and whose body was decomposing in the hot Israeli sun. Quoting George Whitefield, he said,

'In other words, you STINK in the nostrils of Almighty God! And I have only one thing to say about George Whitefield; he was guilty of understatement. I try to be as insulting as I possibly can when I describe the fallen condition of man. And if I have succeeded in insulting any of you today with my descriptions, then you can only draw one conclusion; you haven not been genuinely regenerated. For it is impossible to describe just how fallen man really is. But if you do begin to comprehend just how bad man really is, and just how deep a pit he has fallen into, you will be just like Martin Luther who said he would believe in Unconditional Election even if it WASN'T taught in the Bible! For there is just no other way man could be saved!'

The more a person is convicted of his sinfulness the more he will come to comprehend the grace of God and live unto righteousness out of a heart of untold praise. Soli Deo Gloria!!

In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Exactly
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 17:23:53 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
brother, You are correct, as usual. Central to the understanding of 'grace' (I think few people really know its meaning) is the realization of the utter need of that grace, that there is
no other hope for lost men, due to their sold-out-to-sin condition. Even in the churches there is a general lack of understanding and a subsequent 'watering down' of theology. As an example, I once was at a church camp where we were having general work days to fix the place up. In the evenings we had speakers, prayer, and song. When the songbooks were passed out one night, someone (I think I did) suggested 'Amazing Grace.' I sang the hymn with the original words describing man, 'for such a worm as I.' The young man next to me gave me a look of utter disbelief, the words in the book being, 'for such a one as I.' I doubt that he'd ever heard the original. There were some good men there, sound of doctrine, and old enough to know the words, but I believe I was the only one to sing it so. Incidentally, that same young man had spoken earlier and referred to Is. 46:10, this way: 'God knows the beginning from the end.' He said that twice, as I recall, not reading the verse, not having it memorized, and not giving the Scriptural referece where it could be found. I agree with whoever it was who said, 'Every local church should be a theological school.' Even the obvious precepts have to be hammered in. We just, as a rule, can't read the Bible for what God says without interposing our own standards and values.


Subject: Re: Exactly
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:15:20 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Before anyone thinks I'm completely out of my mind, something that has nagged at me all day just hit me. Instead of citing Newton's 'Amazing Grace' above, I should have named Watts' 'At the Cross!' I guess the legs
aren't the first to go. :>)


Subject: Re: Exactly
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 08:57:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

Ain't that the truth, though?!

In 'Amazing Grace' many new hymnals have eliminated 'saved a wretch like me' and substituted a far more 'self appeasing' euphemism. They say the old terminology was too abasing and didn't promote a 'positive self image'! hahaha

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Exactly
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:42:52 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
In 'Amazing Grace' many new hymnals have eliminated 'saved a wretch like me' and substituted a far more 'self appeasing' euphemism. They say the old terminology was too abasing and didn't promote a 'positive self image'! You're joking, right? That's why the 'hahaha' at the end? What's sad is, a part of me would have no problem believing someone would actually do that. Positive self-image, my Aunt Fanny! Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: Exactly
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 13:36:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, Sorry, no joke.... the 'hahaha' at the end was my reaction to the ludricrousness of it! In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The T in TULIP
From: GRACE2Me
To: Mark
Date Posted: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 14:32:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Mark: I haven't looked to see what the other two brethren said, who are much more knowledgable than I. When the word of God says we were made in the image of God, it means that He made us as 'thinking, feeling, acting beings (mind, emotion and will). God has a mind, emotions and will. When Eve and Adam sinned in the garden, they died spiritually, and everyone born since then, are born spiritually dead. We are depraved in as much that there is nothing within us that that will cause/allow us to seek Christ/God. We may commits acts of good, but we live a sinful life. Another word that many use instead of 'depravity' is 'inability.' We are still in the 'image of God' because we still have a mind, emotions and will (think, fell and act). It is the way we think, feel and act that seperates us from God. And unless God sovereignly intervenes by regenerating/quickening us with a new nature, we will remain in this state and spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire. That's my 2 cents worth I guess. GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: The T in TULIP
From: Pilgrim
To: Mark
Date Posted: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:11:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mark,

It is many times the case that people confuse the doctrine of 'Total Depravity' with 'Utter Depravity' and thus reject it out of hand. The doctrine of 'Total Depravity' simple means that the totality of man's being has been affected by the Fall. Man is not as bad as he could be, but is capable of deprovement. It is the providential restraint of God that keeps men from falling into 'utter depravity', which will be withdrawn after the Judgment and the reprobate are cast into the Lake of Fire. Another error that people make is failing to understand that the 'Total' aspect of 'Total Depravity' refers to the MORAL part of man (the ability to good), not the physical. As John rightly stated from the teaching of Scripture, 'There is none that doeth good, no not one.' (Ps 14:1-3; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 4:17-19; et al). In other words, EVERYTHING the natural man thinks, feels and does is sinful because he is alienated from God, having inherited a corrupt nature (Eph 2:1-5; Rom 5:12f). But this corruption of nature did not eradicate the uniqueness of man in that he was created with the 'imago dei' (image of God). It is just because man is created with the image of God which is corrupted with sin that makes him so odious in the sight of God. It is true that man is capable and does relative good, i.e., there are many things which men do that benefit other men and the creation. On the 'horizontal plane' man does 'good' in this sense, but nevertheless, those 'good deeds' are sinful and damnable because they are done apart from a heart that 'loves the Lord God' so that they are not done out of 'fiducia' (a lively faith and dependence) upon God, but out of self. Augustine, who opposed Pelagius on this matter; that there is any good within man in his natural state, spoke of this 'relative goodness' of man as 'the splendid vices of the heathen'. These 'vices' only show that man is in fact made in the image of God and all the more damnable in that not only are these things done apart from true motives; for the glory of God but also there is an inherent denial that all goodness belongs to Him and Him alone, and that apart from Him nothing can be done nor can they be even called good. Isaiah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says of our 'good deeds':

'But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.' (Isa 64:6, 7).

If one is to use an analogy of the condition of man after the Fall, one might better think of a glass of pure water that had a drop of deadly poison added to it. The poison permeates the entire contents and thus renders it undrinkable. Although to the naked eye it might 'appear' to be clean, yet it is contains a fatal potion that would result in certain death to anyone who might drink it. There is no part of the water that can be safely consumed without also ingesting the poison and suffering the consequences from it.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The T in TULIP
From: john hampshire
To: Mark
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 22:19:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What did Jesus say to the assumption made that He was a good man, 'only God is good'. Isn't it true that we have all gone astray, from the womb?, That there is none who do good, no not one. Yes, the fall was severe, but it wasn't humpty-dumpty who fell from a wall and got broken; there are no unassembled parts, the analogy is broke. We are made in the image of God because we are spirit and God is Spirit, unlike animals which are not. Our 'value' is assessed by God, and He finds our works worthless and us worthy to be destroyed. The image of God in the unregenerate spirit ends in the lake of fire. Do we find any 'value' keeping God from executing His justice on the wicked? If someone wants to believe we are partially broken because we are made in God's image, I would ask what benefit Jesus' death and resurrection had? Exactly what did He redeem us from, and why? john


Subject: Re: The T in TULIP
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:17:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
AMEN, big John! Ontologically and in a temporal sense, we may be of 'value' to God ... since murder is still an offense to God....but in our relationship to God...we are worthless and fitted for destruction as a vessel of wrath (Rom 9). I like my dog and care for her...but will she inherit my stuff? Aren't the reprobate referred to as pigs or dogs? hehe But then again, aren't the elect called sheep? ;-) The only 'good' are Christ (God)...and those found
IN CHRIST - and that by virtue of unconditional mercy and grace. laz


Subject: Government in Heaven
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:21:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. OK, so what... I know Christ will reign supreme, but will there be 'government' in heaven with officers similar to what we have now in the earthly Church/civil sphere? Or this passage dealing with the earthly millenial reign of which we are now enjoying whereby the 'government' is the Church environment where we are earthly citizens in subjection to the elders? I was told that since there will be no sin or sinful tendencies in heaven, we won't need elders, etc...i.e., Church-like government in heaven. We will all be the same 'rank' in heaven. What say ya'll? blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Government in Heaven
From: Anne
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:40:59 (PDT)
Email Address: anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com

Message:
Do you think the word 'government' in Isaiah carries the same meaning that we put on it? A ruling hierarchy? Perhaps in Isaiah, it is referring to Christ's governance of His creation? It rather sounds like a preview of the Lord's prayer: ' . . . Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.' Anne


Subject: Re: Government in Heaven
From: john hampshire
To: anyone
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 21:18:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well we know that no idolaters or liars will enter heaven, thus there won't be any liberal Democrats. (hehe) IMO, God's government IS His rulership over all His creation, including His elect and the wicked in the lake of fire. All this rests on His Son. As for what authority the elect might possess in the new heavens, who knows? Whatever it is it is derived authority. It is like arguing what a tree is like having never seen anything but a tiny seed. We wonder what the seed will become, but the reality of a tree from a seed is so great (assuming you've never made the connection) that it is beyond anyone's ability to grasp. Yet, I really would doubt those who God used greatly in this life would be rulers over those who were used in a lesser role. The idea of Jesus walking amongst the elect in the new heavens and new earth, as He used to do in the garden with Adam/Eve, implies no ruler except Christ. Moses, Paul and the rest will all be on an equal level with the least of us. That's my opinion, but who knows, I am only looking at the seed. john


Subject: God's justice......what's it mean?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:43:49 (PDT)
Email Address: anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com

Message:
I've been musing on God's perfect justice, since it appears to me that that is the correct starting point for why we're here at all. God is perfect in and of Himself, and with His triune nature, His divine love can be expressed without bothering to create anything or anyone else. However, the same does not hold true of His divine justice. As someone correctly pointed out, justice is not an issue for one person living on an island. It requires the interaction of at least two people to make justice rear its head. Since God can hardly disagree with Himself, additional created beings are needed for His justice to be expressed. This is where we come in. The truth is, the Fall was the entire reason He created us. Or so it seems to me. ( God could be thinking, 'Boy, are
you batting zero.') BTW, another thing that might be useful to consider is that His wrath is in no way similar to our wrath, which is usually expressed by stomping through rooms and yelling. God's wrath is not an expressino of divine bad-temperedness and irritability. His wrath is holy, as are all His attributes, and is likewise worthy of our adoration. Thoughts? Criticisms? Witticisms? Anne


Subject: Re: God's justice......what's it mean?
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:31:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne,

You wrote: 'The truth is, the Fall was the entire reason He created us. Or so it seems to me.' And you mused 'God could be thinking, 'Boy, are you batting zero.'. Well, the first statement is far afield! But the second is probably more correct! :-) Nowhere has God revealed to us in His Word that the Fall was the ultimate purpose for the creation of mankind! The truth is that God created man so that His glory might be known and that we might 'enjoy Him forever' (cf. Westminster Larger Catechism: Q&A #1). To better show forth His glory in mercy and grace and to facilitate the creatures appreciation of His majesty, the Fall was designed and decreed. Thus it is just the reverse of what you said. :-) As to the 'wrath' of God, this is surely inherent in His being and not a 'reaction' to that which is contrary to His nature. You have implied something very important here, and that is that 'love' is NOT that attribute from which all of His other attributes flow out of. God is thrice HOLY and if any of God's attributes can be said to be 'above' any other, it is that He is Holy. One must seriously question why 'love' would be elevated to a position over and above any other attribute in the Godhead. (cp. Ex. 34:14; Ezra 9:15; Ps 11:7; Lev 11:44; Is 47:4; 1Pet 1:16; Ex 3:14; Ps 111:9; Jer 23:6; Amos 5:8; etc.) The LORD God is NOT 'the sum of His parts'

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: God's justice......what's it mean?
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:27:42 (PDT)
Email Address: anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com

Message:
To better show forth His glory in mercy and grace and to facilitate the creatures appreciation of His majesty, the Fall was designed and decreed. Flip side of the coin! Before He could express His mercy, He had to have something to be merciful about, true? And, once again, all by Himself, there would be no way to express it. So, he-e-r-e's Adam! He falls, taking us, by necessity, with him, and now God has creatures worthy of His wrath, with some graciously elected for eternal life with Him. And thank you for bringing out that holiness is God's primary attribute, from which all others flow! Absolutely. That this is forgotten or neglected has led to many of the errors found in the churches today. We aren't comfortable at all in speaking of God's holiness and wrath, are we? Uncharted territory! Especially His divine wrath, which we tend to treat as if it's more polite to ignore it; as if it is somehow dishonoring to Him. Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: The WRATH of God!
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:08:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne & All: Here you go:
The Wrath of God. Be edified to the glory of God. In His Grace and Mercy, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The WRATH of God!
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:40:05 (PDT)
Email Address: anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com

Message:
Quote from the article:
In his Commentary on Romans Dr Dodd says that the wrath of God ‘does not appear in the teaching of Jesus’. Well, Dr. Dodd's a dud. Christ preached about hell frequently, for Pete's sake! I guess if you're going to pick and choose which verses you deign to read, though . . . . . Great article, Pilgrim! I'm stuffing it in my briefcase, too. Anne


Subject: ?????
From: Tom -E
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:18:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To Anyone: Is this site no longer in use? From time to time I still monitor this site to see what’s new. I haven’t seen any posts for almost two months? Shalom Tom-E


Subject: Re: ?????
From: Tom-E
To: Tom -E
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:22:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To All again: I’m sorry! I’ll answer my own question. After posting my question all the new posts came up. I see your still functioning. Shalom Tom-E


Subject: Re: ?????
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom-E
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:46:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To All again: I’m sorry! I’ll answer my own question. After posting my question all the new posts came up. I see your still functioning. Shalom Tom-E
---
TomE, Try purging the 'cache' of your browser and this might help...! hahaha Also, you can also read the archived posts here:
Theology Forum Archives Pilgrim


Subject: Whatever happened to the truce???nt
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:05:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Did you look again laz?


Subject: Anyone want to discuss infra vs supra?
From: Anne
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:50:54 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
You know, the more I read Scripture and pray and ponder, the more I am convinced that the supralapsarian position is the more accurate one. I say 'more,' since we see through the glass darkly. Most of our beliefs verge on educated, to a greater or lesser degree, guesswork. In any case, I think that God does create each soul with a particular destination in mind. Which means that, yes, He creates heaps of folks who are destined to spend eternity in hell. There is no denying that from those souls POV, this is a bummer. On the other hand, I am darned if I can see why the alternative is desirable . . . . to wit, that they were 'passed over,' as in a divine game of Duck, Duck, Goose. Talk about so near, and yet so far! Scripture's insistance on our being made either 'vessels of wrath' or 'vessels of mercy' appear to be firm support for the supra argument. To suggest that God is unfair or harsh in creating souls for the purpose of satisfying His perfect wrath is foolishness . . . . this is
His creation, every scrap and molecule of it, and He may create anything and anyone for any reason that glorifies Him and His Name. Since nothing can exist or occur outside of or beyond His will, then if He is desirous of expressing His wrath and justice, by necessity He is going to have to create beings as the objects of those divine attributes. He can hardly sit hopefully by a roadside and wait for some sinners to come trundling along. His very sovereign nature means that if He wants something done, He is going to have to do it Himself. If He wants something to exist at all, He must create it Himself. I was pleased to read in Calvin's 'Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God' that he wasn't any more enthusiastic about the notion of God 'permitting' or 'allowing' something to occur than I am. If I permit or allow my son to do something, that means that he was the instigator of the suggested action. How can any of us instigate something beyond God's will? That would mean ours is the primary action, and He is, in effect, seconding our motion. I don't think so. Ciao! Anne


Subject: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:25:49 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Anne, Being an infra, yet seeing how one can be a supra, please allow me to ramble a little. I'm certain you and most here understand that we infras pretty much have arrived at this conclusion, but, for those who came in late...God is ultimately the cause of all things and the Creator of all things created, but He did it in a way mysterious to man, a way beyond our total comprehension. God created all things and is the cause of all things
without being responsible for man's sin morally and without being the direct, morally responsible agent for any man's lost estate. Confusing, yes, but the way I see it God's ultimate plan for man is such that He could create men who are 'predestinated in love' (see Eph. 1:4-5) and destined for 'conformation to the image of his Son' (Rom. 8:29) without directly causing man to fall into sin and thereby being consigned to hell. The difficulty of understanding how seems immediately bound up in the issues of the 'fall of Adam.' Before turning to Adam, let me make a few more observations. Most significantly in Scripture, I can recall no statement whereby men are predestinated to hell, though there are several that underscore that we are saved by His lovingkindness (mercy because of love for us) and would be lost eternally without it. I would urge you to look carefully at the words of Rom. 9:22-23, which you summarized like this: 'Scripture's insistance on our being made either 'vessels of wrath' or 'vessels of mercy' appear to be firm support for the supra argument.' I believe there are some extremely pertinent things in these verses. I believe an outstanding argument for the other side can be made from them. In verse 21 we have God making one vessel to honor and the other to dishonor. So far that is in keeping with the arguments of each camp. But, in verse 22, we see something interesting in the words 'fitted to destruction.' I leave it to the language experts to argue this, but my quick study of this word 'fitted' indicates that there is a 'adjustment' made to those particular persons. John Gill states much in his exposition of this section which I already believed, but also goes deeper into some aspects of it than I was able to on my own (naturally). I will intermingle some of Gill's ideas with those which I have formed over the years in the following. Going back to verse 21, Gill points to the words 'the clay.' This is a mass of clay from which all the individuals of the earth will be made by the Lord God. For the purposes of illustration, we'll think of it as an immense mass of clay, not one vessel yet being made from it. As such, there is no evil, no sin inherent within it. Then one person is made from the mass, the 'lump.' That person is 'innocent,' being without sin, and he has the ability to choose between good and evil, but the gracious God has given every physical and moral incentive not to sin. The incentive to sin comes from without the man, through Satan, through and his wife, who each have sinned previously. This man, this person of no evil character, chooses to join his wife in rebellion against God. In that action, he dooms himself and all those whom he represents as the 'perfect man' of creation. Sinning under the most auspicious of circumstances, he provides an inheritance of separation from God, and condemnation by God, to all his and Eve's offspring, changing the nature of the 'lump.' All vessels formed from the lump, born of Adam's parentage (and remember, Eve was "born" of Adam herself), subsequent to Adam's sin will be born with the 'adjusted' nature of sin, lost and under sin's penalty. The morally responsible agents for the cause of the sin of man are Satan, and the created couple, not God, though he was supervising and orchestrating the entire sequence. Yet, though the predestinated are born from Adam's seed and made from the the same fleshly lump, they, precisely because they are 'predestinated in love,' are 'vessels of mercy,' having been 'before prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles' (Rom. 9:23-24). The same Apostle comments on this in Eph. 2:10, which I find occasion to quote so often: 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' This 'creation' is actually a recreation, a 'new creation,' as Paul says elsewhere, made possible solely by God's mercy through our predestination to conformation to the image of His Son. The mercy of our gracious God is displayed and made available generally, as the Bible teaches, in the testimony of the physical creation and in the offer of salvation made generally to all men, but it is specifically applied by God only to those whom He has chosen. The direct choice of lost men is to ignore and spurn the revelation. Each person born of the sinful Adam does sin, being at 'enmity against God' (Rom. 8:7). He does so because he chooses to. He is responsible in the federal head for his sin and he is responsible as he sins individually. He sins because he is 'fitted' to it; subsequently responsible before God's wrathful justice for filling with that wrath in punishment. The recreated vessel of mercy is, conversely, because of predestination/election, filled with God's mercy because of His direct intervention in rescuing him from sin. I see a vast difference between the two causative factors. For me, infra is the Scriptural choice.


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:38:05 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
The morally responsible agents for the cause of the sin of man are Satan, and the created couple, not God, though he was supervising and orchestrating the entire sequence. Yet, though the predestinated are born from Adam's seed and made from the the same fleshly lump, they, precisely because they are 'predestinated in love,' are 'vessels of mercy,' having been 'before prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles' (Rom. 9:23-24). The same Apostle comments on this in Eph. 2:10, which I find occasion to quote so often: 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' Well, I'm screwing up something somewhere (Ha! Nuthin' more likely!) because this bit seems to be, in more erudite terms than I normally employ, saying what I said. The allegory of the big ole lump of clay seems reasonable, I must say. As you said, God takes some bits of the bad (so to speak) clay and fits them to be vessels of mercy, true? I am certainly agreeing wholeheartedly that we are morally responsible for our own sins. Absolutely! Positively! Sans dout! But we are unable to effect a change with our choices . . . . look, either God numbers our days or He doesn't, right? So if Alex is killed (God forbid!) by a drunk driver, can I really believe that if only that sorry skunk hadn't chosen to drink and drive, Alex would still be alive? If I can believe that the timing of our deaths is dicey, and affected by the free choices of ourselves and others, then where is God's omnipotence? Where's His sovereignty? 1Peter 2:8 'They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.' 2 Peter 2:12 'But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.' Acts 4:27-8 'Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.' There's others, but you get the drift. Pontius Pilate and Herod were created to play the roles they did. They had no real choice in the matter, and the infra position seems to suggest that they could've straightened up and flown right, since their sinful actions had nothing to do with God, or God had nothing to do with their sinful actions, whichever is your preference. I say their actions were predetermined, but their wicked thought processes were their own. You know, like Jacob, and the-what-had-better-be-ficticious-if-he-knows-what's-good-for-him-scenario for Don. Really, ISTM that the trouble is that since Scripture is written to our level, so we can understand it, it causes misunderstandings. We can only judge others by their actions, so we assume that God also judges us by the same criterion. Instead, I think we don't pay near enough attention to the fact that all of His creation is saturated with His presence, and He is aware of every concious and subconcious thought we have, which is a truly unnerving notion. If Christ doesn't cloak me with His righteousness, I am in BIG trouble. I could sit immobile for the rest of my life, nary moving a muscle, and still offend God right and left. Who needs actions? With us professional sinners, it's all in the mind. Just my 2 cents, and worth every penny. Anne


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:42:04 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, I think I'll focus on this statement of yours to see if we're in agreement: 'The allegory of the big ole lump of clay seems reasonable, I must say. As you said, God takes some bits of the bad (so to speak) clay and fits them to be vessels of mercy, true?' Yes, that is true, but it doesn't reveal the whole story. The active, direct choice of the Lord God was, from the moment eternity began, that He would create Adam with a free will--the only person ever to have such a characteristic. He also determined at that point that He would rescue some of Adam's fallen race, actively choosing those whom He loved (we don't know why He loved them) for predestination to glory with His Son. The rest were not chosen for that privilege, but God was not the direct cause of their being lost, though it was His will. Their 'fitting' is from the fact of their own sin and unrighteousness. The 'rub' comes in when the
end result of His choice of love and mercy in predestination (you'll remember that it's based on 'foreknowledge' in Rom. 8:28) is considered. The effect of the choice of some to be saved and others to be passed by is the same as if He had predestinated them to hell by being the moral agent Who caused them to sin directly and maliciously, as was Satan's design. That the 'lump' was not predestinated to be lost is best illustrated, I think, by the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us. The Lord Jesus' humanity was of the same lump as Adam's original one, but as Adam was not His father, He wasn't 'infected' with sin, as they say. Adam was the created representative man who failed because he could choose sin, and did choose to, in the face of temptation. The Lord Jesus, however, Whom the Scriptures describe both as the 'second' and 'last' Adam (meaning 'man,' representative man, the federal head) was of the good clay of God's provision. The Lord Jesus didn't sin because He was of the morally good clay and because He was joined with the nature of God, the Second Person, the eternal Son. On that basis, He could be the Federal Head of those Whom He has chosen to save, as Adam was the federal head of those for whom he sinned. Adam the first, the 'perfect man' of creation doomed His offspring; Adam the second, the perfect Man due to the eternal choice of God, came to earth for the express purpose of saving His people (Matt. 1:21). Note that, though He will ultimately judge in righteousness, He 'came not to judge the world, but to save the world' (John 12:47; cp. 8:15-16, 26). He came to save His own out of the whole world of men, but the fact of His coming and His righteous life and death according to God's plan of substitution accomplished the end that men would be judged lost and guilty of sin when they spurned His offer of salvation and when they are judged by the righteous standard of the only Man acceptable before God. This was not unknown to God, being in His plan, as we both agree, but God was not the direct cause of the rebellion of the lost. That rebellion was born from within their natures, the natures which are at enmity with God. It seems to me that there is a fine line between the two positions. That line hinges on whether God, though willing and decreeing that the lost be lost forever, though He directs and causes every deed of man, does it in such a way that He is morally responsible for their eternal damnation. Again, mysteriously to us, He is ultimately responsible for everything which happens, but He isn't morally responsible for the sin of man. The example is given (and remember, all human analogies fail, sometimes badly) of the two positions as this: In the supralapsarian view, God leads the lost to the cliff of destruction and pushes them over into damnation. The infras, on the other hand, would say that He made the cliff for their destruction, but that though He plans that they will go over it and wills it, He doesn't do the actual pushing, giving instead every reasonable chance for them to turn to Him if they can and avoid the cliff. The result is the same, but the agents causing the destruction of men's souls are vastly different. Well, that analogy doesn't satisfy me completely, but it contains an element of truth. God has determined that men will be lost and is working His eternal plan in such a way that this is one of the ends of His purpose. But let's not forget His central and primary purpose: to save his people from their sins! It is (again paradoxically) true that God makes 'all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.' Why? The answer is provided in the next verse: 'For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom. 8:28-29). By all things working together, even the sin of the lost and their judgment, the saved of the Lord Jesus Christ are benefitted. That is God's established purpose as revealed in the Word. God is blameless in the entire proceeding, as the Bible declares from beginning to end. In a manner in which the passage demands a 'YES!' answer, Abraham reveals his understanding of that fact by asking this of the Lord: 'Shall not the Judge of all the do right' (Gen. 18:25). By 'right' he meant moral right. That Judge did right, and in doing so He saved Lot and his family, as well as bringing terrible destruction on Sodom and the surrounding area. As in this instance, God the Spirit isn't reticent in declaring God's absolute perfection and righteousness: 'The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works' (Ps. 145:17); 'And after these things I heard a great voice of many people in heaven, saying, Hallehujah! Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord, our God; for true and righteous are his judgments; for he hath judged the great harlot...' (Rev. 19:1-2; cp. 4:11). Now, Anne, I know you agree with that last paragraph, as you have posted that fact many times here. But, though we are agreed on the fact of God's absolute righteousness, the division comes when the supras declare that He does something contrary to His nature. That thing would be causing people to sin, which He would do under the supra view. That, it seems to me would violate His essential character, based on the Scriptures. Instead, we find Him 'just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26). That is the essential message of the Bible: a righteous and just God causing all things to work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.'


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:03:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

In all fairness, most Supralapsarians categorically deny that God is the Author of sin, and therefore His 'initial' decree to create some for destruction and others for salvation in Christ is not contrary to His nature. :-) The Supra position is the most 'logical' and both can easily be derived from Scripture. Personally, I hold to a combination of the two, hahaha, ala Herman Bavinck (cf. The Doctrine of God transl. by William Hendriksen: Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.).

Rom 11:33 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.'

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:54:15 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
It seems to me that there is a fine line between the two positions. That line hinges on whether God, though willing and decreeing that the lost be lost forever, though He directs and causes every deed of man, does it in such a way that He is morally responsible for their eternal damnation. Again, mysteriously to us, He is ultimately responsible for everything which happens, but He isn't morally responsible for the sin of man. Dagnabbit, Rod, I have been bending over backwards assuring all and sundry that we are morally culpable, morally responsible, morally [pick-your-word] for our own sin! Have I ever said otherwise? Didn't think so. If God is willing and decreeing that the lost be lost forever, then why ****foot around about it, is all? We twist ourselves in knots trying to protect Him from His own decree, for fear He won't sound nice. He wills that the lost be lost, but hey, it's okay, 'cause He feels real bad about it? Balderdash. I can with all honesty assure you that if, God forbid!, God should have fitted me to be a vessel of wrath, I would far prefer to know that I was created for that purpose from the get-go; not that I just missed Heaven by a hair. And I know, from having been me, that every crummy thing I have ever done, or ever will do, is my own fault, and not His. How does that work? Haven't a clue, really. Nor more do you. Nor does anyone else. We may never know, even after we die. This might easily be one of those areas that we aren't capable of understanding . . . . infinite matters cannot be comprehended by finite minds. Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: 'Doesn't have a clue'
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:43:50 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, It wan't my purpose to ruffle your feathers. When you wrote this, 'Dagnabbit, Rod, I have been bending over backwards assuring all and sundry that we are morally culpable, morally responsible, morally [pick-your-word] for our own sin! Have I ever said otherwise? Didn't think so,' you were exactly right. I do remember your stance on this and it is as you've stated. It's just that, if I understand the two positions correctly (which of course you have made clear you don't think I do), it would be impossible for God to be the direct, active cause of people sinning and then for Him still to be able to find them responsible for their sins. BTW, even though a particular person has been addressed directly, I add a lot of detail to some posts which I'm certain some, such as yourself, already know. I'm sure others do the same for the reason that there may be lurkers and visitors who don't have all the knowledge that you do.


Subject: Oops! Sorry, Rod!
From: Anne
To: 'Doesn't have a clue'
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:05:00 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Rod, you goose! My feathers weren't ruffled! I apologize for making you think that I was. And yes, I think you understand the two positions just fine, really. Far better than I,
in toto, truth be known. We just look at them and put the weight on different points, I guess. The fact is, this entire discussion very likely belongs to that class of things that are contained in that Deuteronomy verse about our not inquiring into the stuff we aren't meant to know. I can't recall if it's in chapter 29, or is verse 29 in a different chapter. . . . ? Well, you know the one I mean. Drives one nuts, you know? We can pull out verses to support predestination, or man's free-will determinism, or God's sovereignty over every single thing what happens, or that He is disappointed and frustrated by our disobedience. And that's just the big stuff! Think of all the lesser things that can be easily contrasted, depending upon the verse quoted. What can we do? On the one hand we have James insisting that God never tempts us to sin, yet there is verse after verse demonstrating that when people do something dreadful, they do it at God's behest. [sigh] It's a mystery, alright. Which are fine when authored by Agatha Christie or Rex Stout, but not so agreeable to us (well, me, anyway) when it concerns such important matters as these. [wistfully] I rather wish the Lord would come out with an official sequel, entitled 'The Idiot's Guide to the Divine.' I might possibly be able to manage that version! Still friends, I hope! Affectionately, Anne


Subject: Still friends, of course! :>)
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 21:41:03 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, I hate to differ with you so soon, but I think the Lord gave us His whole Word, and his Spirit within each believer, with the intent that we understand all that which He has revealed to us. By that I mean this: Ideally, the Church should be able to study the Word, rely on the guidance of the Spirit of God, and arrive at harmony on the major doctrines put forth in the Bible. The fact that we don't agree is a testimony to our blindness and hardness of heart. That notwithstanding, good and godly people do disagree on some substantive issues. It doesn't affect their salvation, if they agree on the essentials, but it isn't in the spirit of Eph. 4:11-16, where the individuals of the body are designed to help the body grow and be edified. Let's see, 'Duck, duck, goose....' You referred to me as a 'goose.' Does that mean I'm reprobate or saved? :>)


Subject: What are Friends For? :-)
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:43:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

You are right, of course, that God graciously gave us His Word, and actually condescended to put it into comprehensive language so that men/women/children, by His Spirit would be able to apprehend and apply it. I love Calvin's statement concerning the perspicuity of the Word, where he said that 'God lisped so that we might know Him in His Word'. But I think it is important to not give the wrong impression that ALL of God's children are given the same 'ability' by the Spirit to comprehend the Word to the same degree. The Spirit, Eph 4:7 'But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. . . . 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.'. There have been and will continue to be those who have been gifted with more 'response-ability' within the Body of Christ for the purpose of serving the Church. Now I realize that there are many today who would posit that we are all 'equal' etc., but this simply isn't true according to the Scriptures. However, the common 'sheep' is not left to the mercy of those 'gifted' to serve in the ministry of the Word as if they are to bow before every 'wind of doctrine' that blows their way. But rather, EVERY teaching is subject to the fundamental and perspicuous teachings of God's Word. For example, there is no doubt that the Scriptures teach that God possesses the 'Big 3' Omni's; Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience. Thus if someone should come along with a 'deeper truth' that he/she has discovered by diligent study and the 'revelation' of the Spirit which contradicts any or all of these three 'Omni's', then that person is simply wrong. There are No contradictions within the Godhead, nor in His written Word, and the Church has always recognized this from the beginning, confessing that God's inscripturated Word is 'Infallible and Inerrant'. No child of God is to fear that he/she can be led down a wrong path, at least for very long, when they have the Scriptures as the 'light of their path.' Thus it is incumbent upon ALL believers to be faithful disciples of the Lord Christ and 'continue in the Word' (Jh 8:31). This 'check and balance' created within the Church is a marvelous thing and thus we are to be 'subject to one another'(1Pet 5:5). Personally, I am always suspicious of anyone who says they adhere to 'No creed but Christ! No doctrine but life!' Granted there are various 'Confessions' which the denominations from the Reformation wrote for themselves, but if one takes a good look at these historic Confessions, they only differ on the 'non-essentials', e.g., the recipients and mode of baptism, etc. But as to the essentials of the fundamental doctrines, which are known as the 'Doctrines of Sovereign Grace,' they are ALL in agreement. In my younger days, when I was overflowing with enthusiastic energy, hehehe, I read through Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom and was amazed that there was so much unity within the diversity of the various denominations which came out of the Reformation. Today however, these Confessions are ignored, rejected and in many quarters, ridiculed. They are seen as 'binding' rather than 'unifying'; 'detrimental' rather than a sure 'guard' against the heretical teachings of the wolves. Okay.... done! hahaha

In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What are Friends For? :-)
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:49:45 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, As I hurredly read your post (have an appointment), I don't think I see any basic dispute here. I didn't find anything which wasn't fundamentally my conviction also. In your statement you seem to suggest that I think every
individual member of the Church has an equal ability to discern God's truth. That is emphatically not my contention. I am frequently humbled in the presence of greater knowledge of God than I possess by people who are obviously closer to the Lord than I have ever been. I am perfectly content to sit back in those situations and learn, though I am also sometimes inspired to try to find an avenue to share some of the truth I've received from them. You made this statement: 'But I think it is important to not give the wrong impression that ALL of God's children are given the same 'ability' by the Spirit to comprehend the Word to the same degree.' In response, I offer that I tried to give the opposite impression, saying this: 'Ideally, the Church should be able to study the Word, rely on the guidance of the Spirit of God, and arrive at harmony on the major doctrines put forth in the Bible.' In that statement, I was speaking of the Church of Jesus Christ, in its entire makeup, not an individual. I specifically had the passage in Ephesians you quoted in mind. If we are all fulfilling our gifted and appointed functions, then there should be properly gifted people studying the divisive issues and the entire Body should be looking at those conclusions with an eye for resolution of differences based on the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit. That, I think, is 'edifying.' I am often saddened deeply by the type of debate I see on the various Christian boards which is self-serving and not honoring to God. If we adhere to the principles of Eph. 4:11-16, our goal won't be debate and winning, but discussion and resolution of conflict whenever possible so that God's Church will be edified and more closely resemble that 'perfect man' mentioned by Paul in verse 13. I also endorse this statement of yours heartily: 'However, the common 'sheep' is not left to the mercy of those 'gifted' to serve in the ministry of the Word as if they are to bow before every 'wind of doctrine' that blows their way. But rather, EVERY teaching is subject to the fundamental and perspicuous teachings of God's Word.' It seems to me that the 'common sheep' is to be Berean (Acts 17:11) enough to do so. I think that is exactly what John was referring to in the oft misinterpreted 1 John 2:27, that the real Christian, led by the Spirit and sound in the Word, will be able to recognize teaching from those so gifted which is honoring to the Bible's truth and not be led astray by false teachers. If I gave you and the board any other impression, I regret that. My goal was, as I say, just the opposite. May God preserve me (and all my brothers and sisters) from being too full of myself. John 3:30.


Subject: Re: What are Friends For? :-)
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:08:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

The Pil


Subject: Re: Still friends, of course! :>)
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 05:13:22 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Let's see, 'Duck, duck, goose....' You referred to me as a 'goose.' Does that mean I'm reprobate or saved? [firmly] Saved, naturally. The reprobate outnumber the saved, as I understand it, so the geese are the elect. Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Chrystostomos
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:32:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Rod, I hope you are continuing on the road to recovery. Since it's a slow day at work, I did a little digging on these terms which I'd heard a few times, but never really knew anything about. My understanding is that the crux of debate surrounds
whenGod 'decreed' certain things. In infrlapsarianism, God decrees election to salvation after the fall and in supralapsarianism, God decrees election to salvation prior to the fall. (I guess that would be self-evident if one knew Latin, but I am a product of the American educational system and am thus a bit behind the curve) Further, I have read that the 'means' for God's glorification are different on both sides as well. The 'supras' say that God glorifies himself through the process of creating some for election to salvation and some for reprobation. The 'infras' say that God glorifies himself by the creation of the entire human race (thus, the decree comes after the fall). Have I got that right? Thanks.


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Pilgrim
To: Chrystostomos
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:44:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chrystostomos,

Nope, you got it all wrong my friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:44:31 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Perhaps it would be useful to get our definitions clear. My impression has been that the infras say that God created everyone, then there was the Fall, then the elect were chosen. The supras say that God created everyone, basically as either vessels of mercy or of wrath, though from the same lump of clay, and afterwards there was the Fall. In the infra POV, the election comes after the Fall; in the supra POV, it preceeds it. Keeping in mind that this would have not taken place in 'time,' as we understand it. How badly am I off in my reckoning? Anne


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Chrysostomos
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:59:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chrystostomos,

Nope, you got it all wrong my friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)

Pilgrim
---
OK, OK, no need to yell. :) The word 'order' seemed to imply some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Pilgrim
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:10:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chrystostomos,

Nope, you got it all wrong my friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)

Pilgrim
---
OK, OK, no need to yell. :) The word 'order' seemed to imply some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...
---
Chrystostomos,

I wasn't 'yelling', hehehe but rather EMPHASIZING! :-) We as finite creatures do have this tendency to try and comprehend an infinite GOD in 'time modes', and thus your reply, 'The word 'order' seemed to imply some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...'. This is understandable, but simply wrong. Since the LORD God is endowed with the attribute of 'Infinity' (having no beginning nor end) and is the Creator of time itself and thus is not subject to it. As Rod initially commented, this is a very difficult subject, and I think mainly because of our limitations as time-bound creatures. But as I have come to understand the decrees of God, they existed as one in His infinite 'consciousness'. Thus for us being finite, we speak of the 'order' of the decrees or perhaps better said, the 'sequence' in which God's infinite counsel and will was to be applied in time. [Got a headache yet?] For an introductory article I would refer you to The Decrees of God by Arthur Pink.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Chrysostomos
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:22:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Thank you for taking the time. C


Subject: Pilgrim how is this?
From: kevin
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:53:13 (PDT)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
It is my understanding that it is not an issue of time order God creates, then He elects, etc. But an issue of logical order. This begins the thought process then such and such flows from said process. It is not of necessity an issue of time but logical flow. Did that make any sense and if so is my understanding correct? In Him, kevin sdg your humble infa/supra lapsarian believer. That is how easily I can agree with both sides. . . .


Subject: Re: Pilgrim how is this?
From: Pilgrim
To: kevin
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:07:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
It is my understanding that it is not an issue of time order God creates, then He elects, etc. But an issue of logical order. This begins the thought process then such and such flows from said process. It is not of necessity an issue of time but logical flow. Did that make any sense and if so is my understanding correct? In Him, kevin sdg your humble infa/supra lapsarian believer. That is how easily I can agree with both sides.
---
kevin, We are on the same page! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Rod
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:04:00 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Chris, If God did things the way you have suggested, it would be as the Arminian view has it: that He has to learn things, not being omnipotent or omnipotent. God knows and decides all things from eternity past, never acquiring knowledge. That is the only proper view of Almighty God.


Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one!
From: Chrysostomos
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:57:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, Actually, I was just seeing if I had 'absorbed' the information from the attached link properly. Pilgrim pointed out that 'order' doesn't imply a temporal sequence. Whew! Gotta be careful which definitions are used, eh? C Infralapsarianism mb-soft.com/believe/text/infralap.htm


Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss...
From: Eric
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 09:38:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Anne,
To suggest that God is unfair or harsh in creating souls for the purpose of satisfying His perfect wrath is foolishness . . . . this is His creation, every scrap and molecule of it, and He may create anything and anyone for any reason that glorifies Him and His Name. Since nothing can exist or occur outside of or beyond His will, then if He is desirous of expressing His wrath and justice, by necessity He is going to have to create beings as the objects of those divine attributes. I don't think your argument holds, for a couple of reasons. First, the biblical record speaks of God pouring out his wrath on account of the evil deeds (sin) of his creatures. This is just and right. In addition scripture speaks of God not delighting in the destruction of the wicked, He would rather that all men repent and turn to him. The second reason, is God's wrath is not an essential part of His character. He is no less, and no more satisfied by the expression of it, or lack there of. To deny this point, is to assume that God was somehow less than completely satisfied within the fellowship of the Holy Trinity before the creation of the universe. God's character is made up of love, holiness, rightousness, justice, etc, but not wrath or anger. Wrath and anger are a response to events committed by beings outside of himself. If I permit or allow my son to do something, that means that he was the instigator of the suggested action. How can any of us instigate something beyond God's will? That would mean ours is the primary action, and He is, in effect, seconding our motion. Your reasoning in essence is saying that God creates people for the express purpose of tormenting them in hell, and then decrees that they sin, in order to be just in sending them to hell. God bless.


Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss...
From: Anne
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:35:17 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
God's character is made up of love, holiness, rightousness, justice, etc, but not wrath or anger. Wrath and anger are a response to events committed by beings outside of himself. Hmmm, I don't think this is true. For one thing, how can an omnipotent, omniscient (is that spelled correctly? It just looks wrong!) God have stuff happening outside of Him, which I presume means outside of His control. For another, God's wrath is referred to as many times, if not more so, than His love, etc. As R.C. Sproul Jr. said, His wrath is not unwanted baggage that He wishes he could ditch. As for how God's perfect sovereignty squares with our moral culpability, I freely grant that that's a poser, all right. I've been thinking of it like this: Okay, there's some ghastly situation wherein some woman must be kept from making an appointment, otherwise it will be The End Of Civilization As We Know It. This woman is known to have been making plays for my husband, who is not present for this meeting. The decision is made, with my reluctant approval, that Don is just going to have to sacrifice himself and make the Sign of the Aardvark with the wicked woman. We are hidden, anxiously looking for him to come back, so the plan can be put to him. It will require much argument and arm-twisting, I am certain. Ah! Here he comes! Oh, no! There she is! And before we can get to Don! Whateffershallwedo? Watching, we see her beckon Don, who goes to her, looks carefully around, puts his hand on the small of her back, and together they head off. Civilization As We Know It is saved! Ain't it grand? Unless, of course, you happen to be his wife. I am not nearly as enthusiastic as everyone else, since Don didn't need any urging at all to perform the Evil Deed. When he learns what happened, he attempts to placate me by pointing out that all he did was what I wanted him to do anyway, right? So that was a good thing, right? So everything's okay, right? Wrong. What he DID may have been part of the plan, but his REASONS for Doing His Part (to put it delicately), stunk. To high heaven, as it were. Basically, it's the kidnapping of Jacob, only updated with a new cast of characters and storyline. Calvin also said something in that book that I loved, which was that God's sovereignty should be of immense comfort to us, since we can look back on the heinous sins we have committed, and feel remorse for our sinful part in them, yet know that nothing different could have happened. ISTM that in Scripture there are two different sets of instructions, so to speak. God's total sovereignty is spelled out clearly . . . this is reality. Yet we are also given instructions and commands and exhortations. What's up with that, if God is complete control of His creation? Think back to when you were in school. Remember when you'd be given an essay test, and the teacher would tell the class to assume that he has no knowledge of the topic whatsoever? 'Pretend I don't know anything about it,' the teacher would insist. Now, the class knows he knows about it. He knows that the class knows he knows about it. The class knows that he knows that the class, etc. etc. That instruction was the working hypothesis for the class; that's rule by which they are respond to the test. So, God provides us with a working hypothesis, with which we are to make our concious decisions and choices. Considerations of His sovereignty are most useful when looking at the past, and when facing the future, but for the here-and-now, God wants us to refer to His instructions in His Word for how to behave. Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss...
From: Eric
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:10:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
For one thing, how can an omnipotent, omniscient (is that spelled correctly? It just looks wrong!) God have stuff happening outside of Him, which I presume means outside of His control. You assumed wrong. :) Nothing is outside of God's control, we share that viewpoint. If you do not grant that God allows creatures action, apart from his direct control(as opposed to puppets), then you must logically conclude that God is the author and cause of sin. I will not go that far. For another, God's wrath is referred to as many times, if not more so, than His love, etc. We are told in scripture that 'God IS Love', to my knowledge, there is not a verse that says God is wrath. As R.C. Sproul Jr. said, His wrath is not unwanted baggage that He wishes he could ditch. Okay, are you willing to say that before the creation of the world, God was less satisfied, or not expressing himself completely, because he was unable to be angry? And that the reason that the reprobate are created, is so he can finally have somebody to be angry at? Sign of the aardvark Never really heard that one before. I guess I better brush up on my zoology, I can't get a picture in my head of what an actual aardvark looks like. :) As to the rest of your analogy, you need to change one thing. You need to insert yourself, as the one who decreed that your husband have the wrong motives. Your husband cannnot have one thought that was not commanded beforehand by you. Now, would you still be angry with him? Calvin also said something in that book that I loved, which was that God's sovereignty should be of immense comfort to us, since we can look back on the heinous sins we have committed, and feel remorse for our sinful part in them, yet know that nothing different could have happened. Ahh, but isn't the only way this makes sense, is if we caused the sin ourselves. Otherwise, where is the sorrow coming from? So, hypothetically speaking, Hitler would not have been guilty of sin, if he would have killed millions, not as a quest for power, but as a humble servant, who realizes he is only carrying out God's plan? How can we disassociate the motivation, and the act? Is not the torture of an child always wrong, regardless of the motivation behind it? Can we dismember infants to the glory of God? So, God provides us with a working hypothesis, with which we are to make our concious decisions and choices. Considerations of His sovereignty are most useful when looking at the past, and when facing the future, but for the here-and-now, God wants us to refer to His instructions in His Word for how to behave. Yes, I agree, good point.


Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss...
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:41:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric, Apply your 'logic' to the crucifixion and see if it works! :-) It fails miserably to be sure! In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Why does it fail?
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:23:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, Who creates sin? Obviously man does, scripture precludes all other possibilities. Therefore, I reject the notion that God
actively decreed the sinful actions of man. Was Christ crucifixion ordained from eternity past? Yes. Could Pilate have decided to release Jesus instead of allowing his crucifixion? No, because that would have required God to bestow more grace upon Pilate to do the right thing. It is my view that God sovereignly administers common/restraining grace in all people in order to accomplish His purposes. So, God does not command the sinful actions of men, but rather he permits thoses sins that accomplish His purposes. God bless.


Subject: Re: Why does it fail?
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:55:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

Well that certainly is a far cry from what you initially posted! :-) However, could you expand just a bit on what you mean by: 'God actively decreed the sinful actions of man'? This is now getting into the area of 'Double Predestination' which is a sub-topic of the Decrees. God 'Foreordains' ALL things, even the sins of men. Yet no man is compelled against his will to rebel against the Almighty and transgress His laws. All men sin as naturally as rain falls from the sky and thus I agree with you that God's direct 'action' in the affairs of men is more in the way of 'restraint'. Yet this does not negate the fact that ALL THINGS are 'Foreordained' by God. Is He therefore morally and legally culpable for the sins of men? Mae genito 'God forbid!'. And this is one of those 'mysteries' which finite minds are unable to comprehend, and I suspect never will. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why does it fail?
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 10:17:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't think that it is, in light of the context. We were discussing supra vs infra lapsarianism. Supra's must hold to reprobation for a cause other than sin. God sends people to hell, not as a punishment for sin, but as a way of glorifying himself. This ties in with the concept of ordination. God ordains (commands) sin in order to be just in sending people to hell. Anne stated that nothing can happen outside of God, and the reason that people are sent to hell, is not so much for their actions, but for their attitude while performing their actions. Hence my question: Can we dismember infants to the glory of God? In regard to God's active decree. What I mean is that I don't think that God positively commands every action, rather the order of the universe is a combination of positive commands performed by God, and God granting man 'permission' to do some of the evil things that arise out of man's heart. God allows (not decrees) evil, for a time, in order to bring about the ultimate good. God bless.


Subject: Re: Why does it fail?
From: Anne
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 11:09:00 (PDT)
Email Address: anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com

Message:
What I mean is that I don't think that God positively commands every action, rather the order of the universe is a combination of positive commands performed by God, and God granting man 'permission' to do some of the evil things that arise out of man's heart. The main problem that appears to arise from 'God granting man 'permission' to do some of the evil things that arise out of man's heart' is that it has man, in time, instigating actions outside of and beyond God's will. To be able to know the end from the beginning, does He look into the future to see what all us rascals get up to, as time passes? I don't see how it could be otherwise, if none of the dreadful things that occur have nothing to do with Him, and He'd just as soon they not. Occur, that is. From there it is but a short hop to God's foreknowledge consisting of Him looking into the future and discovering who accepts Him and who does not, with such being the basis for our election, or lack thereof. The two views seem to me to be inextricably tied together, you see. BTW, those who are perishing in hell are most certainly doing so based on their sins. Consider the story of the rich man in hell, speaking to Abraham . . . . at no point does he complain that he is being mistreated, or judged unfairly. This is, I believe, significant. Yet to his plea that Lazarus be sent to warn his brothers of their same fate, he's told simply that it would do no good, and be of no use. It is their unchangeable destiny. They wouldn't believe, even if they should see someone raised from the dead! Ciao! Anne


Subject: Man does violate the will of God
From: Eric
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:32:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The main problem that appears to arise from 'God granting man 'permission' to do some of the evil things that arise out of man's heart' is that it has man, in time, instigating actions outside of and beyond God's will. The only alternative to this, is to say that God's secret will is that many sin and blaspheme His Son, but scripture declares that God hates sin. So, you have a perfectly holy God commanding his creation to sin which He hates. Also, I really don't think that this leads to God's election based upon a foreknowledge of a persons's faith. The doctrine is derived from scripture, and not from logical conclusions. Anne, when you sin, are you violating God's will? Would God rather not have sin in your life, as it is stated so plainly in His Word? Or, does He tell you that He doesn't want you to sin, while all the while knowing full well that He commanded you to sin before the universe began? God bless.


Subject: Re: Man does violate the will of God
From: Anne
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:50:23 (PDT)
Email Address: anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com

Message:
Anne, when you sin, are you violating God's will? Would God rather not have sin in your life, as it is stated so plainly in His Word? Or, does He tell you that He doesn't want you to sin, while all the while knowing full well that He commanded you to sin before the universe began? I'm violating His revealed will when I sin . . . His hidden will (there's some term for it, but it escapes me) is another matter. Eric, lamb, if I could explain precisely the way this stuff works, I'd be God! ;-> But I can't, so I'm not, therefore the world is safe. Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: Man does violate the will of God
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:03:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne: Secret Will=
Decretive Will Revealed Will= Preceptive will In His Grace, Pilgrim  


Subject: Thank you, sir!
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:16:39 (PDT)
Email Address: anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com

Message:
Those are the ones! How the dickens do you get those faces to show up? All I can manage is
bold and italics. Anne


Subject: For fg re-righteousness
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 17:25:49 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg The following is from the Westminster Confession of Faith. You should notice from it, that it supports what we have been saying all along. I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4] 1. Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39 2. I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2 3. Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21 4. I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29; Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7 II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9] 5. II Peter 1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14 6. Psa. 119:10-11, 48, 97-98, 167-168; John 14:15 7. Ezra 9:4; Isa. 66:2; Heb. 4:1 8. Heb. 11:13; I Tim. 4:8 9. John 1:12; Acts 15:11, 16:31; Gal. 2:20; II Tim. 1:9-10 III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13] 10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom. 4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10 11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16; I John 5:4-5 12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2 13. Heb. 12:2


Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:25:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All very true, I agree! True saving faith believes *all that is revealed in the word*, and this includes how we are justified in the sight of God. The Puritans and reformers all taught justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone - without works of any kind! We do good works *after* we become saved... that is certain. Sermon by Erskine www.puritansermons.com/erskine/eerskin02.htm


Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 23:30:22 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg I don't know why I waisted my time looking up that maturial. It is obvious that you either can not comprehend what we and those of the people who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith are saying. Or you are purposely misusing what they said for your Hyper-Calvinist leanings. I was recently told that what you are saying is also opposed to what John Calvin taught. They are looking up that information for me. Tom


Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 05:49:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Tom, JOhn Calvin taught this great truth, as well as Martin Luther and many others as well. Calvin wrote about justification the following: >>>On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, (see sec. 21 and 23.)<<<


Subject: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here!
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:24:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

You were given a warning to cease and desist from promoting this heresy along with distorting the teachings of others. It seems quite obvious that you are OBSESSED with this thing and have no ears to hear what the Spirit has said in the Churches nor what He is saying in the Scriptures. You blindly rush head-on down this dark path that you think is brightly lit evidently having no consciousness of the terrible end this road leads. Your persistent refusal to at least stop posting this distortion of the Gospel which is in fact what Paul calls 'Another Gospel' leaves me no choice but to remove you from this Forum for a period of time in the hopes that God will deal with your heart as well as your head and give you the needed understanding unto repentance and restoration. May the LORD be merciful to you always.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here!
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:15:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - you wrote:
I am very sorry, I thought that we were in agreement on how a sinner is justified in the sight of God. We do agree as genuine believers that justification is an act of God whereby Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. This is NOT the issue. The issue is your insistence that a person MUST embrace imputation (as a condition) before God will justify....as thought salvation always comes in the same little PACKAGE. To require the embracing of any doctrine as a CONDITION of salvation (or even the the fruit/sign of true regeneration) turns the Gospel into works. Can't you see this? I say this doctrine can very well be misunderstood by a TRUE believer (i.e., someone who's regenerate)....and so we must trust in God's providence in bringing a SAVED person via SANCTIFICATION to the point of being able to comprehend or apprehend this important and blessed doctrine. Some might NEVER grasp imputation .... but still be saved despite their ignorance. Orthodoxy doesn't save...mercy (God's) saves! I simply WON'T say that a person HAS to believe like a Calvinist in order to be saved...or even believe in imputation (which is NOT an exclusively calvinistic doctrine as many arminians embrace it also). So, when are you gonna see the light? There CAN be a Mormon who is fully and genuinely trusting in the historical God-Man's finished work (which arguabley means he's not a very good Mormon, hehe) ... not understanding imputation, election predestination, perhaps never hearing of such doctrines...yet die tonight in the arms of our Savior. He was providentially and mercifully saved by hearing just a smidget of the Gospel and yet it was enough for the Spirit to cause his heart to be 'strangely warmed'... This is fully possible....and doesn't take on iota away from the Gospel of Grace...in fact, it's a GREAT example of it! You simply can't say that Arminians(who are fall closer to the truth than Mormons) who reject election (or any other doctrine) are hellbound. Only those who reject the person and work of Christ FOR THEM are still dead in their sins. What they understand and believe about particular doctrines is certainly important, but secondary when it comes to how God chooses to justify individuals. laz


Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here!
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:57:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Laz, That sounds like 'easy-believism' to me. Those who just let 'jesus come into their hearts' are saved and on their way to heaven - be they Mormon, or whatever. Seems like you are forgeting that the spirit of antichrist will give a person a false assurance of salvation, and deceive them into thinking everything is OK, when it is not OK. Liberal thinking is 'I'm OK, and you're OK'..etc. All I have been trying to say here is, that what is true about a person submiting to God's sovereignty in salvation.. (election), is also true about a person's submiting to God's way of justification by an imputed righteousness. >>>All God's people, sooner or later, are brought to this point -- to see that God has a 'people,' 'a peculiar people,' a people separate from the world, a people whom He has 'formed for Himself, that they should show forth His praise.' Election sooner or later, is riveted in the hearts of God's people. And a man, that lives and dies against this blessed doctrine, lives and dies in his sins; and if he dies in that enmity, he will be damned in that enmity (J. C. Philpot). 'The Arminians, on the other hand, hold and teach conditional election on a ground of foreseen faith. This is contrary to the Truth. As long as men are unregenerate, they are in a state of unbelief, without hope in God and without faith in Christ. When saved by grace, they have faith, but that not of themselves. It is not of their own power or free-will, but the gift of God through the efficacious teaching of the Holy Spirit. Faith, therefore, cannot be the cause of election. It is the effect of it and is insured by it. 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed' (Acts 13: 48). 'For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Ephesians 2: 8-10). The text quoted by Arminians in support of their doctrine of conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, is 'Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate, etc.' (Romans 8: 29). Such a view is superficial and untenable. 'The word 'foreknow' in the New Testament usage, as pointed out by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, is employed in the sense of the Hebrew yada (know) which denotes love and favour. 'Not foreknowledge as bare prescience,' says Calvin, 'but the adoption by which God had always from eternity distinguished His children from the reprobate.' The Scriptures represent election as occurring in the past, irrespective of personal merit. 'The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 11-13). The sovereignty of God's choice comes out clearly in the Pauline statement that Christ died for His people while they were yet sinners (Romans 5: 8). It has been well said that Arminians take the choice out of the hands of God and place it in the hands of men' ('The Reformed Faith' by the Rev. D. Beaton, p. 24). 'But of Him and through Him and to Him are all things to whom be glory for ever. Amen' (Romans 11: 36). ========================= But I will wait for Pilgrim's reply, and his meaning of 'alien righteousness'.... Of course, you are free to think that Arminians are saved..even if they are deceived into thinking that they 'elect themselves' unto salvation by their own 'free will'...! Then why contend for the true faith once delievered unto the saints, if a false faith will save a person also?! freegrace


Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here!
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:59:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'Easy believism' is mere intellectual assent - which has NOTHING to do with Spirit-wrought faith....I was talking TRUE faith in Christ....and even granting the possibility that an Arminian/Mormon CAN not only be brought to saving have but have WORKS galore to PROVE his faith is genuine. Besides, a true believing Mormon...WILL eventually leave the LDS on account of her gross heresies, but still never grasp perfect doctrine. Please, I was not talking about 'letting Jesus into their heart'...you know I reject that. I was intentially CLEAR about what I defined as both saving faith and the proper object of that faith. Maybe you need to reread my post. laz


Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here!
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:58:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - you wrote:
Then why contend for the true faith once delievered unto the saints, if a false faith will save a person also?! Why is a simple understanding of the Gospel (or nature of faith) necessarily equate to a false gospel (or false faith)? You think Lydia, the Eunuch, or Cornelius said, 'I'm so glad that Jesus' righteousness was imputed to my account and my sin was given to Him'? Or, 'I'm sure glad that God in His infinite and unconditional mercy chose to grant me repentence by grace thru faith unto justification and salvation'. I say probably not....they likely simply BELIEVED with the eyes of simple Spirit-wrought faith that Jesus THE Messiah died on their behalf (like Arminians do)...and had no clue about election, predestination, imputation, etc....that wonderful 'stuff' MAY have come later.... So, when are you gonna 'give it up'? Your argument has no true merit...despite your love of sovereign grace. laz


Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here!
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:04:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

We are NOT in agreement concerning HOW a person is Justified before God. I stand on the biblical and historic doctrine of Sola Fide, which says that a person is justified by GRACE through FAITH IN CHRIST ALONE! Whereas you have posted no less than 2 dozen times that a sinner can ONLY be justified by 'trusting in the doctrine of imputed righteousness, unconditional election, limited atonement and who knows what other doctrines! There is therefore an impassable chasm that separates us, no less than the chasm that separates biblical Christianity from ALL other religions. I do sincerely regret that you are either incapable of comprehending this odious heresy you are currently embracing or you have consciously rejected the doctrine of Sola Fide for a form of Gnosticism. Further, you have rejected all attempts by those who have posted here to point out to you both the serious flaws in your view and the end to which it will bring you if you continue on the road you are currently traveling. I leave you with the wisdom of one who knows of these things as well as any other:

LUTHERAN THEOLOGIAN MARTIN CHEMNITZ (1522-1586)

ON JUSTIFICATION:

        This unique doctrine in a special way distinguishes the church from all other nations and religions....[Justification] is the pinnacle and chief bulwark of all teaching and of the Christian religion itself; if this is obscured, adulterated, or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other loci. On the other hand, if this locus is securely retained, all idolatrous ravings, superstitions and other corruptions are thereby destroyed (Loci Theologici II, p. 443)

May the Spirit of God bring conviction to your heart and guide you to repentance.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 00:33:31 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, You aren't the first, or even the second, to reach this conclusion. Freegrace will not, or is not able to, hear Scriptural truth on this matter. I don't want to say this definitely, but the strong indication seems to me to be that it is deliberate, as I cited earlier in a post to him about those described in 2 Peter 3:5: '...they willingly are ignorant.'


Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:41:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, you are correct. For many years I was ignorant of this great truth! John Gill says: 4th. Faith is manifestly distinguished from righteousness (Rom. 10:10), when a man is said to believe unto righteousness, when the righteousness of God is said to be revealed from faith to faith, and when it is said to be through the faith of Christ, and is called the righteousness of God by faith. Now then, if faith and righteousness are two different things, then faith is not our justifying righteousness, and so not the righteousness mentioned in my text. 5th. Something else is represented, as the righteousness by which a sinner is justified before God. The people of God, are said to be justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and some times by the blood of Christ, and at other times by the one man's obedience (Rom. 2:24; 6:9-19). Now, faith is not the redemption in Christ Jesus, nor is it the blood of Christ, nor is it his obedience either active or passive, and therefore is not that which is imputed for justification. Nevertheless, faith must be allowed to have a very great concern in the business of justification. Hence we are said to be justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), not by faith either as a work performed by us, or as a grace wrought in us, but we are justified by it relatively or objectively, as it respects, apprehends, and lays hold on Christ and his righteousness for justification; or we are justified by it organically, as it is a recipient of this blessing, for faith is the hand which receives the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of our salvation. Faith is that grace to which this righteousness is revealed, and by which the soul first spies it. When beholding its glory, sufficiency and suitableness, it approves of it, and renounces its own righteousness. It is that grace by which a soul puts on Christ's righteousness as its garment, and rejoices therein, by which all boasting in a man's own works is excluded, and by which all the glory of justification is given to Christ.<<<,>


Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:25:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - what's interesting is that the vast majority of Arminians I know would not have the foggiest idea what Gill is saying. Are they therefore unregenerate? I agree that a true conversion includes repentence ... but it's repentence of their sins, NOT necessarily of their cluttered mindset or misunderstood (or ignorance of) doctrines? A person need only believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that the 'CORRECT' (i.e., the correct OBJECT of faith) Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord .... the appropriation of the correct 'docrines' may or MAY NOT come later. laz


Subject: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners'
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:49:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Robert M'Cheyne (1813-1843) wrote this in his study of John 16:8... ...God highly exalted him-looked upon him as worthy of much honour-worthy of a seat on the throne at his right hand. Oh! how plain that Christ is accepted with the Father!-how plain that his righteousness is most lovely and all divine in the sight of God the Father! Hearken, then, trembling sinner!-this righteousness is offered to you. It was wrought just for sinners like you, and for none else; it is for no other use but just to cover naked sinners. This is the clothing of wrought gold, and the raiment of needlework. This is the wedding-garment-the fine linen, white and clean. Oh! put ye on the Lord Jesus. Why should ye refuse your own mercies? Become one with Christ, by believing, and you are not only pardoned, as I showed before, but you are righteous in the sight of God; not only shall you never be cast into bell, but you shall surely be carried into heaven-as surely as Christ is now there. Become one with Christ, and even this moment you are lovely in the sight of God comely, through his comeliness put upon you. You are as much accepted in the sight of God as is the Son of Man, the Beloved, that sits on his right hand. The Spirit shall be given you, as surely as he is given to Christ. He is given to Christ as the oil of gladness, wherewith he is anointed above his fellows. You are as sure to wear a crown of glory, as that Christ is now wearing his. You are as sure to sit upon Christ's throne, as that Christ is now sitting on his Father's throne. O weep for joy, happy believer! O sing for gladness of heart: 'For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.' ====================================== This way of salvation removes all boasting from the sinner, and places all the honor and glory completely on Christ! This is not 'boasting in my imputed righteousness' at all, but it is glorying in the Lord completely! If the early reformers (who have gone before us)found this way of salvation, then we can too. freegrace


Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners'
From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:29:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, Taking several statements of Robert M'Cheyne concerning each person yet to believe we find, in my estimation, he is not correct. He said, '...You are as much accepted in the sight of God as is the Son of Man' Implying that each person on earth is made acceptable by Christ's redemption and only thing lacking is the putting on of Christ's righteousness. So then he says, 'Why should ye refuse your own mercies?', implying again that God has shown mercy on all, but it is not activated until you believe. While this is a common view today, what do you think, is it correct? john


Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners'
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:24:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, Taking several statements of Robert M'Cheyne concerning each person yet to believe we find, in my estimation, he is not correct. He said, '...You are as much accepted in the sight of God as is the Son of Man' Implying that each person on earth is made acceptable by Christ's redemption and only thing lacking is the putting on of Christ's righteousness. So then he says, 'Why should ye refuse your own mercies?', implying again that God has shown mercy on all, but it is not activated until you believe. While this is a common view today, what do you think, is it correct? john
---
=========== Yes, I think it is correct because it is the free offer of the gospel. Preachers often say 'Flee to Christ for refuge, He will save you now'..etc. This is the gospel message of *your salvation* - Paul said in one place..; knowing full well that only the elect would lay hold of eternal life and be converted. The sovereignty of God does not take away from human responsibility. We do not know whom God will call by means of sound gospel preaching and exortation... How shall (God's elect) hear, if there be no preacher ..? Romans 10:14. Regeneration and conversion may happen at the same time in some cases, I think. You do believe in the universal call of the gospel, I'm sure. freegrace


Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners'
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:21:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

You wrote: 'Regeneration and conversion may happen at the same time in some cases, I think.' I am assuming that the persons in question here are adults? And if this is the case, then it seems that you are saying that regeneration and conversion are normally separated in time and not simultaneous. Can you offer any biblical support for this view? Can you offer some reasonable explanation how someone can be regenerate for a period of time and not believe upon Christ unto justification?

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners'
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:42:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, the verses I often refer to are found in John 1:12-13. All those *born of God* John 1:13, will in due time, receive Christ as Saviour and Lord - John 1:12, and they are enabled by the Spirit to lay hold of Christ and His righteousness alone for a full and free eternal salvation. We may not understand very much at first, but as new born babes that desire the sincere milk of the Word, we will grow in grace and knowledge. (Not grow 'into grace', but grow IN grace and knowledge)... As the Puritans often have said, regeneration is God's secret operation upon our hearts (and we are passive), but in conversion we become active. I think that there may be a time in between the two, or, during a gospel sermon, they could even be simultanius. The best example is the case of John the Baptist; he was regenerated in his mother's womb, but converted later in life as an adult, so there was some time there for him to come into a full knowledge of his adoption into the family of God. regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners'
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:07:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

I would have to disagree with your example of John the Baptist! If he was regenerate in the womb, and this is an exception rather than the rule (plus I did say 'adults'), then he was born with faith and justified in the womb. Regeneration creates faith and faith immediately seeks Christ as its object in which to rest.

Pilgrim


Subject: Rutherford is Right..!
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:49:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
From the article on Assurance of Salvation ... posted by Pilgrim on the HIGHWAY... ========================================== ...This matter of assurance is no small thing. It is certainly important whether one has 'true assurance.' I do not mean presumption, but spiritual assurance. May I inquire, my listener, have you never had any assurance that you are saved? Have you presently absolutely no assurance that you have an interest in Christ's death? No trace of faint assurance, neither internally or externally? Then scripturally we must conclude that you do not have that God-given faith which rests the heart, calms the soul, and assures the spirit. Candidly, I do tersely state that a measure and degree of assurance is of the very essence of saving faith. Hence, a positive degree of assurance is necessary to salvation (I Thess. 1:5; II Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10: 22). This does not exclude the possibility of doubt, as they can exist together. (I) LET US OBSERVE THE TESTIMONY OF SOME GREAT DIVINES OF THE PAST. John Calvin says, 'We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is sure knowledge of the Divine favor founded on the truth of a free promise and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.. .No man, I say, is a believer but who, trusting to the security of his salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death.' John Owen, the great Puritan, says in answer to 'What is faith?': 'A gracious resting on the free promises of God in Jesus Christ for mercy, with a firm persuasion of heart, that God is a reconciled Father to us in the Son of His love.' Ebenezer Erskine, one of Scotland's marrow men, says, '..In this, that in this faith(which I have been describing) there is a twofold certainty of assurance, viz., of assent and application. The former necessarily supposes a assurance of understanding, or of knowledge, Col. 2:2. The apostle there speaks of the full assurance of understanding, which every believer hath in a greater or lesser measure...' Edward Fisher, another of Scotland's marrow men, says, '... Therefore, I would have you to close with Christ in the promise, without making any question, whether you are in the faith or no: for there is an assurance, which ariseth from an exercise of faith by a direct act; and that is when a man by faith directly lays hold upon Christ, and concludes assurance from thence.' Samuel Rutherford says, 'The assurance of Christ's righteousness, is a direct act of faith, apprehending imputed righteousness; the evidence of our justification — we now speak of the reflect light, not by which we are justified, but by which we know that we are justified.' ============================== I say that Rutherford is right! Amen! A direct act of faith ..*apprehending* the imputed righteousness (of Christ)'... If this is 'dangerous doctrine', then so be it. It is the gospel...; those who claim to be saved any other way are sadly deceived...! freegrace


Subject: Re: Rutherford is Right..!
From: GRACE2Me
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:50:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'they will learn to trust in God's righteousness for justification, and not their own, etc. Based on this statement FreeGrace, Christ's perfect keeping of the law and sinlessness could save without He going to the cross. There is no statement in the word of God that says: 'Without the believing of Christ's imputed righteousness, there is no remission.' It is Christ and the cross brother! Above, Rutherford said: ' 'The assurance of Christ's righteousness, is a direct act of faith, apprehending imputed righteousness; the evidence of our justification — we now speak of the reflect light, not by which we are justified, but by which we know that we are justified.' ' Notice at the end of this quote FreeGrace 'NOT BY WHICH WE ARE JUSTIFIED BUT BY WHICH WE 'KNOW' WE ARE JUSTIFIED' There is a difference. Just as we need to take care to study the word of God in context, so also must we take the quotes of even great Christians of yesteryear in context! GRACE2Me


Subject: The simple truth
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:53:58 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
The dangerous thing is insisting that 'assurance' is the same as salvation.


Subject: Re: The simple truth
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:11:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The dangerous thing is insisting that 'assurance' is the same as salvation.
---
============ Rod, please read the complete article when you have time. Some measure of assurance is the very *essence* of true saving faith! Any 'assurance' of salvation that is not based on the imputed righteousness of Christ is presumption! fg


Subject: † WARNING!! † — to Freegrace
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:10:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

GRACE2Me and Rod in this thread, and all others in the remaining threads where you have posited the heresy of 'putting one's faith in the DOCTRINE of 'imputed righteousness' are correct in disagreeing with you and rebuking you for maligning the Gospel of FREE GRACE in the Lord Christ. You once again have totally ignored what someone else has said; in this case Samuel Rutherford, where he clearly stated, (as did ALL the Reformers and Puritans) that assurance is a matter of SANCTIFICATION and not JUSTIFICATION. Specifically, as GRACE2Me pointed out to you, Rutherford made it more than clear that one's apprehension of the DOCTRINE of 'imputed righteousness' is NOT a matter of one's JUSTIFICATION, but Assurance. I am afraid that I must give you a public warning at this time to cease from promoting this odious heresy you have consciously adopted for yourself on The Highway in any shape or form. At best, you are confused and at worst a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'! As to which, I leave that to God to judge. But as to the right given to the Body of Christ to judge a man according to his 'profession' as well as his 'life', I must rebuke you for this view you have plastered all over this forum for the past week. You have had ample proof given to you to show you that 1) This is not taught in Scripture, 2) It is contrary to the testimony of the Church historically, 3) It is in opposition to the Gospel of the free grace of God in Christ Jesus and 4) A clear violation of the Guidelines set forth by which this forum operates. We have all tried to persuade you with precise, profound and cogent arguments, but you have resisted all of our evidences. It is not within our power to change your heart, but it is our duty to warn you of the danger you face if you do not repent of this heresy. May God truly grant you repentance so that you will cast off this Christ-dishonoring view and return to your first Love.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: 2 Cor. 5:21
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim and All
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:56:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, My faith is not in a cold doctrine (the letter killeth), but my faith is in the imputed righteousness of Christ itself!. How else can a sinner be justified? This is the ground of our assurance! To become eternally justified is then to have much assurance of salvation! Don't you see it? I think you and the some of the others here have greatly misunderstood me at this point. Please read the following about 2 Cor. 5:21. ====================================== ...Here Is A Fountain of Consolation Oh, what a fountain of consolation here! What marrow and fatness is here. What sweetness if like to this, to all who believe? Who now may say, once sin was mine, then it was laid upon Christ and now they are neither mine nor His because they are not at all: For by His blood He washed them all away; and now they are all gone, blotted out, and shall be remembered no more, no more, no more. Now Christ's righteousness is mine, as well as His, for I was 'made the righteousness of God in him,' 2 Cor. 5:21. And I did nothing at all to procure these things to me. ================================== don't you see it? Christ's righteousness is now *my righteousness* before a holy God. We are now *in Christ*..! We are complete in Him! 1 Cor. 1:30 says that Christ is made unto us Wisdom, RIGHTEOUSNESS, santification, and redemption! All of this - without works of any kind.. all this by faith alone. freegrace


Subject: Re: 2 Cor. 5:21
From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 05:17:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Are we eternally justified by faith in imputed righteousness? Abraham was justified, that is, gave evidence to all mankind of his loyalty to God (Jas 2:21) 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son…'. His humble obedience demonstrated his righteousness to all. It was by works and faith, not a belief in imputed righteousness only. James 2:24 says of this 'Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only'. It is not some belief in imputed righteousness that shows a man to be justified, not even by faith alone, but the demonstration must be by works. The faith we have is demonstrated to all that we are righteous by our obedient walk. But it is not our works that cause us to be declared eternally justified before the father. Tit 3:7 says clearly 'That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life'. It is clear that we cannot do works to justify ourselves before God (Luke 16:15, Acts 13:39), our works are filthy rags. If we demonstrate the new life that is in Christ, then we are obedient to God’s Law, it is far more than believing imputed righteousness. 'For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified'…'. But this is before men, for before the Father we are justified only in Christ. (Ro 3:20) 'Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight….'. Justification is free, not of our works and by His grace: 'Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'. Is it not God who declares each of His elect Just? 'Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.' (Ro 8:33). 'Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law…' (Gal 2:16). We are justified before God by the faithfulness or fidelity of Christ. Yet the just shall live by faith. So from Christ’s faith(fulness) I see our faith given as a gift, and our works demonstrate what was given. We are not only given faith but also we are given His Spirit (1Jo 4:13). We are given understanding that we may know Him (1Jo 5:20). We are given actually all things, including our faith 'according as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue'. (2Pe 1:3). We are given to believe, so we believe, 'For unto you it is given on the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer…'. We have nowhere to boast. Our faith is not in imputed righteousness. Our faith is in Christ, the Word, based on everything written in Scripture, all the promises of God. This is the ground of our assurance. Your assurance, if you have any, is by the manifestation of your works, which is an outcropping our your faith, which is an gift of God given freely because of the faithfulness of Christ in redeeming the Father’s elected ones. Even if you wished to be justified before men, you cannot do it by belief in imputed righteousness, you must demonstrate the faith given you by God by your deeds. In Heb 6:11 it was the 'work and labour of love' that brought 'the full assurance of hope unto the end'. Before God your faith is but a product of grace, a free gift given by God in salvation. If you have this thing, then it can only be that God has declared you eternally Just, but not because of your faith, but by the faith OF Christ. Your faith follows a long chain of events that began in the Father’s choice. So, how is a sinner eternally justified? By believing in something, thus unleashing justification. No way. Our belief is not from us, but 'because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth' (2Th2:13). Our belief is given. If I have erred, I am sure someone will clarify. But in my mind, eternal justification is before God, by faith, which is given and not of ourselves, but of Christ. john


Subject: Re: 2 Cor. 5:21
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 14:15:42 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
john, That was very good. I would only add one thing: The works which demonstrate our faith, giving it proof of reality before men are, along with faith, given us by God. Saved man has nothing whatsoever to boast in, but the Lord alone: 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10); 'A man's heart deviseth his way, but the LORD directeth his steps' (Prov.16:7).


Subject: Re: 2 Cor. 5:21
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 10:34:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, we are eternally justified by Christ alone - who imputes to us His righteousness (or places it to our account) as a free gift. Our assurance is never in the fact that we do 'good works'...etc. I heard Mr. Camping on Family Radio say the same thing as you say, but it is not correct. Christ does not somehow do the 'believing for us', john. With the *gift of faith* that is freely given to all God's elect in regeneration, we then lay hold and *apprehend* God's righteousness as our own. We then do good works (before men) because we already are justified in the sight of God ... Romans speaks about our justification before God, wheras James speaks about our 'justification in the sight of men'.. Paul even said to be careful to 'maintain good works' in the sight of others; however, our good works are never the ground of our assurance, but the imputed righteousness of Christ and the blood applied to our hearts is always the ground of our assurance... Once we see that we are eternally accepted in the Beloved One (Eph, 1:4-6), our hearts are filled with peace and joy, and then we do good works out of a heart of love and thankfulness to God for His 'so great salvation'. fg


Subject: Re: The simple truth
From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:09:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I would also add Fg, that any assurance of salvation that clings only to the imputation of Christ's righteousness is presumption also. The gospel is not imputation, imputation, and more imputation. You have grabbed the tail of the elephant and made him short and slim and easily understood. The gospel is much deeper and broader than your imputation mantra. The ability to understand the gospel as it relates to all Scripture is an evidence of salvation, not simply understanding one part. As has been mentioned before, we can understand correctly imputation but have little understanding of anything else, or make imputation the result of our works. You have made a small part of the gospel of grace the only measuring rod for assurance. Even worse, you have totally neglected that faith without works is dead. Do you believe imputed righteousness? Good. Do you live a life of obedience with an ongoing desire to please God? The deeds give assurance and are strong testimony when combined with a desire to understand the true gospel. The gospel is not just imputed righteousness. One wonders what you tell people who ask how they can be saved. Do you say, this is the gospel: 'believe on the imputed righteousness of Christ and understand this truth and you will be saved, you and your household'. I doubt it. We all know the gospel is rather complex and intricate, taking years to put together, and that assurance is not attained because you understand one small part of it. It takes many years of searching the Bible to understand even a small part of the whole, and it is with each revealed truth that comes an increased level of assurance. Assurance of salvation is not a on/off yes/no switch. It is a gradual process of accumulated small changes in word and deed that increasingly convince the believer that they are indeed saved. The Arminians can state the exact moment they were saved, to the very second. It was when they accepted Jesus into their heart and felt a strange warming, or other proof. You have made assurance a similar thing. We can know exactly when we are SURE of our salvation by the exact moment we understood how imputed righteousness works. Sadly, assurance doesn't work that way. It is a life long process that evolves out of sanctification - the increasing spirituality and decreasing reliance on flesh. If you don't mean to say that imputation carries such a meaning for assurance, then would you please stop repeating that it does. Simply replace the word 'imputation' with 'gospel' and you will be closer to truth. We have assurance by our deeds and by our increased understanding of the 'Gospel [not imputation] of Christ's righteousness', which entails everything found in the Bible, not just imputation. Will you say we must understand imputation first, or foremost, or it is the basis of all else. What of God's Holiness, could that be a better basis. What of Christ's true nature, or predestination, or election, or redemption, or... none is above or below the other, they all hang together. john


Subject: Re: The simple truth
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:27:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, we are speaking of our justification, and not sanctification; that is another topic altogether! fg


Subject: Reply to Tom -- from below.
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 09:12:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Tom. Yes, in a way, you are correct. To trust in Christ is enough for salvation..; but my point is, there are many 'false christs' or antichrists out in the world that will allow a person to 'establish a righteousness of their own to be saved',,etc. However, The Christ of the bible demands us to renounce our own 'good works' and lay hold of His perfect righteousness for a covering (or for our eternal justification). We have nothing but 'filthy rags' to offer to God, and the true God of the Bible demands a perfect Righteousness to be found acceptable in His sight. This perfect righteousness is what is offered in the true gospel. All other ground is sinking sand! freegrace Imputation Sermon number One rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio3.html


Subject: Re: Reply to Tom -- from below.
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 11:45:08 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
fg, I see this statement, coupled with your position on salvation in general, as very dangerous. You wrote: 'However, The Christ of the bible demands us to renounce our own 'good works' and lay hold of His perfect righteousness for a covering (or for our eternal justification).' While that is true, it, as many of us have said, is the wrong emphasis. The proper emphasis is that the Lord Jesus Christ provides us regeneration, a new spiritual life and a new will which
wants to turn to Him in faith that His sacrifice at the cross was for us, personally, and that it is sufficient to cleanse us from sin. To continually emphasize a demand that no sin-natured human can meet is not the message we should give, unless it is linked directly and resoundingly with God's promise to conform those whom He has called to the image of His Son, to His glory and the saved person's eternal benefit (Rom. 8:29). God's demand is righteousness and purity, as the Mosaic Law illustrates. The requirements of the Law also illustrate that no one can achieve it, leaving man without hope. But, stressing the aspect of substitutionary sacrifice in innocent blood, the Lord has taught us in His revealed Word that He is not only demanding, but gracious, calling the predestinated and elect in grace by the effect on their hearts as He regenerates. Looking again at your statement I see a dangerous stress and insistence concerning what man does, rather than God's accomplishment in the Lord Jesus. It seems as if you're boasting in your meritoriously acquired imputed righteousness (i.e., your own work of meeting God's demand), rather than what God has executed for the sake of those whom He saves. Look at your statement once more: 'However, The Christ of the bible demands us to renounce our own 'good works' and lay hold of His perfect righteousness for a covering (or for our eternal justification).' There is nothing more or less in that but an exclusive insistence on what man does for God in turning to Him, at the expense of the true gospel that God has already made all the provision necessary for lost men; it actually sounds very much like the Arminian's insistence that he 'turns to Jesus' on his own. If God has saved us, we should follow His precepts exactly as taught in His Word: 'God forbid that I should glory, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world' (Gal. 6:14).


Subject: Re: Reply to Tom -- from below.
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:58:15 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Thanks Rod I don't think I should add anything to that. Tom


Subject: Sermon by A. Toplady
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:35:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just found this good sermon by A. Toplady! Sermon by Toplady www.spiritone.com/~wing/toplady.htm


Subject: Re: Sermon by A. Toplady
From: Anne
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:43:46 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Self-righteousness, cleaves to us, as naturally, and as closely, as our skins: nor can any power, but that of an Almighty hand, flay us of it. I remember an instance, of a clergyman, now living and eminent, above many, for his labours and usefulness. This worthy person assured me, a year or two since, that he once visited a criminal, who was under sentence of death, for a capital offence (I think for murder). My friend endeavoured to set before him the evil he had done; and to convince him, that he was lost and ruined, unless Christ saved him by His Blood, righteousness and grace. 'I am not much concerned about that,' answered the self-righteous malefactor; 'I have not, certain, led so good a life as some have; but, I am certain, that many have gone to Tyburn, who were much worse men than myself.' So you see, a murderer may go to the gallows, trusting in his own righteousness! And you and I should have gone to hell, trusting in our own righteousness, if Christ had not stopped us by the way. This bit from Toplady reminded me forcibly of the Easter sermon at my church, where Dr. Kitchens said that we naturally opt for Plan B for our salvation, which is to find at least one person worse than us. The trouble is, of course, that as soon as we think we found such a one, we just lost our place in line. He strongly urged us to, instead, rely on Plan A, which is Christ's righteousness, rather than our own. It's frightening how frequently I will find myself thinking - or even worse, saying - 'Well, at least I [fill in the blank].' Yet those words start me right back down that slippery slope of self-righteouness, with its unspoken message that if God'll only grade on a curve, I should be okay. Anne


Subject: Re: Sermon by A. Toplady
From: freegrace
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:13:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks, Anne. There was a time in my life - about 35 years ago now, that I thought that I was 'doing okay' in the sight of God. But I was just going about to establish my own righteousness...; spiritually, I was very naked, but knew it not. I had never even heard of election, or God's way of justification by an imputed righteousness. Our self-righteousness and 'free will' will lead us right to the place where we do not want to go.....hell. Only God's sovereign grace, mercy, and eternal love can deliver our souls from going there. Be thankful for a good church, and good gospel preaching! (I know you are)! freegrace


Subject: Charles Finney
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:49:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Interesting article here about Charles Finney! Charles Finney Article mcnet.marietta.edu/~Bbc/


Subject: Re: Charles Finney
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:36:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, What is the point of your making reference to this article on Charles Finney? Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Charles Finney
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:06:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, What is the point of your making reference to this article on Charles Finney? Pilgrim
---
=================== I thought it looked interesting. Maybe there are some here in the forum who can use this article or any of the other articles as reference material... I know it was worded very simple, I thought; simple enough for even me to understand.. :-). Please remove it if it is not suitable... :-( freegrace


Subject: Re: Charles Finney
From: Anne
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:23:24 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I haven't read the Finney article, but the one entitled 'The Unrepenting Repenter' is excellent, I thought, and I stuffed it in
my briefcase! That's a neat link . . . . thank you! Anne


Subject: Man does NOT speak through God
From: Bro. Charles
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:27:57 (PDT)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com

Message:
You all have seen the 'God speaks' or 'God quotes' billboards on the sides of the highways. Well, this is what I sent and what I think a lot of Christians would like to say to the ones who do those billboards.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
- Well I think it is a great thing your doing for the Lord. I am sure He is using it well. I just wonder why you don't have any 'God quotes' about JESUS? (or if you have/will) You could do #1 'Remember why my Son went to war for you' or #2 'Only my Son's friends can come in this house' or #3 'If you got a problem with my Son, then you got a problem with me' #1 the death, burial, and resurrection. #2 John 14:6 'the way, the truth, and the life. no one can come to the Father (God) BUT BY ME(Jesus) #3 John14:6-9 1:1,14 10:30 14:6-9 Or you could start doing 'Jesus speaks'. Just think it is good to get God back in the world (so to speak - he never left) but we(all Christians) need to focus on the Gospel. Please send a reply, I would love to know what you think about what I think. :-) Yours in Christ. Charles Benfield
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- This is what they sent back.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Dear Charles; Your e-mail to God Speaks was forwarded to me. Thank you for taking the time to remark on the website and campaign. Your thoughts are accurate, however, the overall purpose of the GodSpeaks campaign was and is to begin with the idea that God is relevant to everyone and to their lives. The hope is to prepare the soil for a more open mind to the fact that God loves you and sent His son, Jesus, to die for you. The sayings have done just that in many lives. There has been talk about providing more information the 'deeper' into the site you go. However, those plans have not materialized yet. Again, thank you for your encouragement and great ideas. God bless
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- this is what I sent back.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Thank you for taking the time to send a pre-typed E-mail. I think that the pre-typed letter was too vague, and needed to be hand typed having addressed the actual Questions I asked. I am wondering WHEN you are to do things on the site about JESUS. For you said 'There has been talk about providing more information the 'deeper' into the site you go. However, those plans have not materialized yet.' I wonder why? Tell me, of what faith makes up the majority of your campaign? Do you not put things about JESUS so as not to offend others of deferent faiths? There must be a balance. Why don't you do both kinds, JESUS quotes and the GOD quotes? If the Lord IS drawing someone they WILL both be used unto His honour and glory. Do you not believe this? Please send a reply
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
I just hope it is not to harsh :-) If you want to E-mail them go to http://www.godspeaks.net/interact.html it is there feedback page. Fight for the truth! -|
---
Till next time......... I'll read you later Hand picked by God -Charles ( sorry it is so long) :-) Truth, fight fo it www.godspeaks.net/interact.html


Subject: Re: Man does NOT speak through God
From: john hampshire
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 17:06:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Charles, How about a billboard on the side of the highway that says: #1 'God's ANGER and FURY will be poured out upon YOU, unless you repent from your evil and seek the Lord' #2 'Go to church, pray, read your Bible... BUT UNLESS you are born from above you shall die in your sins -- REPENT, SEEK GOD (and you will find him) AND LIVE' I would like to see that. We can take down the: 'Pray for Polukaville' or 'Jesus Loves You' billboards. or am I being too harsh (hehe) john


Subject: Re: Man does NOT speak through God
From: Bro. Charles
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:20:30 (PDT)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com

Message:
My hole point is that if they are so concerned about people getting to know God, then they should meet Jesus (who is God) who came down to show us how to live for him. As I said what there doing IS GOOD, but if they want others to get to know God they should tell them HOW to get to God. As I also said that we as Christians should be more concerned about getting the GOSPEL out into the world. For there many 'gods' that are said to be true. Many think that the GOD of the Bible is the same god worshipped by the Buddhists or the Muslims or any other group that thinks you can get to the one true God by some other way than Jesus. My thought to them was that GOD IS using the billboards, I do not doubt that. What I question is if they are so on fire for the Lord how can they not say any thing about Jesus. (And why they don't)


Subject: Re: Man does NOT speak through God
From: Pilgrim
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:41:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bro. Charles,

You wrote, 'My hole point is that if they are so concerned about people getting to know God, then they should meet Jesus (who is God) who came down to show us how to live for him.' I think John's reply was right on target as it was based on the REAL reason the Lord Christ became flesh and dwelt among men; to Redeem, Propitiate, Reconcile them from the wrath and judgment of God and to offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice so that those whom the Father gave Him would be made adopted sons of God and partakers of His divine nature. Perhaps you meant to say this too? But to be sure, the main emphasis of Christ Jesus's 'coming down' was not to be an example to show us how to live for Him! To make this the focal point of the Lord Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection is to miss the entire purpose of His person and ministry, which was to 'save His people from their sins' (Matt 1:21). Once a person has been regenerated and receives the Lord Jesus Christ by a true and living faith, THEN and ONLY THEN is He to be considered a 'model/example' to some measure as one to follow. But His life is to be considered only in conjunction WITH His Word, and not isolated from it. See WWJD

. In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Is everyone aware?
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:53:08 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Is everyone here familiar with the expression 'another gospel,' its implications and its origin? Paul is emphatic that
anyone preaching another gospel than the gospel of God, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, is lost. The practice is condemned in the strongest possible terms in Gal. 1:6-9, Paul pronouncing such a one as 'accursed' (by God) in verses 8 and 9. He says essentially the same thing in in 1 Cor. 16:22, speaking to those who are a part of the church at Corinth. So, the question becomes, What is the foundation and basis constituting 'another gospel?' It seems safe to me to say that 'another gospel' is any other system which negates 'the grace of Christ' (Gal. 1:6). That seems perfectly consistent with the revelation of Paul on the topic of salvation and precisely what it is which secures that salvation for the individual. The Apostle puts into direct words what the entire Bible illustrates and declares by example and illustration throughout its length: '...by grace are ye saved' (Eph. 2:5); and 'For by grace are ye saved through faith' (verse 8). Compare that to Rom. 3:24 '...being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.' The word translated 'by' is most significant. If signifies the reason for the process of salvation in the redeemed individual. No thing associated with salvation for the Christian is apart from grace, all else is secondary. Eph. 2:4-5 makes it clear that the grace which saves is born of mercy, and founded on love, electing love. It is totally dependent on God, totally received from God, and there can be no cause whatsoever for boasting on our part because we graciously possess what God has granted us against the judgment we deserve: 'lest any man should boast (Eph. 29).' If we boast, let us do it with the right emphasis, which Paul, again, supplies for us in the inspired Word: 'But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth' (2 Cor. 10:17; cp. carefully Phil. 2:9-11). If God's purpose is to 'highly exalt' the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:9), shouldn't we be about that business also? We definitely should for the simple reason that it's is God's plan for us: 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath beofre ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10. In glorifying the Son, we fulfill God's purpose: we glorify the Father (Phil. 2:11). Gorifying God is our business, emphasizing the majesty of His Person. That is 'the chief end of man,' is it not? Emphasizing anything to the detriment of the grace of God and apart from that grace is contrary to God's plan and purpose. That purpose is to exalt among men the 'name that is above every name' because it glorifies God, the purpose about which all things of the created universe revolve. If we lift out one aspect of the salvation process, and glorify that to the detriment of Jesus Christ, it's like buying an engine for a car and declaring that it, alone, will convey us where we want to go, and will do it in style! The person who brought us to his garage to show us his new car would be thought a fool if he unveiled merely a motor sitting in the middle of the floor! The entire car is a package, the engine, the drive train, and the chassis being essential--seats are nice too, as is air conditioning here in the desert! An auto engine is essential to the car, but it must work in concert with all the other parts, as the designer intended, transferring power by means fo the transmission to the drive shaft and axles to the wheels. Steering is necessary to keep this marvelous invention from piling up in a heap. Similarly, we must use the Word of God to declare the gospel of God to His glory. If we neglect to do that, we circumvent His purpose for the Chruch, the glorification of His Son, the purpose for which He gave us the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: '...and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith' (1 John 5:4). We then have to ask ourselves, 'In what or Whom do we place our faith?' Providentially, the Apostle answers that question in the succeeding verses: 'Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth' (verses 5-6). May the Spirit of the supreme and sovereign God enable us to honor and to glorify our Lord, His Son, the One by whom it is possible for lost men, irredeemable in any other way, to be saved.


Subject: Confessing Christ
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:56:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Should a person who is obedient to God (as John Hampshire mentioned) in every way...manifesting the fruit of the Spirit...but deny the deity of Christ and/or the atonement be baptized and admitted into membership into the Church? Is this scenario even realistic or possible? In otherwords, can a person be every bit a Christian on the outside based on manifestation of tremendous fruit ... and yet be doctrinally numbered with the heretics? Or is orthopraxis (sp?) exclusively the fruit of orthodoxy? laz


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: john hampshire
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 17:20:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, If we deny that Christ is God, then we undercut all the other doctrines of grace. Such a person would not be a candidate for baptism in my opinion. He might be admitted into membership in a church, but not a church I would want to attend. What if, (everyone enjoys a whatif scenario), the applicant for baptism believes the gospel: understands Calvinism perfectly, yet is known to be a drunk, or a liar, or an adulterer, or a homosexual, or a (place your beloved sin here) .... how much manifestation of the Spirit's fruit and a proper walk (not talk) with God is required? And for how long must they behave Christian-like? What did the apostles use as their criteria for water baptism? (hehe) john


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 18:34:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John - any person who claims to be a believer but is identified by the world by a willful sinful life is a liar who cares not for the things of God. All of us sin...but not everyone sins to the degree that they need the elders of the Church to come to their house to apply Matt 18, ala church discipline. Believers indeed sin...but are not to be named with the wicked and unregenerate by a shameful lifestyle that hurts the purity of the Church and the good name of Christ. An adulterer has no business being in good standing within the Church. You can only become a member of our Church with a true and understanding confession of faith that includes repentence...and by being identified as one of Christ's by the fruit you show over a reasonable amount of time. It's that simple. Oh, and you also have to attend classes to be instructed in the teachings of the Church and agree to be under the authority of the Session. laz


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: john hampshire
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:14:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, To be a member in your church you must give a 'true and understanding confession of faith that includes repentance'. I'm not sure what that might entail. Churches that I have seen admissions performed involved studying church history-doctrine for a month or so, an interview with the pastor, the acceptance of most church doctrine, and a reasonable display of civility. Then there would be a public church confession (usually quite embarrassing to watch) and a round of applause for the new member. This may explain why most people do not seek church membership. I assume the Session you wrote of is similar. The only bone of contention I have with this 'process' is the public church confession. That's usually where I discover the applicant doesn't understand church doctrine, the gospel, or much else. We all get to witness human ego in action as they dramatize their 'bad' life. While most of the congregation melts at the sincere confessions, I usually find the ego-display repulsive as much as the mutilation of the gospel. It doesn't help the pastor's reputation either when he is swooning with delight at each confession. I would like to know, (without doing research myself, hehe) when and where did the system for church membership used by most churches today originate? I might ask also, why? john


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:44:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
haha! I assure you, there is not 'testimonials'... or confessions of that kinds...just the Pastor asking you a few simple yes/no questions before the Church since the weeks of instruction and 'grilling' by the Session has already taken place behind closed doors. Where does this practice originate? From scripture, where else! lol laz


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 21:01:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, Long time, no rhetoric! :) What is the 'Session?' Thanks, Chrysostomos (formerly Christopher


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:42:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My rhetoric or yours? hahah Greetings. What brings YOU back? Sola Scriptura, laz


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: Chrysostomos
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:26:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, >>>>>What brings YOU back? Just wanted to know what the 'Session' is. Never heard of it. Chrystostomos


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: laz
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:01:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chrys - the Session are the church elders. I think it's a presby term. blessings, laz


Subject: Thanks, laz...n/t
From: Chrysostomos
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:48:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Re: Confessing Christ
From: Prestor John
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 07:57:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now, now, Laz, lets not give a false impression here. After all everyone is welcome to the forum as long as they abide by the rules posted. Even the greek orthodox or the roman catholic. And for that matter even pauline dispensationalists, as long as they abide by the rules. Prestor John Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem http://prestorjohn.cjb.net


Subject: Pauline Dispensationalist???
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:15:54 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I don't know what that is, John. Would you please define? It must be pretty bad, since they are a notch below RCC and Greek Orthodox! :>)


Subject: Re: Pauline Dispensationalist???
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 16:48:42 (PDT)
Email Address: pdnelson@icehouse.net

Message:
Rod: It would be best that you read what it is from one of their own. Thus I invite you to go to the link and read about it. Prestor John Servabo Fidem http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net PAULINE DISPENSATIONALISM www.ezlink.com/~trbranch/paul.htm


Subject: For the record
From: mebaser
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 23:40:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod: It would be best that you read what it is from one of their own. Thus I invite you to go to the link and read about it. Prestor John Servabo Fidem http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net
---
For the record, This 'pauline dispensationalism' (PD) is a crock of non-sense in the traditional dispensational school of theology. Especially disturbing is the PD notion, which is rejected by most dispensationalists of today, that the Sermon on the Mount beattitudes are blessings gained from merit, and that they cannot apply to the Church today. Dispe lites, as some of you have come to call me and others here, recognize that the blessings of the sermon on the mount come to the regenerate, who by that virtue are able to be described by the beattitudes. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: For the record
From: Prestor John
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:34:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Ahhh my friend, it is so good to see you back on the boards again. Yes PD is a crock of nonsense but, I must say that I can see it origins in Scofield especially in his notes found on page 1343 in the original Scofield Reference Bible where he talks about the four forms of the gospel. But as you have pointed out to me dispensational theology has changed over the years (and I must say I like the form of progressive dispensational theology of them all) and PD is one of the ways it has changed I'm afraid. Prestor John Servabo Fidem http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net


Subject: Re: Pauline Dispensationalist???
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, May 21, 2000 at 17:39:49 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks, John, I was able to stomach about 6 or 7 paragraphs, but had to cut it off after that!


Subject: Re: Pauline Dispensationalist???
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:38:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now, Rod if I knew it was going to send you back to your sick bed I wouldn't have had you read it. My advice to you is to go read a little Henry Scougal in particular: The Life of God in the Soul of Man. That will take the bad taste out of your mind. }:^{) Prestor John Servabo Fidem http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net


Subject: Truce on Imputation
From: monitor
To: fg
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 13:29:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg- I think we have reached an impasse on this matter of imputation of Christ's righteousness. An important and blessed doctrine to be sure. It's precisely how we are justified unto salvation. You say it's a simple and essential doctrine and therefore MUST be embraced in order for salvation to take effect. I would like to ask you if election is another core doctrine that MUST be embraced in order for one to be truly saved...but fearing your answer, I won't....Instead, I say we give it all a rest. How 'bout it? monitor


Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation
From: freegrace
To: monitor
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:52:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg- I think we have reached an impasse on this matter of imputation of Christ's righteousness. An important and blessed doctrine to be sure. It's precisely how we are justified unto salvation. You say it's a simple and essential doctrine and therefore MUST be embraced in order for salvation to take effect. I would like to ask you if election is another core doctrine that MUST be embraced in order for one to be truly saved...but fearing your answer, I won't....Instead, I say we give it all a rest. How 'bout it? monitor
---
========== That's just what I have been saying.. 'It is precisely how we are justified unto salvation'..! It is precisely just how we are saved! Without it, we are lost! Of course, election is also a apart of the true gospel. We must believe sound doctrine *for our conversion*..! Hear this interesting sermon: called 'Satan's Counterfeits' located at: http://rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio.html Please let me post this before we call it a truce. Thanks!..:-) I do not like to debate, anyway. This sermon is right in line with what we have been discussing. Best Regards, Freegrace Satan's Counterfeits rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio.html


Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:03:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - I agree that imputation is exactly
HOW we are saved, but is UNDERSTANDING or even accepting that fact, necessarily WHY we are saved? In otherwords, is the rule that only those that accept the right doctrinal formulas are regenerate? One 'mistake' in understanding election, or still being unsure as to it's veracity, and you consider this person unregenerate? No? Knowledge doesn't save...grace saves and that thru simple faith in Christ's work on our behalf brought on by the hearing of the Word. laz


Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:15:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Please hear the sermon, The Necessity of Right (or Sound) Doctrine There can be no *true conversion* without the doctrines of grace being taught and preached! It is God's means for our *conversion* (that is the way I see it brother, maybe I am wrong - if so, God will correct me and chasten me for my error). fg Necessity of Right Doctrine rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio.html


Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:12:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Please hear the sermon, The Necessity of Right (or Sound) Doctrine There can be no *true conversion* without the doctrines of grace being taught and preached! It is God's means for our *conversion* (that is the way I see it brother, maybe I am wrong - if so, God will correct me and chasten me for my error). fg
---
...which is why you were providentially sent
HERE! Now take your beatin' like a man! LOL! laz


Subject: Salvation is Impossible!
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 12:04:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This well known writer says that 'the Arminian sytem offers an *impossible salvation* to the sinner'..so how can it be said that multitudes of people will be saved by it? freegrace An Impossible Salvation offered by Arminanism www.efn.org/~davidc/c&ea.html


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: Marc D. Carpenter
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:22:30 (PDT)
Email Address: romans9@shoreham.net

Message:
OUTSIDE THE CAMP www.outsidethecamp.org


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: Marc D. Carpenter
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:24:19 (PDT)
Email Address: romans9@shoreham.net

Message:
Hey, freegrace! It sounds like we're of like mind. I'd like to get to know you. You can e-mail me at romans9@shoreham.net. Soli Deo Gloria, Marc


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: Pilgrim
To: Marc D. Carpenter
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 20:24:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mr. Carpenter, And your reputation precedes you! Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: GRACE2Me
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 14:45:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'This well known writer says that 'the Arminian sytem offers an *impossible salvation* to the sinner'..so how can it be said that multitudes of people will be saved by it?' Since when does something become fact/true just because one man said it. Give it a rest brother, you have made your point. I hope you have the same zeal for the lost? :-) GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: john hampshire
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 01:03:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...the question really is: How did salvation become based on one's beliefs. Fg seems to hold to a gospel regeneration of some type, where, if you believe properly, you get regenerated. What if, Arminians believe improperly. What if, God regenerates an Arminian, or anyone for that matter, and they find truth with their new spiritual eyes. Does that mean Calvinism saved them? No way. john


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:31:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...the question really is: How did salvation become based on one's beliefs. Fg seems to hold to a gospel regeneration of some type, where, if you believe properly, you get regenerated. What if, Arminians believe improperly. What if, God regenerates an Arminian, or anyone for that matter, and they find truth with their new spiritual eyes. Does that mean Calvinism saved them? No way. john
---
========= Sure, John, you are correct. WE are passive in regeneration, but become active in comversion. (I never said that a person first 'believes and then becomes regenerated') That is just my point; how is one who is regenerate going to *find the truth* in a apostate religious system? God opened my eyes through reading the great Puritans and hearing good messages by casstte tape. God even made sure I heard Family Radio to confirm me in the doctrines of Grace...! I did not learn them in the church where I was a music director! God's elect are told to Come out of her, MY PEOPLE,and so I did. Praise God! fg


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:44:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - you wrote:
'That is just my point; how is one who is regenerate going to *find the truth* in a apostate religious system?' Are you confessing that a person CAN be regenerate despite being in an apostate church? I think you'd say yes...but, Does it take 'right knowledge' to be saved? Or does it take a 'right heart' (caused by God) coming about by the mere basic info that Christ died for the ungodly while they were yet sinners? laz p.s. what do you think about Mr. Carpenter's strong assertion that Calvinists like me who believe that one can be saved as an unlearned Arminian are unsaved?


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:59:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, we are passive in regeneration, but become active in conversion. It takes right knowledge for our *conversion* yes. No sound doctrine, no *assurance* of an eternal salvation (is what I say). Of course God has His elect in the Arminian camp, and everywhere. God bless, brother. fg


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:14:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
God may have Arminian elect but they are yet to be regenerate until they embrace Calvinism? Which brand? Listen to what you are saying....! In Him, laz


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 08:13:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

Enough of your skating the issues and your constant references to sermons, etc. on other sites. Why don't you answer the question laz asked you and several others as well?? You have dug a pit for yourself at this point in your life and without help, you shall perish in it. Yet you think yourself 'liberated' and 'free'. You've jumped from the proverbial 'frying pan into the fire', freegrace. May it be only temporary and a means of purification for you. Do you believe what Marc Carpenter believes in the following statement from his web site:

(5) All who know what the doctrines of Arminianism are and believe that at least some Arminians are saved are unregenerate (this includes professing Calvinists who say they remained Arminians for a time after they were regenerated or who say that some Arminians are their brothers in Christ).

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 08:35:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, I have never posted Marc CArptenters link ATC for that reason; I do not try to judge people as 'lost' if they do not agre with me, etc. However, His article about Wesley and what he believed is well worth reading - but I have been told to drop this issue now, so will not say any more about it. I am already outside the camp, bearing the reproach of Christ....I do not need a website to tell me I am 'outside the camp'... :-) regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: monitor
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:18:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hehehe....fg, I asked you to consider dropping the matter...but I don't own the website....Pilgrim, as owner, has asked for a reply....inquiring minds want to know. Pls, indulge me ONE LAST TIME and give me your take on Carpenter's statement. Pretty Please? monitor


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: freegrace
To: monitor
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:15:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hehehe....fg, I asked you to consider dropping the matter...but I don't own the website....Pilgrim, as owner, has asked for a reply....inquiring minds want to know. Pls, indulge me ONE LAST TIME and give me your take on Carpenter's statement. Pretty Please? monitor
---
=============== Sorry, I do not really understand the question, I guess. I am sure God has His elect among all classes of people, and all religions. But as God gives them a love for the truth in regeneration, I think they will leave the apostate gospels or religions, and follow after the true gospel. This is called repentance from dead works, etc. True conversion comes when a person 'lays hold of eternal life' by trusting only in the imputed righteouness of Christ alone for their justification. This also means they will *renounce* their own self righteusness. I never said that all Arminians will be lost. What I do say is that all who are deceived by any false religion will be lost....sad to say. True conversion comes by believing sound doctrine. The only gospel that eternally says the soul is the one that reveals the righteousness of Christ - freely given to the humble, contrite sinner. All other ground is SINKING SAND...! I was on sinking sand, but now, thank God, i stand on a solid Rock...and that Rock is Christ alone plus nothing! 'Their rock is not as our Rock' it says in Deut. Those who trust in a false 'christ' are not saved. freegrace


Subject: simple question, fg
From: monitor
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:35:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
(5) All who know what the doctrines of Arminianism are and believe that at least some Arminians are saved are unregenerate (this includes professing Calvinists who say they remained Arminians for a time after they were regenerated or who say that some Arminians are their brothers in Christ). Do you agree, fg? monitor


Subject: Re: simple question, fg
From: freegrace
To: monitor
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:49:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry, I don't understand what Carpenter is trying to prove here. What I am saying applies to any (Arminian or Calvinist) who are still self-righteous, and have never submitted to God's righteousness for a covering.. Romans 4:3-8. Romans 10:1-3. See my reply to laz below..called; 'All I have to say'... Once I was blind, but now I see! Where there is no conversion testimony, there is no new birth. Our 'fig-leaves' must be removed, and God's Robe of Righteousness put on (by faith alone). We must come naked to God, if you please, and let Him clothe us....Isaiah 61:10. God came not to call the self-righteous, but sinners to repentance (from dead works to serve the true living God of the Bible). fg


Subject: Re: simple question, fg
From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 20:31:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'Sorry, I don't understand what Carpenter is trying to prove here.' Mr Carpenter is saying that we Calvinist are unsaved because we let God be God (saying that Arminians Can be saved and still be Arminians). Do you Agree? 'What I am saying applies to any (Arminian or Calvinist) who are still self-righteous, and have never submitted to God's righteousness for a covering.. ' So you would say that an Arminian who is not self-righteous and has submitted to God's Righteousness is saved, Right? Oh by the way, not one person on this forum (or on this earth) can say that they have fully submitted to God's Righteousness and are without self-righteousness. We are still sinners and we will always try to add works to our salvation (now if we are saved we will repent of that when we realize it but we still do it). Five Sola


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 13:17:54 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg You don't understand the question? Ya right! You sure like skirting around clearly laid out questions. I will ask one more time for the board, do you agree with Marc Carpender's statement. Yes or no? The answer you gave, is too vague to know for sure what you believe. A simple yes or no, is all we ask. Tom


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:37:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg You don't understand the question? Ya right! You sure like skirting around clearly laid out questions. I will ask one more time for the board, do you agree with Marc Carpender's statement. Yes or no? The answer you gave, is too vague to know for sure what you believe. A simple yes or no, is all we ask. Tom
---
============ HI Tom. Yes, if I understand Marc Carpenter correctly, those who NEVER have their eyes opened to the truth of God's imputed righteousness are still lost.. See my recent reply to laz ... 'All I have to say' down below. regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:58:14 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg I hope you know that you have included most of us on this board as those who are unsaved. For most of us believe that it is indeed possible for an Arminian to be in actuality regenerate, but in knowledge of how they were saved lacking. That is the gist behind Marc's number 5. He would call us all unsaved tolarant Calvinists. Tom


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:20:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think Carpenter is in error at this point. Those (Arminians) who become regenerated by God will be taught of the Lord, and repent of 'dead works' etc. Many will see the apostasy all around them and come out...; they will learn to trust in God's righteousness for justification, and not their own, etc. They will be brought to a full assurance of their election in Christ before time began, etc. I do not judge anyone here as 'lost' ..that is God's business, and that seems a bit childish to me. I know this, the truth produces humility and a humble Christ-like spirit that is teachable, and rejoices in the truth! True saving faith *cannot* believe just anything..it must believe what God has revealed in His holy Word! fg


Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible!
From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 16:48:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Freegrace, You said: Yes, if I understand Marc Carpenter correctly, those who NEVER have their eyes opened to the truth of God's imputed righteousness are still lost.. Yet You said: Many will see the apostasy all around them and come out...; We can boil down your statements to two beliefs: 1. A regenerate Arminian will come out of their apostasy 2. Arminians who do not come out of their apostasy are unregenerate. You will agree that it will take time for regenerate Arminians to recognize their apostasy, seek truth, understand it enough to embrace, and put all the puzzle pieces together? During this time they are still members of an apostate church. During this time, unsure of their new beliefs they may still argue for their apostate beliefs. How long do you give a regenerated Arminian before the condemnation of #2 kicks in? Can they remain apparently apostate for only a few days, weeks, months, years? You have said that they will eventually understand fully the doctrines of grace, especially the 'imputed righteousness of Christ'. If they embrace historic Calvinism, and obediently serve Christ in deeds and words, but still don't understand how Christ's righteousness was imputed to Abraham, even after many years of study: Is this proof of their unregenerate nature? If an Arminian drenched in heresy, should completely agree that Christ's righteousness is imputed to our account, and yet believes still that unless we first believe the righteousness cannot be imputed, have they given enough proof of their regeneration by believing imputed righteousness, or must they understand every other supporting Biblical doctrine (which are legion)? Lastly, you have said you do not seek to judge the salvation of others. But from what I can see you have clearly defined what the criteria is: believe on imputed righteousness and thou shalt be saved. From what I can tell you have kidnapped a doctrine and used it as proof of a real conversion experience. But first let's see if you will actually reply-- on point, your track record so far is dubious. John


Subject: ...A Different Gospel?
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:14:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Here is an interesting study by Rev. E. Kampen. Is Arminianism A Different Gospel? Both CAlvinism AND Arminianism cannot be true at the same time! Interesting Study..! www3.bc.sympatico.ca/WilloughbyHeights/DIFGOSPL.HTM


Subject: Re: ...A Different Gospel?
From: Marc D. Carpenter
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:32:17 (PDT)
Email Address: romans9@shoreham.net

Message:
Hey, freegrace! It looks like we are of like mind! I'd like to correspond with you. You can send an e-mail to romans9@shoreham.net Marc P.S. Sorry for all the posts that contained nothing on the other thread. I don't know how that happened. OUTSIDE THE CAMP www.outsidethecamp.org


Subject: Re: ...A Different Gospel?
From: monitor
To: Marc D. Carpenter
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 19:15:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Oh joy....fg...a kindred spirit. You sure you wanna be associated with something like OTC? monitor


Subject: All I have to say...
From: CyberFish
To: monitor
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:30:11 (PDT)
Email Address: cyberfish8@aol.com

Message:
I visited that site, and all I have to say is that I am glad that God is the judge of our eternal destination, and not this guy! CyberFish


Subject: Re: All I have to say...
From: freegrace
To: CyberFish
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 09:24:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Greetings! How many of his sermons have you heard so far? I jyst played 'Teach No Other Doctrine' and it sounds right to me. I said AMEN! Are you saying that there is 'another way to heaven' besides trusting in God's imputed righteousness? freegrace Teach No Other Doctrine rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio5.html


Subject: Re: All I have to say...
From: Cyberfish
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 19:48:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Cyberfish8@aol.com

Message:
Greetings to you too :) Gods righteousness is imputed to those who trust in CHRIST. The thief on the cross was saved, I bet he did not know of this imputation until he was with the LORD and it was all made clear to him. In a way I agree that everyone in heaven will be a 'Calvinist'...it is just that many won't become one till they get there :) CyberFish


Subject: Re: All I have to say...
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:18:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - where besides Cor and I think Rom is the doctrine of imputed righteousness discussed? If it was so important....the entire bible would be full of the importance of this doctrine. Did John, Peter, James, etc...specifically hammer this doctrine (or any other) down in their writings? Don't you think a full embracing of a 'general' understanding of Christ's gracious life and work is enough to save? laz


Subject: Re: All I have to say...
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:31:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, The doctrine is there...see Isaiah 61:10...! KJV 'He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness', etc. 'Bring forth the BEST ROBE and put it on him'..etc. see the Prodical son story... At the feast, those who do not have the proper 'wedding garments' are cast out, etc. Arminianism (and any other false religion) is a 'fig-leaf religion' ...; where imputed righteousness is not taught, something else MUST take it's place.... human righteousness is set up in the place of God's righteousness for justification. The same is true of our predestination. Where election is not taught, then the 'free will' of fickle man is set up as sovereign (in place of God's will). This is called the 'mystery of Iniquity' when MAN is seated on the throne AS GOD (in the temple of man's soul), or any earthly sanctuary of 'worship'... Just a 'general understanding' is not enough... All those who NEVER have their eyes opened to this wonderful truth are still lost....sad to say. That is what true conversion is all about, brother! Once I was blind, but NOW I see...! A person can even be 'reformed' and still not see the Light on this, and never personally embrace God's imputed righteousness for their eternal justification. Romans 10:1-3 can refer to many people living today who are still deceived. They may know all about Calvinism and the 'Five Points', but may still be lost. fg


Subject: A Super-natural Faith
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:18:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
W. E. Best writes: >>>God-given faith is beyond that which is natural. Since God-given faith is supernatural with relation to its origin, it must be contrasted with natural faith: 1. Supernatural faith is not infected with depravity. Natural faith is infected with depravity. The whole man was infected with depravity in the fall in the garden of Eden. Therefore, every person who comes into this world is depraved. He is dead in trespasses and sins and inoperative in spiritual things. 2. Supernatural faith looks to the will of God. Natural faith looks to the will of depraved man. 3. Supernatural faith looks to the ability of God to draw the sinner (John 6:44). Natural faith looks to the ability of the sinner to come to Christ. 4. Supernatural faith makes the will of the sinner contingent on the will of God. Natural faith makes the will of God dependent on the sinner. 5. Supernatural faith rests on the infallible truth of God’s promises. Natural faith rests on what it is able to understand. 6. Supernatural faith raises the soul above physical sight. Natural faith is restricted to the sight of the eyes. 7. Supernatural faith is capable of calling the things not existing as existing (Rom. 4:17). Natural faith is incapable of bringing things not existing as existing into the mind- set. 8. Supernatural faith cannot habitually hear and follow a false teacher (John 10:5). Natural faith cannot habitually hear and follow a true teacher (I John 2:19). 9. Supernatural faith indwells imperfect Christians who can be deceived. Natural faith indwells unregenerate persons who continually live in a state of deception. Although Christians can be deceived, their deception is not fatal. On the other hand, the nonelect live and die in a state of deception by the Devil. 10. Supernatural faith finds satisfaction in its orientation to God, eternity, the assembly, etc., as the recipient prepares for eternity. Natural faith finds satisfaction only in the things of time. Religionists talk about faith, but few know anything about the subject of faith. Most assembly members do not have a God-given faith. If a man says he has faith and does not have good works, his faith is not genuine; therefore, it is inoperative: “What profit is it, my brothers, if anyone may give expression to be possessing faith and he may not possess works? Is such faith being able to save him? If a brother or sister may be poorly clothed and lacking the daily food, and one of you may say to them: You go away in peace, you warm yourselves and satisfy yourselves, but may not give them the necessities of the body, what benefit is that? So also faith, if it may not possess works, faith by itself is dead” (James 2:14-17 — translation). James was not teaching salvation by works but salvation by faith that will manifest itself in works. We have been regenerated for the purpose of good works (Eph. 2:8-10); therefore, we are to maintain good works (Titus 3:8). We are not justified before God by our works, but we are justified by works before others. There is a justification before God by the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary, a justification by faith before our own consciousness, and a justification by works before men. The record of the faith of the patriarchs in Hebrews 11 proves that faith is the characteristic feature of God’s people in every age. The operation of faith is seen in those who lived before the flood including Abel, Enoch, and Noah (Heb. 11:4-7), those who lived from the flood to the law (vv. 8-29), those who lived from Israel’s deliverance to the captivity (vv. 30-34), and those who lived from the captivity to Christ (vv. 35-40). Faith is important. (1) It is God’s gift to the elect, called “the faith of God’s elect” (Titus 1:1). (2) Faith is the fruit of regeneration. It does not produce regeneration. (3) It is possessed from the very first with certainty, conviction, and an insight which transcends the certainties of the natural mind. The insight one with God-given faith has is an intuitive understanding. Like a little bird intuitively opening its beak upon its mother’s return to the nest, the regenerated person’s intuitive understanding enables him to comprehend the truth of God. God’s sheep hear His voice and follow Him, but they refuse to follow the voice of a stranger (John 10:27). This is insight that transcends the thoughts of the natural mind. The natural mind does not understand the things of the Spirit of God for the reason that they are foolishness to him. They can be only spiritually discerned (I Cor. 2:14). In contrast, the spiritual mind knows Jesus Christ who he has believed and is persuaded that He is able to keep that which he has committed to Him (II Tim. 1:12).<<< Please notice number eight... true saving faith cannot *habitually* follow a false teacher, or false teachings....! Also, the regenerated person is enabled (by the Spirit) to comprehend truth! freegrace


Subject: Re: A Super-natural Faith
From: Eric
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:40:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg wrote:
Please notice number eight... true saving faith cannot *habitually* follow a false teacher, or false teachings....! Also, the regenerated person is enabled (by the Spirit) to comprehend truth! Since you have yet to answer my question, I will post it again. Given what you wrote above, you must logically hold to the following position: **You and the vast minority who hold your position on water baptism, have true saving faith, and everybody else is lost because they have been following false teachers, and hence, cannot be truly saved, for if they were, they would have been enabled by the Spirit to comprehend the truth of your position. Do you agree with this statement? And if not, how do you logically seperate the knowledge of the true nature of baptism with the knowledge of the true nature of election? God bless.


Subject: Re: A Super-natural Faith
From: freegrace
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 08:20:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric, As I said before, my views about water baptism has nothing to do with 'laying hold of Eternal life, and believing in God's imputed righeousness for our eternal justification in the sight of God'... Maybe you keep bringing up water baptism because you are really trusting in it for your salvation (rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ alone)! Also, if 99% of the Christians would go back to offering animal blood sacrifices - because it was once commanded to do so, it would not make it 'right' for us today, now would it..?! Eric, study to show thyself *appproved unto God*, not man. Paul wrote, 'if I yet pleased men, he would not be a true minister of the gospel, or servant of Jesus Christ'...! fg


Subject: Respond to the question
From: Eric
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:05:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg, In essence your position is as follows: I. All who are saved know the truth because of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the regenerated mind. II. All those who don't believe in Christ's imputed righteousness, must by definition believe in a false teaching. III. Therefore, those who don't believe the imputation of righteousness are lost. Now, lets put your beliefs about baptism in the same formula: I. All who are saved know the truth because of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the regenerated mind. II. All those who believe that water baptism is a valid sacrament believe in a false teaching. III. Therefore, those who believe that water baptism is a valid sacrament are lost. Now, let's go to the biblical formula: I. All who are saved have faith in Christ(the person, and not just facts about Him) because of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the regenerated mind. II. All those that do not believe that Jesus was the Christ, believe in a false teaching. III. Therefore, those who do not believe in Christ are lost. As many have tried to point out to you, you have unwittingly replaced the Person of Christ as the source of salvation, with certain facts about him and His work. It is God who saves. As to your pondering whether or not I am trusting in my baptism for my salvation is insulting to say the least. You should be ashamed of yourself, brother. As somebody who has many godly family members who are not Calvinists, I take great offense to your questioning their salvation. I have seen the fruit of their faith, and their love of Christ firsthand and over many years, and through sufferings you cannot imagine, and yet the one thing that remains in their lives is Christ. I would gladly trade my limited doctrinal knowledge for their faith.


Subject: Praying During Service
From: GRACE2Me
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 21:27:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Last Sunday, one of the church leaders decided he wanted to pray for the pastor during the morning service while he preached because he said the pastor needed it. The pastor told him that he agreed he needed prayer, and covets them from all who will pray. The pastor just doesn't think that is the time to do it, and prefers that the person be in the service with his wife to worship and hear the message. But it was also new to the pastor, and he wanted some time to think and pray about it. He also told the pastor that Christians did that for D.L. Moody during the service. Do you think the pastor should allow him to do that since the church leader feels 'led' to do so? Does the church being small have any bearing? Should it be only for certain circumstances? Would be very interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks! GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Praying During Service
From: Eric
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:43:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Why doesn't the leader just pray for the pastor while he is in the service? The man's prayers will be just as effective regardless of what room he is in. God bless.


Subject: Input Regarding Ordination
From: GRACE2Me
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 21:15:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The Assistant Pastor in training has been under the watch care of our church for one year now, and he wants to be ordained. We know of the qualifications of the Pastor/Elder in 1Tim.3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. And we know of some charges that Paul gave Timothy, and the mention of the laying on of hands by the presbytery in 1Tim.4:14. Does he need to be ordained to preach in our church? Is it supposed to wait until he goes to another work? What if the pastor feels that he is not ready emotionally due to some unstableness? Is that covered scripturally? Are those qualifications given exhaustive? If so, should the pastor proceed if he doesn't have 'peace' about it? Sorry for all the questions, just looking for some advice in these areas. Thanks! GRACE2Me P.S. Could you also lay out how and when a preacher/pastor should be ordained biblically G2M


Subject: Re: Input Regarding Ordination
From: stan
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 20:11:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The local church should ordain or what ever you want to call it. A lot of your questions may have answers dictated in your group/denomination. If independent then look to the word and as you have indicated Timothys and Titus. Personal opinion, unstableness, immaturity are covered in the qualifications and overal thought of the word 'elder' Pastor/elder/LEADER should not go forward if there is no peace. Maybe Matt 18 applies - go to the youngun and talk it through - if he doesn't follow take two or three. I don't feel orination is required for preaching. AS LONG as you know him to be the kind of man that belongs behind a pulpit. In many independant works it is kind of customary for ordination to take place as the man takes up his new ministry, though not written in stone. Nothing Biblical comes to mind on the subject. If the qualifications aren't enough you aren't looking deep enough. They cover just about everything there is - especially when you put them up along side the rest of Scripture and the many admonishions to holiness ;-) stan


Subject: jsgirl, 'hit 'n' run' isn't polite
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:56:38 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
'jsgirl'...Let me see, 'Jesus' saved girl?' If so, shouldn't you have the courage of your convictions? You came here and made sweeping assertions (
with no Scriptural backing whatsoever) and showed yourself to be a 'champion of the truth' and a 'light to the sovereign grace believers.' But it was a false front. When challenged to defend your position and to really demonstrate to us where we 'are wrong,' you just left the scene. I felt like the victim of a 'drive by!' I'm very disappointed that you, who claim to have all knowledge on this subject, will not enter into an examination of the Bible to see what it does say. After all, isn't seeking out God's truth in His revealed Word our goal as committed Christians? It seems not to be yours.


Subject: What John Owen said ...
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 12:11:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
....Some interesting comments here with a reference to John Owen..... >>>Many have a false security, thinking themselves to be genuine believers in Christ when in fact they are under the dark influence of the false gospel. I pray that as the truth is clarified and the lie of human sovereignty is exposed, some among these will be brought to a true understanding of God's grace. Of those who trust in themselves for salvation (Arminians), the Heidelberg Catechism says, 'They may boast of him in words, but they in fact deny the only Savior Jesus. For one of two things must be true: Either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or those who by true faith accept this Savior must find in him all that is necessary for salvation'... The statement of the Catechism reflects the Biblical antithesis between grace and works. As the Apostle says in Romans 11:5, 6: 'Even so then at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.' People who embrace the false gospel embrace a doctrine of human works, even as they speak about the grace of God. They must be warned, and called to repentance and true faith. Many 'Calvinists' defend Arminianism as a legitimate expression of biblical Christianity, 'rough edges' notwithstanding. By doing so, such 'Calvinists', by their tolerance of Arminian doctrine, implicitly endorse and believe it. The sober truth is this: whatever people may call themselves, if they tolerate and endorse the teaching of Arminianism, they lend support to the satanic lie of human sovereignty. When such persons are aware of this grave sin, they need to repent and forsake it. I pray that such repentance will ensue, and that I will continually repent of this sin. John Owen wrote and preached several hundred years ago. In his age as well, there were some who called themselves 'Reformed' and yet tolerated and defended the Arminian gospel as a valid expression of Christianity. Here is what he wrote about one such person: 'The sum of their doctrine in this particular is laid down by one of ours in a tract entitled 'God's Love to Mankind,' etc.; a book full of palpable ignorance, gross sophistry, and abominable blasphemy, whose author seems to have proposed nothing unto himself but to rake all the dunghills of a few of the most invective Arminians, and to collect the most filthy scum and pollution of their railings to cast upon the truth of God; and, under I know not what self- coined pretenses, belch out odious blasphemies against his holy name.'. (From John Owen, A Display of Arminianism). By defending the devil's lie of Arminianism, some people today still continue to 'belch out odious blasphemies against his holy name', as Owen said. =================================


Subject: Re: What John Owen said ...
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 17:57:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

GIVE IT UP! It just so happens that John Owen is my favourite Puritan writer and theologian. I am more than aware of his Display of Arminianism and have read through its entirety more than once. What Owen says in your quote is nothing contrary to that which those of us who are opposing YOUR view hold to be true. Don't even THINK about recruiting John Owen as someone who sides with your erroneous contentions. For the last time, there is to be recognized that there can be a vast difference between 'Arminianism' and someone who holds to that doctrine; an 'Arminian'! Further, the Arminianism of Owen's day is not the same theology as that which is labeled Arminianism in our day. You are riding a wooden 'hobby horse' which will take you nowhere but to perdition.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What John Owen said ...
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:24:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

GIVE IT UP! It just so happens that John Owen is my favourite Puritan writer and theologian. I am more than aware of his Display of Arminianism and have read through its entirety more than once. What Owen says in your quote is nothing contrary to that which those of us who are opposing YOUR view hold to be true. Don't even THINK about recruiting John Owen as someone who sides with your erroneous contentions. For the last time, there is to be recognized that there can be a vast difference between 'Arminianism' and someone who holds to that doctrine; an 'Arminian'! Further, the Arminianism of Owen's day is not the same theology as that which is labeled Arminianism in our day. You are riding a wooden 'hobby horse' which will take you nowhere but to perdition.

In His Grace, Pilgrim
---
==================== come on, Pilgrim, you are 'pulling my leg'..! Are you saying that heresy 'improves' over the years with the passing of time? The Bible says that in the last days, multitudes will be deceived, and the degree of apostasy will increase, not 'get better' or improve... We are to fight the good fight of faith! If John Owen were living today, I am sure he would speak out against the false teachings of Arminianism like never before! freegrace


Subject: Re: What John Owen said ...
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 08:42:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

Are you unable to read plain English? hahaha.... Owen would indeed write against the heresy of Arminianism or its modern counterpart if he were alive today, but no more than what I have done or Rod or any other person on this Forum who embraces the doctrines of 'Sovereign Free Grace.' But he would NOT EVER hold to what you do; i.e., that all ARMINIANS are unregenerate. Owen recognized no less than ANY Christian does by the Spirit, that there are Christ's sheep in many places who hold to various errors in doctrine. You obviously have been blinded by your zeal to promote this heretical view you now hold. Again, I say to you: GIVE IT UP!

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What John Owen said ...
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:27:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I never said that 'All Arminians are unregenerate', for God has His elect everywhere, and is calling men and women to COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE...! what I am saying is that Arminianism is 'another gospel' and if this teaching is followed ..it will lead people into a false security of salvation (just as I once had)...! Sorry, I have to disagree with you about assurance; I think that Bible doctrine is important when it comes to giving a person full assurance of salvation! That is like always feeding a baby nothing but milk, and never feeding your children any meat! Only the stong meat of the Word produces strong Christians! freegrace


Subject: Re: What John Owen said ...
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 12:54:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Does right doctrine really give assurance? I know tons of arminians, mormons, jw's etc...who have full assurance of their salvation....they are mistaken of course...but they are sure they're saved! haha laz


Subject: Church History Timeline
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:35:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just found this link today! The church history timeline looks very interesting! fg Look for Church History page sikkema.netfirms.com/


Subject: Imputation
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 16:44:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
How's 'bout this: Feel free to correct me, ya'll! If someone flat out rejects the doctrine of imputed righteousness after being patiently explained in favor of a righteousness that he/she believes they bring to the table (which is necessarily what they MUST believe if they reject Christ's righteousness, no?), then I'd have to agree with FG that that person has CLEARLY rejected a fundamental tenant of the Gospel...they have rejected God's gracious provision for sin thru His Son and His work. While they MIGHT be regenerate (i.e., eyes/ears opened to the idea of God in Christ) .... justification may not have been applied since they lack the requisite fiducia aspect of 'saving faith'...a Spirit-wrought faith. Their trust is misplaced as both their mind and heart will not have Christ as their sole means of salvation. Is this not what makes a pagan, a pagan? hehe But it's altogether another matter to say that someone is still unregenerate if they haven't fully comprehended and apprehended the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Frankly, some haven't been taught this doctrine....shameful but true...and if they were to get hit by a truck after expressing SIMPLE SPIRIT-WROUGHT SAVING FAITH (apart from understanding or even knowing about imputed righteousess) I believe, like the thief on the Cross, they will be saved. Knowledge doesn't save....grace thru faith in Christ...however simple the knowledge or faith, saves! But again, I would have a hard time believing someone is truly saved if they willfully and with forethought/premeditation reject Christ's robe of righteousness. They MUST be clothed with the proper wedding garment. OK, let the party begin... laz p.s. I maintain that most knowledgeble Arminians understand and embrace imputation. I know far too many that do!!


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: john hampshire
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:22:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If someone rejects the doctrine of imputed righteousness and by this they have rejected God's provision for sin, does this in some way affect the outcome of God's action toward that person. This seems to me to be much ado about nothing. If I don't believe this or that, does God care? Does God only regenerate those who understand imputed righteousness? With regeneration comes faith, but is it a perfect faith, perfectly abiding in Christ? Not a chance. Like a baby learning about the world the babe in Christ learns about his Saviour. The idea that everyone will eventually learn of imputed righteousness and that is some measure of one's holiness or standing as a Christian, or a delineator of salvation is simply ridiculous. Is a pagan simply someone with misplaced trust-- if so then I am a pagan (which many will agree). From what I can tell, fg has taken a piece of the gospel, separated it from the all other things, then made that portion the gold standard of salvation. Understand it or die. Since Arminians tend to confuse theological terms and use fuzzy logic to express their distorted theology, they will likely fail any test regarding difficult theological expressions, along with no small number of professing Calvinists I might add. If they resist learning, or cannot learn they are judged a heretic. How many years ago was it that those who failed the theology test were tortured, made to confess themselves heretics, then burned for admitting it. I don't have much faith in human standards of determining who the righteous ones are from the evil guys. And further, who cares. If they hear the gospel then great, if they reject it then move on. We don't need to hang around passing judgement on everyone who doesn't 'get it'. Arminians are a mixed lot anyway, some believe imputed righteousness but suffer a disconnect with the origin of faith. Some think God gives faith via regeneration and our righteousness is in Christ, not our own, and Jesus died for His elect, but we must still accept His finished work. Who can separate the twisted theology to decide who is lost and who is saved, and where are we commanded to try. Again this is much to do about nothing, in my opinion. We cannot create checklists of dogma that differentiate sheep from goats. We cannot separate who believes from the heart and who believes from the mind. It is not our business. (but if it were, then I think Arminians will float in water due to their light approach to interpretation, while Calvinist shall surely sink. So we throw all Christians in the ocean and those who sink to the bottom will be saved, those who float we hang). john


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:22:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John - you said:
We cannot create checklists of dogma that differentiate sheep from goats. We cannot separate who believes from the heart and who believes from the mind. In the absolute sense, you are correct...only God knows the heart...and minds often don't jive with the heart...BUT... ...in the earthly realm, doesn't the Church hold the keys to the kingdom? Is not the Church to determine who is to be received into the covenant community, to enjoy God's means of grace and brought under the loving discipline of the Church leadership? And aren't those who are admitted into membership to be considered, addressed as though they WERE sheep...and not goats (though some likely are goats)? I think I'm being rhetorical since you already know all of this. ;-) A person who vehemently denies Christ's person and imputed work (which is NOT mere 'dogma' but the product of Spirit-wrought faith - the heart of Christianity) is not fit for membership into Christ's church. I guess I'm saying that a person who rejects the Gospel is unsaved. But I'm NOT saying that imputed righteousness is the Gospel...but merely a very important piece. laz


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 09:07:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John - you said:
We cannot create checklists of dogma that differentiate sheep from goats. We cannot separate who believes from the heart and who believes from the mind. In the absolute sense, you are correct...only God knows the heart...and minds often don't jive with the heart...BUT... ...in the earthly realm, doesn't the Church hold the keys to the kingdom? Is not the Church to determine who is to be received into the covenant community, to enjoy God's means of grace and brought under the loving discipline of the Church leadership? And aren't those who are admitted into membership to be considered, addressed as though they WERE sheep...and not goats (though some likely are goats)? I think I'm being rhetorical since you already know all of this. ;-) A person who vehemently denies Christ's person and imputed work (which is NOT mere 'dogma' but the product of Spirit-wrought faith - the heart of Christianity) is not fit for membership into Christ's church. I guess I'm saying that a person who rejects the Gospel is unsaved. But I'm NOT saying that imputed righteousness is the Gospel...but merely a very important piece. laz
---
=========== AMEN Laz..! That's the same thing that I have been trying to say! A person will be lost without believing the true gospel (which contains the truth of God's imputed righteousness)..! But now I am called or treated as a 'heretic' here because after all these years of being religious, and trying to be accepted by God, I have now found full assurance of salvation! Everyone here should be rejoicing with me! Calvinism IS the gospel! It really 'works' when believed from the heart. Ye have *from the heart* received that form of doctrine that was delivered unto you. The person of Christ is TRUTH personified. When Christ is received the truth will be received also. fg


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:41:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz,

I would have to disagree with your first premise brother; i.e., someone can be regenerate yet NOT have 'fiducia'(saving faith). Why? Because it is at the moment of regeneration that faith is implanted/enlivened in the soul. This 'faith' is a NEED for Christ; to trust in Him and a leaning/dependency on Him as Lord and Saviour. However, having said that there are obvious qualifications as you well know. For example, one who is regenerated in the womb, infants, mentally deficient individuals cannot OUTWARDLY manifest that faith. But all others are immediately drawn to Christ by the Spirit, since they have also been convicted of their sin and need of Him. This is a 'double attraction', i.e., they flee to Him out of NEED and also out of LOVE/DESIRE. But when such individuals do receive the Lord Christ, they still may be too young or mentally unable to comprehend theological matters, e.g., the doctrine of Imputation. This is no way diminishes or denies the truth that ALL who are in Christ are His and secure, for it the blood of Christ justifies absolutely. Perhaps you are referring to what the Puritans spoke of as a 'preparatory working' of the Spirit, where a person was being ineffectually drawn through various means; breaking down their resistance etc. before being regenerate? Let's not ever forget, that one can surely comprehend the truth theologically and be anything but regenerate. 1Cor 2:14 is not saying that a natural man is incapable of intellectually comprehending the theology of the Bible. But to the contrary, it is speaking of one who is indeed able, but hates it, therefore they don't 'receive it' and it is 'foolishness' to him. As Paul says in Romans 1 'they exchange the truth for a lie'! :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:13:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - you said:
I would have to disagree with your first premise brother; i.e., someone can be regenerate yet NOT have 'fiducia'(saving faith). Why? Because it is at the moment of regeneration that faith is implanted/enlivened in the soul. I guess I was under the false impression that a person can have saving faith sovereignly and unconditionally implanted (synonymous with being regenerated) but not yet express belief unto justification...even if it's just for a moment. But if saving faith comes by HEARING God's words, they must express BELIEF as the proper response to God's words and prior (or simultaneous) act of regeneration ... so, the three go hand-in-hand...that is: - regeneration - faith upon hearing the Word - expression of belief in that Word ...since a heart/mind that has been granted 'faith' and therefore having been regenerate WILL undoubtedly BELIEVE what God is communicating to them as the Gospel is being proclaimed - for God doesn't regenerate apart from the hearing of the Word. Is this correct? Or have I muddied the waters? blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:53:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz,

I'm still trying to comprehend what you are REALLY trying to say here.... hehehe! :-) But it is my understanding that 'faith and regeneration' are inseparable. As you have also said, regeneration INCLUDES the implanting of 'faith'. And there are those who will not EXPRESS that faith before men due to their position, e.g., a fetus yet in the womb, an infant, a mentally deficient individual, etc. Let's take an infant who God has been predestinated to salvation in Christ and has been regenerated at the tender age of one year. This child indeed has 'faith'! But that 'faith' won't be recognized by men due to the infant's inability to express it. Yet, that faith rests in Christ nonetheless as it does in every child born of the Spirit. As the child progresses in physical age, this faith will surely be expressed before men. However, in the case of adults, the normal means by which God brings individuals to Christ is through the means of the Gospel; either heard in preaching or from the reading of it in Scripture or a Gospel presentation in print. When the Spirit regenerates that person, faith is immediately implanted in the new heart of flesh and it is immediately expressed in conversion; i.e., through a profession of his/her conviction of sin and heartfelt trust and dependency on the Lord Christ. This will of course be first before God and perhaps also before other men IF there are some present. If not, then eventually, this person will be lead to a gathering of saints where he/she will then make profession of faith. So, I think you have all the parts correct, but maybe the difficulty is in the way you have expressed it? hehe.... :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim P.S.: Because you did not mention 'Imputed Righteousness', does this mean you aren't saved?


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:42:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - you said:
I would have to disagree with your first premise brother; i.e., someone can be regenerate yet NOT have 'fiducia'(saving faith). Why? Because it is at the moment of regeneration that faith is implanted/enlivened in the soul. I guess I was under the false impression that a person can have saving faith sovereignly and unconditionally implanted (synonymous with being regenerated) but not yet express belief unto justification...even if it's just for a moment. But if saving faith comes by HEARING God's words, they must express BELIEF as the proper response to God's words and prior (or simultaneous) act of regeneration ... so, the three go hand-in-hand...that is: - regeneration - faith upon hearing the Word - expression of belief in that Word ...since a heart/mind that has been granted 'faith' and therefore having been regenerate WILL undoubtedly BELIEVE what God is communicating to them as the Gospel is being proclaimed - for God doesn't regenerate apart from the hearing of the Word. Is this correct? Or have I muddied the waters? blessings, laz
---
================ Yes, Laz, I say you are correct here... Pilgrim is also correct in reference to elect infants and the metally retarded people being saved -even without ever exercising their gift of faith. However, in mature adults - which is what we are discussing, normal faith in all the great doctrines is the rule. Just to believe that 'Jesus is the Son of God' is not enough.., for even the devils believe that, and tremble.. says James. Those who *continually* reject the clear teachings of Scripture about the doctrines of election, particular atonement, perserverance of the saints, and of course imputed righteousness, just prove they still are unregenerate, for they set up a human standard for their salvation. That is why Arminianism has been called a form of 'humanism' ..and not the true gospel at all. BTW, I have never 'isolated' imputed righteousness from all the other great doctrines of Grace! fg


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:23:26 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
freegrace, Let's look at a couple of erroneous statements in this post. First You make this statement: 'Yes, Laz, I say you are correct here... Pilgrim is also correct in reference to elect infants and the metally retarded people being saved -even without ever exercising their gift of faith. However, in mature adults - which is what we are discussing, normal faith in all the great doctrines is the rule.' You appear just not to 'get it,' having a false idea of what faith is and what it is in. You continue to desire that people put their fiath in 'great doctrines,' demonstrating that you don't understand the most fundamental thing about faith: that it is in the Person of the Lord God. This is a serious and grievous error. You should renounce it immediatley. You also wrote this: 'BTW, I have never 'isolated' imputed righteousness from all the other great doctrines of Grace!' Your own writings give the lie to this statement: Here are some of your statements I have cut and pasted in: 'My point is, these people are not saved at all
becuase they have never even heard of God's imputed righteousness, sad to say.' (emphasis added by me); and 'My question for you or anyone here, is, are professing Christians - such as (for example, good members of the liberal United Methodist church denomination) saved - even when they never come to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their justification?' (emphasis added). And 'The doctrine of our imputed righteousness is the foundation for our Christian assurance, is it not? At least that is the way I see it now.' And finally, 'My point is, if they NEVER embrace God's imputed righteousness for their eternal justification, they will be lost.' I think you owe it to yourself and to us to at least be honest about this emphasis you have placed on 'imputed righteousness.' You have spoke most recently of the 'gospel,' but the gospel is about an all-sufficient Savior, not about being a proper theologian. Many people have repeatedly made that point to you, but you refuse to accept it. That gives grave doubts about your credibility and demonstrates that your fundamental concept of Christianity is very questionable. I repeat to you now that the Lord Jesus Christ is the focal point of Christianity, the only basis for salvation. Place your faith and trust in Him.


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 05:44:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You said......>>>Place your faith and trust in Him<<< Rod, which one? The Arminian false Christ, or the Calvinist true Christ? Rod, You still have not answered my question; if you were saved as an Arminian, on what basis did you have any assurance of an eternal salvation? fg


Subject: Re: Assurance
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:04:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

I think ANYONE who has knowledge of TRUE biblical doctrine could answer your question to Rod concerning the 'basis for assurance' he had when he was saved while embracing Arminian theology. The answer is so simple I wonder why you can't see it yourself. The answer is: The Holy Spirit, speaking to his soul and in the Scriptures testified to him that he was a child of God and that he was CHRIST'S own. If THAT doesn't give a person assurance, nothing will. Certainly you CAN'T be suggesting that if he was unaware of the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness' or some other doctrine he COULDN'T have assurance? If you would consult ANY of the major Confessions and/or Creeds of the historic Christian Church where they speak of 'Assurance of Salvation' you will not find any mention of 'doctrine' as being a foundation for assurance. Why? because it is not taught in Scripture and therefore heretical.

In His GRACE, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:31:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

So now we are introduced to the crux of your belief system, which is NOT Biblical Christianity, but Gnosticism in modern garb. How sad. If John Wesley and countless others who professed to trust in Christ ALONE and His substitutionary work for salvation are to be counted among the unregenerate who are in hell awaiting the Judgment, are you not also to be counted to be one of THEM? For you have made salvation to rest upon a 'KNOWLEDGE OF' rather than in Christ Jesus the Lord of Glory. No less than any Arminian or Roman Catholic or Orthodox, who confesses orthodoxy in the essentials and then adds to them requirements that transcend God's perfect plan of salvation, you have done the same. How sad! How pitiful! But how revealing. You wrote: 'Those who *continually* reject the clear teachings of Scripture about the doctrines of election, particular atonement, perserverance of the saints, and of course imputed righteousness, just prove they still are unregenerate, for they set up a human standard for their salvation.' There is NOTHING in all Scripture that says only a person who understands and professes the 'Five Points of Calvinism' can be saved. NO WHERE! Once again, it is faith in the person of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST by GRACE that saves anyone and everyone. PERIOD! I have said all along that I am convinced that the vast majority of people today who claim to be Christians are unregenerate. But I have also said and maintained that there are those of different theological persuasions are among Christ's sheep. I have also strongly defended the truth that doctrine is crucially important to salvation and one's spiritual health. But DOCTRINE doesn't SAVE! Wrong doctrine CAN lead one to destruction if one's faith is in it. Further, whether it is Arminianism, Calvinism, Mormonism, Bahai, Buddhism, Daoism, Deism, etc., if a person's heart is resting in the doctrines he/she holds to be true, then they prove themselves to be outside of CHRIST and they have spurious faith. The big question now, freegrace, is whether or not YOU have Christ IN YOU! Have you left your first professed love for a system of doctrine, albeit the doctrines of Christ? Have you usurped the clear teaching of Scripture; the most fundamental and necessary teaching — THE GOSPEL? You have clearly created for yourself a labyrinth of errors which without God's intervention you shall never find your way out.

In His GRACE, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:31:33 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, I didn't read this reply before I made mine directly above, but I am pleased to see that you, and hopefully everyone else, sees this fallacy correctly. freegrace's is a most dangerous error, one to be avoided at the expense of not comprehending what the true gospel of Jesus Christ is.


Subject: Re: Imputation
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:34:10 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, The problem is, you're trying to look at freegrace's posts logically. :>) There is no logic in his thinking, for reasons which you, yourself, identified days ago. He wants people to 'trust in imputed righteousness,' emphasizing that to the detriment of the Originator of the plan, the One Who imputes. As I'm certain you know, 'trust' is a synonym for faith. We are absolutely never to place our trust in anything other than a Person, the Savior. We may and certainly should trust that we possess imputed righteousness, as the Bible assures believers, but faith in that is misplaced faith: '...even the mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest [obvious] to the saints [the sanctified by God], to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles,
WHICH IS CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory; whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus' (Col. 1:26-28). Let's be very clear that you and I mean different things from freegrace when we discuss things; particularly the standard of faith by which we determine brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ. As long as freegrace willfully ignores the salvation of such men as John and Charles Wesley, despite conclusive testimony in writing and song that they belong to the same Lord Jesus Christ in Whom all all Christians place their faith which God has determined will justify them by grace, I will be very wary of endorsing any of his ideas. One characteristic of cults is that they take a small amount of truth and run with it. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, applied by the Lord God when the regenerate person receives the gift of faith, which comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17) God's Word with spiritual ears, imputes righteousness to the believing one. freegrace steadfastly and doggedly denies that faith to sincere professors of it, such as those of us who were Arminian but came out of the system. His clear conclusion is, if we are saved now, we certainly weren't then! Note carefully what he wrote to me today in another thread: 'Rod, if you think [note that I merely 'think' I was saved] you were saved as an Arminian, on what basis did you receive any comfort and assurance of salvation? Your church membership? Attending services? Good works? The church dinners? The 'Christian' fellowship? All the church socials &parties? The many banquets? etc. etc. Thanks. Just wondering. The social gospel of Arminianism, etc. is not the same gospel that Paul and the apostles preached. They are in direct opposition to one another! see Galtions 1:8-9 fg' Isn't it plain that I was (and possibly still am, according to freegrace) deluded and not saved at all, having been 'saved by a 'social gospel?' How snide and condescending this post is! freegrace knows nothing of my Christian walk apart from my posts here. He knows nothing of my prayer life, my circumstances of salvation, my relationship to the Lord at all. But he has the unmitigated audacity to deny salvation to us all. I read that as putting yourself in the place of God, just as is the (re)writing of Scripture. Have you noticed that, when freegrace is presented with proof of facts, such as my quotations from the lives of the Wesleys, he conveniently ignores those proofs? Then he comes right back with the 'big lie' of having faith in imputed righteousness. This is a tactic and principle of those engaged in propaganda: tell a lie often enough and someone will believe it. Beware of spurious doctrine, brother laz.


Subject: For fg re-rightiousness
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 14:39:00 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg By now you have seen Pilgrim's post to you concerning the rightiousness we are to seek. What kind of rightiousness are we to seek? 1) Imputed rightiousness 2) God's rightiousness and let God do the imputing. Believe me, there is a difference. Tom


Subject: Two questions
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:38:14 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I'm about to ask the board (everyone on the board) two basic questions fundamental to the Christian faith. I'm not trying to be simplistic; I'm not trying to be 'cute;' neither am I trying to be obtuse. The manner in which these are answered goes a long way to determining and explaining our faith. Please consider the plan and intent of the Lord God as you answer. Question 1: For whom did the Lord Jesus Christ shed His blood? Question 2: If a person has had the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ shed for him, will he necessarily be saved?


Subject: Re: Two questions
From: GRACE2Me
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 21:20:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
1. The elect/sheep/those that the Father gave Him/those who will believe. 2. Yes John 6:37,44,65; 10:11,15; 17:2,4,6,9,11,24; Acts 13:38; 20:28; Eph.5:25; Rom 8:29-30 GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Two questions
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 21:13:15 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Actually this thread was born of Pilgrim's desire to look at the Atonement of the Lord Jesus a little while back. I just thought it was an especially good time to take a look at the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, given the bold assertions of jsgirl and her unsubstantiated-by-Scripture pronouncements, as well as other posts which have been made of late about the basis of salvation and faith. From the beginning of the time that men sinned, there has been a crimson or scarlet thread running through the Bible, specifically innocent blood to cover sin in the OT and the shedding of the Lord Jesus' lifeblood in the NT to take it away, the penalty for being lost in sin being paid for at the cross of our Lord. I specifically didn't use the words, 'For whom did the Lord Jesus die?,' because the emphasis of the shed blood tends to be by-passed with that for many people. Innocent blood is the key factor in providing life for the sinner, for, 'Wherfore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people
with his own blood, suffered outside the gate' (Heb. 13:12). This verse is an obvious reference to the OT sacrifice of certain animals as prescribed in the law of Moses whose ashes and remnants were to be disposed of outside the the encampment of Israel. It also seems certainly to be a reference to Ex. 33:7, where the Lord was to be found, not among the 'stiff necked people' (verse 3), but the Tabernacle was placed 'outside the camp' and 'far' from the camp, signifying the fact that the Lord Jesus, in His death and the shedding of His blood, was estranged from the nation of Israel whcih had rejected Him (Matt. 27:25; John19:15). Salvation would now be found outside the Jewish nation, in His person. Having kept the Law and fulfilled its requirements insured that His human blood was proved innocent and a fit payment for the penalty of sin. The penalty was paid in blood, clean, innocent, human blood, not the blood of animals, which Hebrews makes clear was not effective in the removal of sin once and for all time, but the final, complete, one-time offering which was efficacious for the full and complete removal of sin and its death sentence on the individual on whom that blood was placed: '....when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high' (Heb. 1:3). The sitting down signified a work completed, a 'rest' from the labor of purging sin--That's the accomplishment of the Lord Jesus. Now notice this, please. The book of Hebrews describes it this way, our sins were 'purged.' The word so translated in the KJV, is most often translated 'made purification' or 'cleansed.' The people under sin were not clean in God's sight; were in need of purification. This is reminiscent of the ashes of the 'red heifer' of Number 19. There, in the presence of the high priest, the heifer would be killed--significantly, the high priest didn't kill her, but supervised the proceeding. But the priest did take the blood to the Tabernacle to offer before the Lord. Then the heifer was burned . The ashes were to be buried in a clean place and 'resurrected,' so to speak, to be applied for the restoration of one who was unclean by the standard of the Mosaic Law. In that connection of making the person clean and 'purified,' compare verses 20 & 21 of Heb. 13: 'Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.' That is what the resurrected Lord does for His own: He cleanses them with blood, blood of innocence and cleanness. In order to do that, He had to do something very significant and essential. He had to receive the sin of those cleansed! 'For he hath made him, who knew no sinto be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' (2 Cor. 5:21). The sin was taken away from us and placed on Him. He literally 'became sin for us,' experiencing in actuality the punishment due to us, as God's justice demands it to be paid. He did that AT THE CROSS and made the absolute payment then. The payment isn't made when one 'accepts Christ,' or 'comes to Jesus.' It was made centuries ago, the actual burden of sin for specific individuals being borne at that time, the death penalty being handed out as God requires. Suffering is required; suffering, unto the shedding of blood, was accomplished. Only those on whom that purifying blood falls will be saved. It was God's intention that this be a specific, select, predestinated/elect group. When Peter described those to whom he wrote in his first epistle, he described them as, 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' (1 Peter 1:2). Did everyone get that? They are 'elect...unto...sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.' That is their 'predestination' according to God's plan and foreknowledge. Now, remembering that and backtracking to 2 Cor. 5:21,let's examine for whom the Lord Jesus died, as well as for whom the blood is efficacious. When the Bible speaks of 'we' and 'us,' I used to take the Arminian stance that it meant all people of all the world. Study has proved that absolutely false. The Bible writers never lump themselves, as saved persons, in with the lost. The 'we' and 'us' are the saved, the people of the Church of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is inescapable that, when He was made to be sin for us, it was for a specific group, the predestinated and elect, those who are predestinated to sanctification and to the sprinkling of the purifying blood. The "way of Cain" of Jude 11 is to negate that blood sacrifice, offering before a holy God that which could never cleanse from sin. That is the message concerning the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. I've only barely touched this topic. I was hoping others would run with it in their answers and I still hope that they do. The subject is inexhaustible, coursing through the Bible like the red thread of Rahab's habitation which resulted in life for her and her family out of all the city. Yes, it's obvious that the blood of the Lord was for a specific, predestinated group. "We love him because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).


Subject: Re: Two questions
From: JohnS
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:53:09 (PDT)
Email Address: methos1957@hotmail.com

Message:
Answers: Question 1. Jesus died for: His people (Matthew 1:21) All that the Father gives him (John 6:39) His Sheep (John 10:14, 15) His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:25) All those who were 'in Him' before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) All who were foreknown and predestined to be conformed to his image (Romans 8:29, 30) Question 2: All whom the Father gives to Jesus will be saved (John 6:37; Romans 8:30) John


Subject: Re: Two questions
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 14:31:37 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
1.) Those whom the father chose in Him(Christ)before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:4 2.)Absolutely! Tom


Subject: Re: Two questions
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 13:14:02 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Question 1: For whom did the Lord Jesus Christ shed His blood? Christ died for those whom the Father had chosen for salvation from before time began. Question 2: If a person has had the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ shed for him, will he necessarily be saved? Indeed, yes! Those who the Father gave Him, can never be snatched out of His hand. Anne


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:39:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Question #3: If we don't accept the shed blood of Christ shed for His elect, does it make any difference to our eternal state? Question #4: If we do accept the shed blood of Christ, believe on all things Biblical, does it make any difference to our eternal state? john


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:35:02 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John 3) Those that truly are regenerate do accept the shed blood of Christ or His elect. 4) If one does not accept the shed blood of Christ, it shows that they are not regenerate. Tom


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 00:53:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That was what I was afearin someone might say. What difference does it make whether we accept or don't accept the shed blood of Christ? None. That was the answer I was looking for. God does not regenerate BECAUSE we say this or do that. Thus, we have no input toward our regeneration. We have no input toward our election, which also implies that we have no input toward those Christ redeemed. Which mean: If you follow the logic: We have no input toward our salvation whatsoever!! Thus, our acceptance of Christ's shed blood does not affect our salvation in any way. For that matter, what can we say, think, or do, that would affect what we have no input to? So, the regenerate may learn things, perhaps even learn about such Theological concepts as God's Holiness, imputed righteousness, eternal security, God's effectual calling, etc., but that is not in any way some proof of regeneration nor does it bear on your salvation in any way. It does not prove anything. It is not a sign of your salvation. It is not the final state of every Christian. Some may attain to this knowledge, some may not, some may learn truths that few understand, some may not... it is not a cause/effect relationship. Plus, why is the imputed righteousness of Christ such a hot topic for a salvation proof? Why not say that we must understand election, predestination, perseverance of the saints, the meaning of God's love, God's Character, God's eternal state, God's relationship to the Son, God's relationship to the Holy Spirit, the act of regeneration, the significance of water baptism, the meaning of the cross, the purpose of God in creation.... Must I go on. Why do we set arbitrary standards that someone must meet to be saved, when it is not a requirement for salvation to know anything? I have no doubt that SANCTIFICATION is a lifelong process in which knowledge is gained that increases faith and promotes our love toward God. But spiritual growth cannot be measured by spouting doctrine. If that be true, that doctine=salvation proof, then would everyone with a PhD in Theology also have proof of salvation. We know them by their fruits, that is, the fruits of the resurrected spirit is manifest in deeds, words, and actions. How those deeds are manifest belongs to God, not man. Universities do not make Christians. Confessions of faith have nothing to do with manifesting spiritual fruit. Saying 'I love Jesus' may impress some, but it is cheap talk. If you love Him, then obey! What separates Arminians, or anyone who might be unregenerate, is their desire to obey God -- they don't have it. In the final analysis, the unregenerate obey no one but themselves. They may cover their conceit with doctrine and religious practices, but they lack true obedience. Forget 'accepting' Jesus. It means nothing. Instead, obey God. The demonstration of regeneration will be shown in the manner of life you live. john


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 16:15:04 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
john, If I understand you correctly, you are definitely off base on this. Here is one of your earlier statements: 'What difference does it make whether we accept or don't accept the shed blood of Christ? None. That was the answer I was looking for. God does not regenerate BECAUSE we say this or do that.' When you say, 'God does not regenerate BECAUSE we say this or do that,' you appear to be equating 'regeneration' and salvation. That would be in direct contradiction to the Bible. Paul's pronouncement is that we are not saved until we possess faith, though it is 'by grace' that we do come to that possession (Eph. 2:5,8). Paul says of the Lord Jesus, 'whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, though the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus' (Rom. 3:25-26). The basis of that 'believing in Jesus' is, as the previous verse says, that one has faith in His shed blood as 'propitiation,' or satisfaction of God's wrath as sufficient for the salvation of the one who believes in and accepts the substitutionary sacrifice of His innocent blood as his Substitute for payment of the penalty of sin. In Eph. 1:6-7, we have these things stated: 'to the praise of the glory of his grace, through which he hath made us accepted in the beloved; in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.' Comparing that to 2:8, 'By grace [making us accepted in the beloved] are ye saved through faith....' We have just seen that the faith is in 'His blood,' referring to the fact that the saved individual believes God that, 'even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us' (1 Cor. 5:7). Just as the Israelites believed God, having faith that placing sacrificial blood on the door of the house would result in His salvation from God's death sentence, we must accept the sufficiency of the blood of Jesus Christ, and its efficacy. The gospel of John, particularly, goes into great detail about how He was examined minutely (as the sacrificial Lamb): Spoken to the religious leaders) 'Which of you convicteth me of sin?' (John 8:48). He was, like the lamb, 'without spot or blemish,' proved guiltless and His blood acceptable to God. Accepting the substitutionary blood of sacrifice and believing God are inseparable: 'I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him' (John 6:53-56). Salvation is a process (Rom. 8:30) which includes justification. Justification is impossible without 'believing God' (having faith). That saving faith is inseparably tied to justification, which is 'by faith,' which Paul says is 'faith in his blood.' His blood is the 'blood of the new testament' (Mark 14:24), the one basis by which men are cleansed from the guilt of sin. But, though predesitnated, they are not cleansed until they have faith: 'And you hath he made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins...and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others' (see Eph. 2:1-3). Faith is necessary to salvation. Paul says that we must have justification 'through faith,' made possible 'by grace.' That faith is in His completed work through trusting that His blood is for the believer and excludes us from God's wrath: 'Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him' (Rom. 5:9). That faith in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is described as having this effect in the Revelation: ...'These are they who came out of the great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God...' (7:14-15). I invite and urge you to rethink your postion on this critical issue.


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:20:32 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John Actually when I look back at my answers I see a word, that I don't like. Please put the word 'believe' in its place. For indeed you are correct, the belief that is shown by obedience is the mark of one who has been regenerated by Father in Christ. Christ has made us accepted into the beloved, not anything we have done, See Eph 1:5-6. Thankyou for the rebuke. Tom


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:07:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Your are right, 'It is not a requirement for salvation to know anything',,...etc. But, please rememeber this, TO KNOW THEE IS LIFE ETERNAL. John 17:3. To KNOW GOD God and His truth is connected with ETERNAL LIFE ...! Where there is no KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY (One) there is no salvation. God MUST reveal Himself to us personally if we are going to become saved. He must call us by name! WE MUST hear with the inner ear His gentle Voice speaking to us in His Word! The only way we can know God, is to have God reveal Himself to us in His Word...! freegrace


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 18:50:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hmmm, no talk of IMPUTATION above.... So, why can't someone truly 'know God' and thus be regenerate/saved without knowing imputation (i.e., infants, retarded, thief on cross)? hahaha laz


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 14:55:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John 3) Those that truly are regenerate do accept the shed blood of Christ or His elect. 4) If one does not accept the shed blood of Christ, it shows that they are not regenerate. Tom
---
=============== Tom, Good answers! May I add that the same is also true for the imputed righteousness of Christ being placed to our account... fg


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: GRACE2Me
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 20:59:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'Tom, Good answers! May I add that the same is also true for the imputed righteousness of Christ being placed to our account...' Heb.9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Please show me where in Scripture, imputed righteousness is adresses in the same manner. The imputed righteousness doctrine could be considered 'meat' of the Word! Are you saying that person is not saved until he/she completely understands that the righteousness of Christ was placed on their account even though the same person believes they were justified by God because of Christ and the cross? Look forward to your response, GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: freegrace
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:58:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'Tom, Good answers! May I add that the same is also true for the imputed righteousness of Christ being placed to our account...' Heb.9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Please show me where in Scripture, imputed righteousness is adresses in the same manner. The imputed righteousness doctrine could be considered 'meat' of the Word! Are you saying that person is not saved until he/she completely understands that the righteousness of Christ was placed on their account even though the same person believes they were justified by God because of Christ and the cross? Look forward to your response, GRACE2Me
---
============ Greetings! The best verses (I think) are in Romans 4:4-8. In the sight of God, our faith is 'counted for righteousness' It is true that the blood of Christ saves us, but when we learn that the righteousness of Christ justifies us eternally and *keeps is saved* then the peace of God comes into our hearts AND minds. The blood of Jesus gives us the peace OF God, Imputed righteousness gives us Peace WITH God, both doctrines are taught for our full assurance (and comfort) of an eternal salvation! God bless you today with a full assurance - based on the righteousness, work, and blood of Christ alone!. freegrace


Subject: Re: Two more questions
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:20:50 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg Indeed the verses you gave are good. Unfortunately they prove what we have been saying all along. Notice in verse 5 it says 'But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' Notice the words 'but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,' Doesn't that show you that all one has to do is believe on Jesus? The result of that belief is imputed righteousness from God. It is not dependant on whether or not that person completely understands imputed righteousness. One is belief and the other is result, two different things. Tom


Subject: predestination, the truth
From: jsgirl
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 09:04:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
predestination is confused by many. calvinists believe that God has chosen his people who he wants to choose and thatno matter what others who are not chosen will go to hell. when the bible talks about predestination, its talking about the body of christ being predestined to go to heaven. you have a choice whether or not to become part of the body of christ (which is choosing salvation), after you have chosen to become part of the body then you are predestined to go to heaven, but you have the choice. and no, just because we have a choice whether or not to accept doesn't mean that we have more power than God, He gave us the power to choose, therefore it is not overpowering God. calvinists take the bible out of content, and don't actually take the Bible for what it says. man has a free will given by God to choose.


Subject: any proof?
From: Five Sola
To: jsgirl
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 19:39:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Jsgirl, I think Pilgrim and Anne addressed you post well enough so I don't see the need to add. The only thing I ask is if you could be so kind to give a scripture or two to try and support your view? I was once of that view so I know where you are coming from but I never could come up with any scriptural support (used properly that is). Five Sola


Subject: jsgirl, two questions--the truth? (n/t)
From: Rod
To: jsgirl
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 15:52:25 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: predestination, the truth
From: Rod
To: jsgirl
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:32:57 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
jsgirl, I commend to you the answers of Pilgrim and Anne. I also would ask that you be so kind as to answer the two questions I'm about to post for you and others in a new thread. The thread will be called just that, 'Two questions.' Thanks.


Subject: Re: predestination, the truth
From: freegrace
To: jsgirl
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:26:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
See the interesting studies called 'Free Grace vrs Free Will' at the above link. We are made willing in the day of God's power ..Psalm 110:3 No one will believe this great truth of our individual predestination in Christ before the foundation of the world until God first opens our spiritual eyes. freegrace Free Grace Vrs Free Will www.webbmt.org/Eng-bks.htm


Subject: Re: predestination, the truth
From: Pilgrim
To: jsgirl
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 10:10:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
jsgirl,

Are you trying to set us Calvinists straight in that we have 'taken the Bible out of context'? Of course Roman Catholicism teaches exactly what you are saying, in case you weren't aware of this. And 'Calvinism' came to its height once again, through the providential raising up of Martin Luther to oppose what you have stated you believe concerning predestination. Is Rome right and historic Protestant wrong on this issue then? You said, '. . . He [God] gave us the power to choose. . .' and this choice is '. . . to become part of the body'. But where in Scripture is it said that God has given all men the unrestricted 'power to choose'? (cf. Joh 1:12, 13; 5:40; 6:44, 65; Matt 11:25-27; 13:11; Mk 4:10-12; Rom 3:11; 8:7, 8; Eph 2:1-5; 4:17, 18; Jer 13:23; Gen 6:5; 8:21; Ps 14:1-3; Eccl 9:3). Secondly, the word itself 'PRE-destination' means 'to determine beforehand'. Therefore your understanding doesn't even meet the language the inspired Scriptures use, as you have said, 'after you have chosen to become part of the body then you are predestined to go to heaven.' But the Scriptures say that God 'predestination' took place in ETERNITY.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . .

And to whom was Paul addressing when he was inspired to write these words?

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

God's predestination is not 'temporal' but ETERNAL. If it were as you say, then how could one not conclude that which you deny, i.e., that '. . . therefore it is not overpowering God.' This would leave God impotent to do that which He desires and His 'plans' tentative at best. The Scriptures, God's self-revelation concerning Himself and His eternal salvation, do not picture God sitting in heaven wringing His 'hands' wondering who will choose to become part of the Body of Christ. He does not fret that someone whom He has loved with an everlasting love will in fact perish, having not made the 'right choice', and therefore He is forced to pray day and night in the 'hopes' that everyone, someone will be saved. I would refer you to the several articles available on this subject at: Predestination Index.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: predestination, the truth
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:05:25 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
The one entitled
God's Indisputable Sovereignty is particularly good, I thought. Beautifully arranged Scripture references! Thank you for the link, Pilgrim! Anne


Subject: Re: predestination, the truth
From: Anne
To: jsgirl
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 10:07:45 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
It's certainly understandable why you'd think that. It's the most pervasive POV, after all! I know I thought that for years and years. Riddle me this, however . . . . how can God be omnipotent and omniscient, knowing 'the end from the beginning,' if He resides in time as we do? And for your view of predestination to work, He must exist in time. It's the only way He can wait and see what choice someone makes. Truly, God's eternal sovereignty is the most definitive rationale for unconditional election, i.e. predestination. If anything at all can occur outside of, or beyond, His will, then He isn't as sovereign as all that. ;-> Ciao! Anne


Subject: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 05:00:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This girl has a wonderful testimony, I think. She speaks of 'remaining in the comfort zone'. This is just what I am refering to! Most Arminians, etc. are comfortable with their organized religion, and think all is well with their soul, when all is not well. The 'Christ' that they have received into their heart is 'another Jesus', and not the Sovereign LORD of The Bible. fg Good testimony members.tripod.com/~kruszer/election1.html


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:53:19 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg I agree with you in a sence, however your insinuating that all Arminians remain in their comfort zone, is simply not the case. Some like me, when I was an Arminian were and are open to the Spirits leading. I would dare say, that some Calvinists are not open to the Spirit's teaching. It is not an Arminian vrs. Calvinist problem, it is a heart problem, in which Calvinists are not exempt from. Tom


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg I agree with you in a sence, however your insinuating that all Arminians remain in their comfort zone, is simply not the case. Some like me, when I was an Arminian were and are open to the Spirits leading. I would dare say, that some Calvinists are not open to the Spirit's teaching. It is not an Arminian vrs. Calvinist problem, it is a heart problem, in which Calvinists are not exempt from. Tom
---
Tom,

Amen, Tom! One is not exempt from perdition because of a theological position held. Freegrace's sweeping condemnations against Arminians must include himself as well, and thus he is in a frightful position at this point in his life.

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:10:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg I agree with you in a sence, however your insinuating that all Arminians remain in their comfort zone, is simply not the case. Some like me, when I was an Arminian were and are open to the Spirits leading. I would dare say, that some Calvinists are not open to the Spirit's teaching. It is not an Arminian vrs. Calvinist problem, it is a heart problem, in which Calvinists are not exempt from. Tom
---
================ Yes, I agree, Tom, the self=righteous person has a heart problem - being a Calvinist or Arminian. It becomes even more noticed when the doctrine of an imputed righteousness is brought up and discussed. Regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 16:17:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - you keep saying that the majority of arminians reject imputed righteousness, yet you have failed to prove this point with a few modern examples from 'leading' (reputable) conservative arminian teachers/preachers/scholars. I agree that most run-of-the-mill arminians on the street know squat about theology, and soteriology in particular...but most would agree that imputation is biblical if carefully shown. I really believe this. What do you think they believe and how do they defend a non-imputation view...i.e., what do they substitute in it's place? Some (minority) believe that one can lose their salvation...which means that the imputation rubs off. ;-) laz


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:33:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - you keep saying that the majority of arminians reject imputed righteousness, yet you have failed to prove this point with a few modern examples from 'leading' (reputable) conservative arminian teachers/preachers/scholars. I agree that most run-of-the-mill arminians on the street know squat about theology, and soteriology in particular...but most would agree that imputation is biblical if carefully shown. I really believe this. What do you think they believe and how do they defend a non-imputation view...i.e., what do they substitute in it's place? Some (minority) believe that one can lose their salvation...which means that the imputation rubs off. ;-) laz
---
======== I would say the majority teach one can 'fall from grace' ..just as Wesley taught it. That is just my point! What happens to God's imputed righteousness when a chosen child of God 'perishes'..? It has to 'rub off' all right!...:-) fg


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 08:16:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

But that the majority of Arminians deny eternal security is simply untrue. HISTORIC Arminianism did in fact deny such, as can be seen from the documents submitted at the Synod of Dortrecht by the Remonstrants. But this point has been thrown out by the majority of modern Arminian/Semi-Pelagians. This is one of the dangers of making summary judgments based upon one's own experience. We are unable for the most part to know what is true on a world-wide scale. But even if we restrict our perceptions to our own country; in the United States and Canada, it remains true that the vast majority of contemporary professing Christians do NOT deny eternal security. They may surely be wrong in knowing the actual basis for this security, but then nonetheless affirm it.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 10:19:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

But that the majority of Arminians deny eternal security is simply untrue. HISTORIC Arminianism did in fact deny such, as can be seen from the documents submitted at the Synod of Dortrecht by the Remonstrants. But this point has been thrown out by the majority of modern Arminian/Semi-Pelagians. This is one of the dangers of making summary judgments based upon one's own experience. We are unable for the most part to know what is true on a world-wide scale. But even if we restrict our perceptions to our own country; in the United States and Canada, it remains true that the vast majority of contemporary professing Christians do NOT deny eternal security. They may surely be wrong in knowing the actual basis for this security, but then nonetheless affirm it.

In His Grace, Pilgrim
---
===================== OK, thanks. I was just going by what Wesley had taught and believed, and my 'holiness' denomination that I was raised in. When I think of all the altar calls that I have responded to, I know that the security of the believer was not being taught at all. I responded 'with my feet' only, but knew not the God of the Bible nor the sovereign Lord of the Scriptures that etenally saves the soul! regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 14:49:49 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
fg The Perseverance of the Saints was probably the hardest of TULIP for me to embrace. There are many scriptures that I had a hard time reconciling with scripture. For instance, there are many passages in scripture that use the word 'if', as in Revelation 22:18. It seemed to me (and I emphasize the word 'seemed') that our keeping saved depended on our doing what it said. But I didn't realize until very much study, to the point of depression, the context of these verses was not about losing ones salvation. This is one of the problems with being under false teaching, one may be a true believer, but without being under good Bible teaching, confusion happens in that believer's life. You said: When I think of all the altar calls that I have responded to, I know that the security of the believer was not being taught at all. I responded 'with my feet' only, but knew not the God of the Bible nor the sovereign Lord of the Scriptures that eternally saves the soul! When you said: 'but knew not the God of the Bible nor the sovereign Lord of the Scriptures that eternally saves the soul!' You revealed a lot about yourself, you are relating your own experience, not necessarily all Arminian's experience. Tom


Subject: Freegrace
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 23:56:51 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Freegrace Much has been written to you about the subject you have recently brought up. I don't have a lot more to say on the issue that hasn't been said already. However, in the hopes that you will see what others are saying. I offer an example of someone who doesn't even know what the word theology means. This lady is mentally handicapped and loves her Lord. If someone tried to tell her what imputed rightiousness is, she would not be able to comprehend what that person is talking about. But to see her simple love and faith in the Lord Jesus. One would have to question themself as to who is actually more spiritually handicapped, them or her? Although I would not want to be physically handicapped, I think sometimes our minds are clouded with the world around us, handicapping us more than that woman is. If you are consistant with what you have said so far. You would have to say, this woman is not yet regenerate. Am I correct? Tom


Subject: Re: Freegrace
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:19:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace Much has been written to you about the subject you have recently brought up. I don't have a lot more to say on the issue that hasn't been said already. However, in the hopes that you will see what others are saying. I offer an example of someone who doesn't even know what the word theology means. This lady is mentally handicapped and loves her Lord. If someone tried to tell her what imputed rightiousness is, she would not be able to comprehend what that person is talking about. But to see her simple love and faith in the Lord Jesus. One would have to question themself as to who is actually more spiritually handicapped, them or her? Although I would not want to be physically handicapped, I think sometimes our minds are clouded with the world around us, handicapping us more than that woman is. If you are consistant with what you have said so far. You would have to say, this woman is not yet regenerate. Am I correct? Tom
---
=================== Hi Tom, Yes, I realize that God has many such precious lambs who are regenerated by God's sovereign Spirit and are saved. Such a person as you have mentioned does not 'go about trying to establish their own righteousness', etc. Regeneration is another subject, really. My main concern is for those religious people who think they are saved, but really are deceived, and do not know they are deceived, sad to say...(be they Arminian, or whatever). ... Just about all you hear these days on radio and TV is the 'gospel' of the 'changed life'....and doing 'good works', while the righteousness of God that is received by faith alone is not even mentioned! Romans 10:10 ....says with the heart, man believes UNTO RIGHTOUSNESS. Another verse speaks of the Rightousness which is of FAITH, (not works). also See Romans 4:4-6. Regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Freegrace
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:55:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - you seem to be fixated on 'self righteous' people who may deny (or don't get) imputed righteousness. But self rightesnous (even religious) people don't have a theology problem, an intellectual impediment...they have a HEART PROBLEM. The pharisees had much of the core theology/teachings of their day correct...yet, they were filled with dead men's bones. Again, they had a heart problem at the root of it all, not a head problem. God judges the heart, not the mind for it is often still very worldly (YOURS and MINE!) - and while a 'new mind' is something we must strive to continually renew by the enabling power of His Spirit thru the Word...the heart of the believer is remade of flesh upon regeneration. no? So try not to pick on those who have less than perfect minds (i.e., theology)... but wrestle with those that have bad hearts (unregenerate). laz


Subject: Re: Freegrace
From: Just a question
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 06:22:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - you seem to be fixated on 'self righteous' people who may deny (or don't get) imputed righteousness. But self rightesnous (even religious) people don't have a theology problem, an intellectual impediment...they have a HEART PROBLEM. The pharisees had much of the core theology/teachings of their day correct...yet, they were filled with dead men's bones. Again, they had a heart problem at the root of it all, not a head problem. God judges the heart, not the mind for it is often still very worldly (YOURS and MINE!) - and while a 'new mind' is something we must strive to continually renew by the enabling power of His Spirit thru the Word...the heart of the believer is remade of flesh upon regeneration. no? So try not to pick on those who have less than perfect minds (i.e., theology)... but wrestle with those that have bad hearts (unregenerate). laz
---
or two :) What is the difference between 'mind', and 'heart'? How would you define these? Where in Scripture does it say they are different?


Subject: Re: Heart . and Mind..
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, The heart of a person is the emotions and will, ego, etc. The mind of a person is the intellect, memory, etc. Both are mentioned in the Bible - such as the words 'soul and spirit'. They are all related, I know that much. All those who are regenerated in the heart and life will sooner or later be thirsty for the Knowledge of God and His Rightousness. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His (imputed )Righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Just my 2 cents, not worth very much, I know..:-) fg


Subject: Re: Heart . and Mind..
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:44:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

You have again rendered the Scriptures wrongly and in addition inserted something which is not there to try and support your error. You quoted the Lord Jesus' words, 'But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.' (Matt 6:33) to mean that all men should seek God's 'imputed righteousness [unto justification]' but when in fact this portion of God's Word is addressed to BELIEVERS; those who have already been clothed with Christ's righteousness. Secondly, you inserted the word 'imputed' into the text (eisogesis) where it does not appear. And the context surely doesn't allow that it be there. The point being made by the LORD Christ, was the contrast of all that had gone before, as the conjunction 'But' clearly indicates. CHRISTIANS are not to overly concern themselves with the necessities of life as is the manner of the world, but rather they are to 'be filled with the Spirit' and to adorn themselves with a 'meek and humble heart.' THIS is the 'righteousness' which was Christ's and to that believers are to seek after. The passage has nothing to do with 'imputed righteousness'. And, again, we are NEVER told to seek 'imputed righteousness' but rather the PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith. In doing so, God will IMPUTE His righteousness to our account. We are not to seek 'imputation' but Christ! This is no less erroneous than the Arminian telling people to believe that 'Christ died for you!', rather than telling all to 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!' It's the same type of heresy! For it substitutes the 'work' of Christ for the PERSON of Christ. I am becoming more amazed at the lengths you will go to further your casuistry. You are treading on dangerous ground, brother. I urge you again to meditate on what you are ACTUALLY saying and repent of it.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Freegrace
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 05:27:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, I am surprised at some of your replies! You are always right on, it seems. Are you saying that we are not to earnestly contend for the faith? Do we not have the mind of Christ freely given to us? (in those that become saved)? Are we not given all things that pertain to life and godliness? Are you saying that doctrine is not really important, that those who just 'receive Jesus' will be saved anyway, even while under the false teachings of apostate churches? Think some more on this, brother. If you do not agree with me on this now, maybe someday later on, you will...(when you get to be my age..:-) ...That is just my point, the churches are full of *unregenerate* church members who need to be saved! They are not on some 'spiritual journey' that is sure to 'end up in heaven' ... Of course God gives His elect a new heart, but the mind is also renewed. Paul does not make excuses for his ignorant brethren in Romans 10:1-3, but prays for their salvation! We should do the same today, and pray for the salvation of ignorant church members who are still lost, and have never even heard of God's imputed righteousness, election, particular atonement, etc. freegrace


Subject: Answer this freegrace...
From: Eric
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 07:38:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Since you have a doctrinal position that is directly opposed to 99% of believers throughout history in regard to baptism, is it you who has been given the mind of Christ, and all good things pertaining to life and godliness, and everybody else hasn't been, or is it the other way around? In answer to your question posed to laz, yes! All who receive Christ will be saved. Every addition to that simple truth can only lead to despair. It is not receive Christ, and... in order to be saved. Why don't you spell out what the minimum requirements for a person to be truly saved are, what facts must one believe in order to be saved? God bless.


Subject: Re: Answer this freegrace...
From: freegrace
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:30:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric. I think you are not getting the message .. No 'facts' are to be believed before regeneration, but we do become active in conversion. The true gospel declares God's imputed rightousness is required for one's justification in the sight of God.. see Romans 4:4-8... Also may I add that my views about water baptism have nothing to do with the doctrine of imputed righteousness. It could be that those here who keep bringing this up even when it is not the current topic are somehow trusting in their water baptism to maintain their religion in the sight of men. Jesus said, Ye are they which *justify yourselves* in the sight of men, and seek not the honor that comes from God only..i.e. a right standing before God alone, by faith alone, without works, religious duties and ceremonies, etc.. fg


Subject: A Progressive Salvation?
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 18:46:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John H. wrote in his recent message the following: >>>! Thus, I will contend that anyone, Arminians included, can and do travel the road from apostate gospel to Truth, as God's Spirit illuminates their spirit.<<< This sounds to me like a 'progressive salvation' which is not at all Biblical. Those who have believed an apostate 'gospel' are deceived into thinking they are saved when they really are not....sad to say. See Galations 1:8-10. They are not on 'some spiritual journey' seeking truth! There are NONE that seek after God, NO NOT ONE. Arminianism is not the 'first step' of some theological '12 Step program'..etc. It is Satan's lie that will deceive multitudes into having a false assurance of salvation! THERE IS A WAY THAT SEEMETH RIGHT, but is not THE WAY...! freegrace


Subject: God's righteousness
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 16:29:55 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: I don't want to say that I'm not going to answer any of freegrace's posts after this, because he writes so many outrageous heresies and misquotes me so often I may have to, but, as it goes unread, uncomprehended, or unheeded, I will try to refrain. I do, however, want to address one thing. It is his central and core issue, the fundamental error freegrace makes, whether deliberately or not, I truly can't tell. I am really leaning toward believing his error being like that described in 2 Peter 3:5, something he is 'willingly ignorant of,' based on his determined inability to consider evidence which refutes his thinking. Here is a direct quote from freegrace in a post addressed to me specifically, in which he challenges me to examine Rom. 10:1-3, seemingly virtually the only verses in his Bible, according to the bulk of his posts lately. Freegrace writes this: 'My question for you or anyone here, is, are professing Christians - such as (for example, good members of the liberal United Methodist church denomination) saved - even when they never come to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their justification?' First of all, freegrace, as additional proof that you don't read what others post any more carefully than you do the Bible or other people's writings, let me say this. You wrote this just lately, 'Now that you have someone here who has been converted from Arminianism, suddenly this Calvinistic forum is 'Pro - Arminian'..!' Here we have additional and
definite proof that you don't read what is written, except to seize on it for you own purposes. NOW HEAR THIS: several of us here, including myself, are former Arminians. We have written that a number of times, both in the last few days and in the months past. Truthfully, one wonders how you could possibly have missed it? You aren't exclusive here by any means. As a former Arminian and a former member of a United Methodist Chruch, I can assure you that I was no less saved then than now. The fact that I was in deep and serious doctrinal error about the aspects of my salvation in no way diminished what God had done for me and in no way changes the fact that I was saved by grace. And yes, I know some other United Methodists about whose salvation I have no doubt, though I have grave doubts and reservations about the denomination. You keep harping on Rom. 10:1-3, pointing to the fact that the nation Israel somehow inexplicably equates to the present-day Arminians. In another post, you equate Arminians with such unbelievers as Mormons. You only mention Arminians as non-believers, never once acknowledging that there are actually, at this moment, any saved Arminians whatsoever. Hogwash! Okay, I'm going to look at Rom. 10:1-3 with you. First of all, if you read verse one, the topic is the nation of Israel. There is no mention of 'Arminians' in that verse. (Duh!) Paul is speaking of his fellow Israelites, ones who still seek to establish 'their own righteousness' by keeping the law of Israel. This is obvious to even the most casual reader of the several verses surrounding that passge and indicative of your penchant for lifting things out of context. I defy you to show me one Arminian denomination which, at the expense of denying the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus, is teaching keeping the whole law of Moses as the way of salvation. Your application of this verse is the very definition of ridiculous! Verse 2: (Still describing Israel) Paul says that these lost people who openly deny the Messiahship of Christ and thereby deny God's Word, (not Arminian characteristics) are just that, lost. They have a 'zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.' Now what can that mean? It means that they do not and cannot, being lost, accept the revealed Word of God with its promise of salvation, by grace through faith--they deny all of God's assertions and teachings about the Lord Jesus as His Son (not Arminian characteristics). Again, you're trying to compare two completely different groups. Verse 3: 'For they....' Who? Israel. 'For they, being ignorant [now don't miss this, freegrace] of God's righteousness....' Whose righteousness? Their own? The imputed righteousness of God to His own people? No, emphatically, NO! They, Israel, are ignorant of 'God's righteousness.' Why is that such a significant fact? Well, the important thing is that God is righteous and man is unrighteous. You, freegrace, keep saying that people need 'to trust God's imputed righteousness.' God never says that. Not once. God says that they need to realize that He is righteous and that they are lost in sin. That's a very important distinction and in no way the same thing. Christians are to honor and to place their trust in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, not anything else. That imputes to them righteousness, but they don't trust the imputation; they trust the One Who imputes. They may trust that they possess the imputation of righteousness, but they don't trust the process of imputation alone as you imply that they must. Without the beloved Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no righteousness. His Spirit indwells the person whom He saves and it is that which saves him: 'But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9) 'He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him' (John 6:56). And consider the words of the Apostle Paul, revealing the estate of Israel: 'But their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same [blinding] veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glroy, even as by the Spirit of the Lord' (2 Cor. 3:14-18). Freegrace, your emphasis is in the wrong place. You are glorying in your imputed righteousness, boasting in what you profess to possess, rather than boasting in God. You should be glorifying the righteousness of God and His Son, by Whom anyone saved, is saved by His grace. The special ministry of God's Holy Spirit is to glorify the Son of God. The person who has the Son will glorify Him, testifying of Him and His greatness, not sacrificing that honor of the Son of God to any other thing. One doesn't 'trust in his imputed righteousness for his justification,' as you express it. The true Christian trusts in the righteous Lord Jesus Christ to save him, resulting in justification. The trust is placed in God, not a 'thing.' God, revealed in His three Persons is the only Object of a Christian's faith.


Subject: Re: God's righteousness
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 06:58:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, Thanks for the commnents! Of course Romans 10:1-3 does not mention Arminians..:-), but I think you are in error if you limit these verses to refer only to Jews in Paul's time who were seeking a justification by the works of the law! These verses can also apply to many religious folk living today, I think. We are all 'Arminians by nature' (or religious by nature) - at first anyway, and seek a justification by our own efforts, and law keeping, etc. My point is, these people are not saved at all becuase they have never even heard of God's imputed righteousness, sad to say. fg


Subject: Upholding God's righteousness
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:34 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
freegrace, Scripture can be spiritualized to make it talk to anyone you want--people do it all the time. When Someone jwalks into a room of people and comes directly to me and addresses me by name, I don't think he's talking to the whole group. 'My hearts' desire and prayer
for Israelis....' He has been speaking of 'Israel' prior to this in the previous three verses and actually before that, though not primarily necessarily. In verse four, he speaks of Christ as 'the end of the law for righteousness.' the evidence is conclusive about whom he's speaking and that's what I've been saying to you about sound interpretative principles and your wresting of the Word of God. It isn't valid; it is expressly forbidden in the Word; and it dishonors the Lord.


Subject: Re: God's righteousness
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:28:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, if you think you were saved as an Arminian, on what basis did you receive any comfort and assurance of salvation? Your church membership? Attending services? Good works? The church dinners? The 'Christian' fellowship? All the church socials & parties? The many banquets? etc. etc. Thanks. Just wondering. The social gospel of Arminianism, etc. is not the same gospel that Paul and the apostles preached. They are in direct opposition to one another! see Galtions 1:8-9 fg


Subject: Re: God's righteousness
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:20:23 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
My comfort then, as it does now, whether deserved or not, came from my Lord and my God. I can never thank Him enough for rescuing me from sin.


Subject: Preach it (HIM) Brother! :-) nt
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:24:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: My reply to Five Solas...
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:48:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks! You are the only one here that agrees with me, it seems...:-) Your post read: <<<'all those who are not declared to be righteous by faith alone>


Subject: Re: My reply to Five Solas...
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 16:32:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - Hank Hanagraff of CRI believes in imputed righteousness ... he taught me thru that ministry...and all of the many guests he would have on the BAM broadcast believed that as well...it's Christianity 101 which MOST arminians believe (those that are taught in conservative churches that is). Show me ONE well known arminian (who is not a cultist) who denies imputed righteousness. JUST ONE! blessings, laz p.s. i'm sure there must be dozens of arminian lurkers who can chime in. HELLO! Any of you out there? YOu know who you are! Set FG straight, will ya?! .....and end this nonsense....


Subject: Re: My reply to Five Solas...
From: Just a thought
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 17:01:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - Hank Hanagraff of CRI believes in imputed righteousness ... he taught me thru that ministry...and all of the many guests he would have on the BAM broadcast believed that as well...it's Christianity 101 which MOST arminians believe (those that are taught in conservative churches that is). Show me ONE well known arminian (who is not a cultist) who denies imputed righteousness. JUST ONE! blessings, laz p.s. i'm sure there must be dozens of arminian lurkers who can chime in. HELLO! Any of you out there? YOu know who you are! Set FG straight, will ya?! .....and end this nonsense....
---
Just one? uhh...how about Finney? Just a thought


Subject: Re: To 'Non-thought'!!
From: Pilgrim
To: Just a thought
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:18:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I hate to pop your 'bubble', but Charles Grandison Finney was no Arminian! He was Pelagian at worst and Semi-Pelagian at best. Let's be fair shall we and call a 'Spade a spade'? :-) Pilgrim


Subject: Re: My reply to Five Solas...
From: freegrace
To: Just a thought
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 18:24:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yeah, Finney..! That's a good one! fg


Subject: Some are wired, and others are not.
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:29:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John H. said recently: >>>I will contend that anyone, Arminians included, can and do travel the road from apostate gospel to Truth, as God's Spirit illuminates their spirit. Which brings me to the next point. You said concerning those in false gospels: 'even when they never come to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their justification?'. Here I am lost again. Is this a requirement for salvation? Must every regenerated believer eventually come to an understanding of God's imputed righteousness, and if they don't are they 'unsaved'? I say no, at least not always. If it is God's plan to reveal such things to the one He regenerates, then sure they will believe EVENTUALLY. But there is a distance and time that must be traveled to get there. For some, though they be 'saved', they will never understand it, for they are not 'wired' in the manner to understand such seemingly deep theological questions. We are not all a foot, some are better suited as a hand--get my anatomical drift. So after regeneration, an Arminian can remain as such, though perhaps more confused and perplexed than before. <<<. are some of god>


Subject: Re: Some are wired, and others are not.
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:10:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

What seems to be going on with you to me is that you have read some sectarian's article somewhere that desires to cast a dark shadow on many who are Christ's sheep because of some distorted notion that he and others like him have some unique 'inside truth'. But just think about what you are saying here, whether it is from your own mind or from someone else's': 'God's elect will EVENTUALLY come to place their trust in God's imputed righteousness!' I would venture to say that 99% of all Christians throughout history would find this statement as abhorrent as I do. For it casts out GOD'S righteousness (the LORD Christ) and replaces HIM with one of His teachings. As Rod has wisely noted, this is DAMNABLE, and is no less an abomination that anything a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Moonie or Roman Catholic would teach that is contrary to the doctrine of salvation by GRACE through FAITH in CHRIST ALONE. This is God's way of salvation, which the Reformers, Puritans and all those who have been given to know, both in mind and heart of the doctrine of SOLA FIDE. God's elect will ALWAYS come to place their trust in the LORD JESUS CHRIST.... NOT in 'imputed righteousness'! Trusting in that truth, ANY truth does not and cannot save. It is CHRIST and CHRIST ALONE, who saves. If there are any doctrines which a person must come to know for salvation it is a 1)sound, biblical Christology; who was the LORD Christ? what did the LORD Christ do? 2) a sound, biblical Anthropology; where did man originate from? what relationship did he have with God originally? what happened to him? how does what he did affect ME? how do I stand before God?. From these two cardinal doctrines one is given to know all that is necessary to come to faith in Christ Jesus. Surely, the more a person knows about theology, Christology, soteriology, harmartiology; pneumatology, eschatology, etc. the better; either to lead him/her to salvation or to damnation. But at the end of the day, a sinner who has been predestinated from eternity to salvation will come to trust in the LORD JESUS CHRIST, NOT 'imputed righteousness'! I have little doubt that there have been multitudes of God's dear children, born of the Spirit, who have never learned of the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness' but who were clothed with white raiment; who went to the grave with the name of Jesus upon their lips and who now are singing praises to God for His unspeakable grace in sending the Lord Jesus Christ to die in their place. Dear brother, as the Christians at Ephesus, you have 'left your first love' and substituted something appurtenant which cannot save; nor can it be 'loved, cherished, adored, praised, worshipped, trusted, obeyed or embraced as a brother'! CHRIST JESUS is the 'all in all'! And it is in HIM that we are to put our trust, for HE is the 'mystery' of the ages that is now revealed and to whom all men must trust.

Col 1:26 'Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:'

God has said in many ways that which all men must hear: 'Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.' (Isa 45:22) And again, 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt 11:28-30). Never is it written 'Come unto the doctrine of 'Imputed Righteousness' and be ye saved. . .' etc. It is to the LORD Christ; God incarnate, the 'bright and morning star', the 'Lamb of God', the 'Great Shepherd of the Sheep', the 'LORD our Righteousness', the 'Rose of Sharon', the 'Son of God'. . . we must come and put our trust.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Well done!
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:42:24 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Dear brother Pilgrim, We've allowed ourselves to be distracted from the central purpose of glorying our Lord for too long. Thank you for this wonderful post.


Subject: The Righteousness of God Revealed
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:56:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This morning I was reading Romans 1:16-17. Where there is no righteousness of God revealed, then there can be no true saving faith produced. Where there is no true saving faith produced, then there is no salvation. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Laz made a good point about the dying thief on the cross being saved without any knowledge of imputed righteousness, etc. However, at that time, they did not have the complete canon of Scripture and the complete Pauline revelation either. Very true, he cried out to the Lord to have mercy, and we should do the same today if we are not saved. Today, true saving faith is the rule... a faith in all the promises of God to His chosen people. Believing any other gospel will not save a person eternally. A false gospel will 'make one religious' or make one 'feel better' for awhile, but it does not *eternally* save the soul. Those who 'draw back to perdition' and do not 'go on to perfection' just prove that they are still lost and in their sins.. Also see Romans 4:4-6...where the true gospel of God's grace always presents the imputed righteousness of God as a covering for lost, hell bound sinners. Without this covering, men and women are lost, be they open sinners or self-righteous persons. freegrace


Subject: Re: The Righteousness of God Revealed
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 13:14:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FG - I hope you are taking Rod's recent post below to heart and MIND. ;-) 'Saving faith' (a term you are using) is proven/shown (as Paul and James tell us) by the fruit of the Spirit (i.e., spiritual WORKS)...SO...if an Arminian shows rich and abiding fruit, adorning his confession well in clearly glorifying God, and recognizes his/her total unworthiness ...trusting alone in Christ's work (as I did when I was still 'arminian') ...then who are we to determine that they are still workers of Satan?
'He who is not against us is for us.' Recall that phrase? As for believing a false gospel and perishing ... don't many believe the true gospel and are still LOST? Does not Satan believe the gospel to be true? Believing, knowledge, doctrine, theology doth not save.... A true believer is not guaranteed freedom from sin (smoking, lusting, envy, etc).... anymore than he is guaranteed freedom from wrong thinking or bad theology. We all will die with unconfessed sin (and sinful tendecies) and erroneous ideas about the nature of God and the Faith. Any person truly trusting in Christ's atoning work alone for their salvation HAS BEEN BORN AGAIN by a perfect grace thru an imperfect faith. They WILL show forth the resulting ordained FRUIT and so they are to be received with gladness! Spirit-wrought FRUIT is the key ... NOT theology! laz


Subject: Re: The Righteousness of God Revealed
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:54:54 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
One thing about it, freegrace, you're perfectly consistent in misinterpreting Scripture. :>) It's very telling that you didn't actually quote Rom. 1:16-17,
what most consider to be the key to understanding the whole epistle. Here is what it actually says, 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For in it is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just [he who is justified] shall live by faith.' By not looking at the whole of the passage and seizing, for your own purposes, on one aspect of the glorious truths (note the plural, 'truths') contained in those verses, you have perverted the meaning of Scripture. God does reveal His righteousness, but you, conveniently for your cause, failed to note that it is 'revealed from faith to faith.' Now, you do mention 'true saving faith,' letting us all in on your 'secret' that Arminains have not such faith, but you don't really examine the fact that the possession of faith, not perfect theological knowledge, is the fact of salvation and the realization of the 'righteousness of God,' not perfect knowledge. God says, 'The just shall live by faith.' He says it four times in the Bible, in Habakkuk, here in Romans, in Galatians, and finally in Hebrews. The principle is stated, if not the exact words, in Gen. 3:20; 4:1; 7:1; 15:6; Ps. 51:17; Mark 9:23-24; John 4:29...well, I won't go on, you get the idea; it's mentioned in these places and in too many more to cite. The message is the same from the beginning of man's sin through to the end of the Bible: Salvation is dependent on God's grace to those whom He gifts with faith. In spite of that message, you fly in the face of God's revealed truth with 'a better idea.' You say that He changes His mind and His methods, saving people in different ways, at various times, as He 'progressively reveals' His truth. His truth is progressively revealed, but the revelation is an expansion on what has been laid before as foundational; it doesn't change. Salvation is always, throughout all Scripture, by grace and through faith. Yet you even go so far as to deny that and make it conditional on 'baptismal regeneration' in the Apostolic Age! To take the simple message of 'believe God's revealed promises and be saved' and to change it to suit your purposes is to pronounce the unthinkable and is to be condemned in the strongest terms. You are, in effect, rewriting God's Word, destroying His essential message. That practice is condemned in the revealed Word as damnable. I most earnestly pray that God will open your eyes to your error and enable you to renounce it.


Subject: Amost Children of God
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:50:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod seems to think that Arminians may be 'almost children of God' - and so we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and not doubt their salvation. This is a new concept for me. God has 'degrees of children' or grey areas? One is either saved or still lost, dead or alive. With God there is light and darkness, no middle ground here. One is either born again from God above, or still in their sins. Of course God can save Arminians as well as Mormans, etc. My point is, that if they never EVENTUALLY believe in God's imputed righteousness. they will be lost... Romans 10:1-3...!! Remember the verse, They shall ALL be taught of the Lord...! If they are God's elect, they will surely be saved, no matter what error they once believed. They will repent of their dead works of Arminianism, and serve the Living true God of the Bible! freegrace


Subject: Once again, a serious error, freegrace
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:12:14 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I don't think they're 'almost' anything. One is either saved or he is lost. The nautre of the two designations is that, obviously to the thinking person, there is no 'in-between!' Here is the problem stated in one of your posts below. In it you state your belief, which is revelatory of what you contend we're saying, when we are not: 'Only God can see the heart. It is not my place to say any here are unsaved, just because they think that Arminians can be saved. Of course God can save Arminians, just as well as anyone else!' Your belief is that
'Arminians can be saved,' but that they are not. Then, yourself imputing to us that belief that they aren't saved, you come up with this ridiculous assertion that we think they're 'almost saved.' Literally no one else on this board, whose posts I've read, denies that there are, right now, at this moment, Arminians who are Christians, that they possess salvation the same as the most perfectly versed Calvinist. Yet you maintain, in the face of overwhelming evidence that NOT ONE ARMINIAN IS SAVED! Your obstinate refusal to apply evidence, to look realistically at God's Word, to apply sound interpretative principles, and to quote the members of the board (particularly me) in an honest and correct manner--all these undermine your credibility and make your arguments a farce.


Subject: Re: Amost Children of God
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:53:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Freegrace - but aren't you dancing perilously close to the notion that the unpardonable sin also includes failure to understand 'imputed righteousness' or any other core doctrine? laz p.s. I bet your head is swimming thinking...
'When did everyone on the Highway suddenly become Arminian sympathizers?' hahaha I think Pilgrim's idea of the head and heart not always being in synch...and John's post are sufficiently clear and show that no one has 'changed' their mind about this matter nor compromised the Gospel of Grace.


Subject: Re: Amost Children of God
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 08:50:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Freegrace - but aren't you dancing perilously close to the notion that the unpardonable sin also includes failure to understand 'imputed righteousness' or any other core doctrine? laz p.s. I bet your head is swimming thinking...
'When did everyone on the Highway suddenly become Arminian sympathizers?' hahaha I think Pilgrim's idea of the head and heart not always being in synch...and John's post are sufficiently clear and show that no one has 'changed' their mind about this matter nor compromised the Gospel of Grace.
---
++++++++++++ Hi Laz... I thought that all of God's elect would be 'taught of the Lord' as promised, so there is no danger of God's chosen to commit an 'unpardonable sin'.. Paul prays for the salvation of his brethren in Romans 10:1-3 does he not? He does not make excuses for them, and say - Oh, well, they might learn about imputed righteousness at a later date or time, I won't worry about them!..etc. No, he prays for their salvation, so they must still be lost. fg


Subject: Re: Amost Children of God
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

The text says, 'And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. But it does NOT say, 'And all thy children shall be taught EVERYTHING of the LORD. . .'!! In fact, if you would search the Scriptures, you will see that this 'teaching' of God is mostly a reference to the conviction of the heart and a yearning and trusting in Christ for salvation. It is NOT referring to DOCTRINE!! (cf. Joh 6:45; Matt 11:25-29; 16:17; Joh 6:65; etc.). There are a few texts which might appear to teach that believers will come to know all things, but taken in context, they do not teach that all believers will be taught complete and/or perfect doctrine (cf. Joh 14:26; 1Cor 2:10; 1Joh 2:20, 27). Others speak of the Spirit of Christ teaching believers concerning sanctity of life (cf. Eph 4:21; Heb 8:10), loving the brethren (cf. 1Thess 4:9), etc. What all these texts show is that aside from the sinner 'learning' of Christ unto justification, the 'teaching' of the Spirit comes gradually and is never complete in this life. There is no mention whatsoever about the doctrine of 'Imputed Righteousness' in any of those passages, nor in the ones I haven't listed that could be included. A man who simply utters, 'Once I was blind but now I see!' (Joh 9:25) is not less destined for glory than a man who was filled with biblical knowledge, e.g., John Owen, Jonathan Edwards or John Gill. They ALL were taught of God and taught ALL that was decreed for them to know to do what was required of them for the glory of God and the furtherance of the Kingdom.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Defending the truth
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 15:20:01 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: It's interesting and ironic that, after spending so many years debating Arminians and refuting their doctrine, I (and others here) now find myself (ourselves) in the position of defending their Christianity against freegrace's misinterpretations. Freegrace is unable to differentiate between a true believer and one who is in error. To him, one who is an unbeliever and one who is a believer in docrtinal error are one and the same; each is lost, according to his pronouncements. If one accepts his assertions, he would have to conclude that Peter, who, along with Barnabas, showed signs of returning to Jewish tradition and laws, was lost, though an Apostle of the Lord Jesus! (Cp. Gal. 2:11-14). But that isn't the point of this post. The point is that there have been many Arminians here and elsewhere who have accused us who espouse sovereign grace as being unreasonable and unfair as far as they're concerned. It seems to me that the fact that literally NO ONE ELSE here has challenged the salvation of Arminians in this exchange proves that allegation false. The issue between the Arminians and the 'sovereign gracers' isn't over the fact of salvation, but the means and source of that salvation and how it is 'achieved' or realized. The fact that righteousness is 'imputed' demonstrates several things. First, it is outside the individual in its origin, being both the plan and action of God. That is important to remember because it means God decides who possesses it, and enables them that possession, not any man. Second, and tied directly to the first thought, is this: imputation is first by grace and then by faith. Justification is achieved because God gifts the person with faith
by His sovereign grace (Eph. 2:8-10). God's Spirit has Paul pen these telling words, '...being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (Rom. 3:24). The redemption is in the Lord Jesus Christ and through Him. It rests on what God does in causing faith in the Lord Jesus, not on whether the saved person is correct in all aspects of his doctine. If it were founded on being absolutely correct in doctrine, none of us would make it to glorification; we would all be lost! Though the Arminians have grossly overworked the misapplication of this verse, taking it out of context, it is necessarily true that 'whosoever believeth [in the only begotten Son of God] should not perish, but have everlasting life' (John 3:16). The question then becomes: What is the extent of the necessary 'belief?' We have discussed that here before, and I've seen it discussed before elsewhere. I've never seen it adequately resolved. Does the fact that we have a hard time pinpointing exactly where one is a Christian and another is a non-believer really bear on the question of 'imputed righteousness?' Obviously. But just as obviously, one who is truly a believer and 'never perishing' undeniably has imputed righteousness. To deny that to one who is judged by godly men to be a Christian is both ill-advised and short-sighted. People who are truly children of God tend to recognize their siblings, being able to see the fruit of the Spirit displayed. I suppose one reason I feel so strongly on this issue is that I have been accused by one Arminian board owner of being a non-Christian, all the while confessing my Lord Jesus and upholding the salvation of Arminians while simultaneously denouncing their doctrine. This got me banned from his board. I, believing, was denied the status of the Biblical pronouncement of 'whosoever believeth.' That seems to me to be the height of inconsistency and hypocrisy. Yet I still believe that Arminians can be and are saved. We bat about terms like 'easy believism' and 'lordship salvation,' etc.. We do this rightfully. We must examine what a true believer is and know how to recognize one. In all this, however, we must be careful to be certain not to deny salvation to one who is a true believer, whether he accepts sovereign grace or not. I don't espouse 'easy believism' and I do advocate that one must recognize that the Lord Jesus is just that, the sovereign Lord of all. But, possibly paradoxically, maybe inconsistently, I want to be very cautious about 'official requirements.' My extreme caution is based on such statements as this one by John the Apostle: 'Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God' (1 John 4:15). Now, please don't read into that verse and my quoting it that I believe every 'professor!' I also believe we will know them by their 'fruit' (Matt. 12:33). But one indwelt by the Spirit of God is God's child, not to be denied by myself or any other Christian. I am unconfortable 'defending' Arminians because I find Arminianism indefensible. But I find denouncing those who are almost assuredly 'sons of God' completely unjustifiable. I call on all Christians to examine their beliefs in this area and to stand for the truth of the revealed Word of God.


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 23:01:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, That is almost as funny as Anne's good joke about the Baptists! :-) Now that you have someone here who has been converted from Arminianism, suddenly this Calvinistic forum is 'Pro - Arminian'..! Let's forget about the Arminians for awhile, and give them some peace with their 'I hope I am saved' false religion. Let's think about the Isralites in Romans 10:1-3. if they were saved, then why Paul's prayer for their salvation? My question for you or anyone here, is, are professing Christians - such as (for example, good members of the liberal United Methodist church denomination) saved - even when they never come to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their justification? Again, I refer you to Romans 10:1-3. Still no answer on this. If I have misinterpreted anything, please correct me! You say I have misinterpreted things, but do not show me where I am wrong! Please show me the correct interpretation of Romans 10:1-3. That's only three verses, Rod. Thanks! freegrace


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:07:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, Sorry, but I must have got confused amongst the various levels of dialog going on here. You contend that Arminians are probably not saved because, why? I missed that part. Is it because they have a false doctrine of salvation? Then why do you call yourself 'freegrace', if salvation is not 'free' and by God's 'grace'. So they have a false doctrine of salvation, yet can God not save them: is there some prerequisite for salvation, or is it truly free? I say truly free! Thus, I will contend that anyone, Arminians included, can and do travel the road from apostate gospel to Truth, as God's Spirit illuminates their spirit. Which brings me to the next point. You said concerning those in false gospels: 'even when they never come to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their justification?'. Here I am lost again. Is this a requirement for salvation? Must every regenerated believer eventually come to an understanding of God's imputed righteousness, and if they don't are they 'unsaved'? I say no, at least not always. If it is God's plan to reveal such things to the one He regenerates, then sure they will believe EVENTUALLY. But there is a distance and time that must be traveled to get there. For some, though they be 'saved', they will never understand it, for they are not 'wired' in the manner to understand such seemingly deep theological questions. We are not all a foot, some are better suited as a hand--get my anatomical drift. So after regeneration an Arminian can remain as such, though perhaps more confused and perplexed than before. I know many who are Arminian in name, but are searching and willing to know truth, though not without some hesitation. I also know many who reject the truth and cling to their various Arminian doctrines. The different spirit's yield different results upon confrontation with truth. That is how we can get some glimpse of the inner-workings of men, by their outward reaction--disdain. But again, as was mentioned, outward disdain may not reflect the inward confusion that is going on. We don't know if the angry Arminian may indeed have been regenerated earlier and is inwardly changing his mind, though outwardly antagonistic. Time would tell. Bottom line: all Arminians are not unregenerate. Some are searching due to the regeneration that God has done. Some are searching on the inside but outwardly in opposition to truth. Some, if not most, are hostile to the gospel of Christ and truly manifest hate for God, that finds its roots in a dead spirit, and remain that way until they die. It isn't just Arminians, it isn't any one group... it is the nature of fallen man living apart from God. Though the unregenerate assemble themselves into defined groups, denominations, and faiths... their beliefs are all self-centered, despite the many names bestowed upon their ideas. It is the occasional one that breaks away from the herd and questions what he is told (the seeker) that God has prepared beforehand. He might be an Arminianist, or a Catholic, or a JW, or a Mormon, or an Atheist…. doesn’t matter which title he owns or what false beliefs still fill his head. The key is: does he seek truth and will he not rest until he finds it. That is the evidence of regeneration, not some particular theological doctrine no matter how true it might be. My two cents, john


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:40:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, if God elect, they will embrace imputed righteousness EVENTUALLY. But my point is that since ALL of God's children are taught of the Lord, those who never DO embrace God's imputed righteousmess are still lost. Romans 10:3. Of course, any Arminian or Calvinist can be saved if they eventually (good word) in God's own time see the Light of their own sinfulness and embrace God's imputed righteousness! freegrace


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:43:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, if God elect, they will embrace imputed righteousness EVENTUALLY. But my point is that since ALL of God's children are taught of the Lord, those who never DO embrace God's imputed righteousmess are still lost. Romans 10:3. Of course, any Arminian or Calvinist can be saved if they eventually (good word) in God's own time see the Light of their own sinfulness and embrace God's imputed righteousness! freegrace
---
**************
...like the thief on the Cross? ...did he understand 'imputed righteousness'? I suspect many OT elect never got 'imputed righteousness' square in their minds...probably never entered their mind...it therefore CAN'T be a CONDITION of salvation now! YES? Freegrace...you know me and many others to be VERY emphatic about defending 'truth' as we understand free and sovereign grace to represent...but might you be insisting on something not wholly warranted by the clear testimony of Scripture? Does theology save? You been hanging around Vern? haha blessings, laz laz


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:42:15 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Talk about going directly to the heart of the matter! That's precisely what you did, laz, with this question: '
Does theology save?' That's it exactly! freegrace seemingly refuses to understand that having a 'perfect theology' isn't God's requirement for salvation; that does, from all I can read from him, seems to be freegrace's 'salvation yardstick,' the standard by which he (not the Lord God) judges men and their eternal destination regarding the Lord. It's interesting that in the post directly answering you on this, freegrace denies your assertion, but then comes back and immediately affirms that it truly is his standard of judgment. Here is the statement affirming the inconsistency: 'My point is, if professing Christians NEVER see [note particularly that word 'see,' meaning, apparently, 'realize'] the light on their election, imputed righteousness, and particular atonement, and the security of thebeliever, are they really one of Christ's sheep at all?' Of course, freegrace's answer is, 'No.' My answer is, 'No,' also, but not in agreement with freegrace. All true Christians, those whom God makes believers and followers of His Son in faith, will have their doctrine purified in His presence. I'm certain that there isn't one among us, even of the most learned and godly, who don't possess doctrinal error. The key is to grow in God's truth, being open to His revealed Word and allowing His Holy Spirit to lead us, 'guiding us into all truth,' as the Bible promises. I believe that many Arminian Christians are really 'closet Calvinists,' at least in part of their theology. And they are that without even realizing it. I offer as proof these two paragraphs from Eric's post below concering the 'inconsistencies' of Arminians: 'At the end of the service, they had an altar call, but all throughout the the invitation, the speaker made reference to the fact that nobody is here by accident, and that God has directed people to be sitting in this church today to hear this message, etc. One person responded to the call and came forward. After much prayer and talking with the gentleman, the pastor in his closing remarks mentioned that the individual was not even planning on attending church that morning, but was just driving around, and he said that he had a strong feeling come over him that he should be in that church.' This is a direct, but unwitting admission by the speaker of the sovereignty of God and deals with Providence and Predestination/Election. The fact that such a person can't see the inconsistencies in his views doesn't affect his salvation one whit. One of my favorite Bible teachers once said that Charles Wesley's hymns were approved by his brother, John, before being finalized, that John Wesley often forced Charles to revise his work until it was 'suitable.' If that is so, hymns by this man are very revealing of the 'theology' of both these Arminians. I offer these verses from one Wesley hymn for your consideration about whether they had, as freegrace puts it, renounced self-righteousness or not: And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Savior's blood! Died he for me? who caused his pain! For me? who him to death pursued? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me? He left his Father's throne above (so free, so infinite his grace!), emptied himself of all but love, and bled for Adam's helpless race. 'Tis mercy all, immense and free, for O my God, it found out me! 'Tis mercy all, immense and free, for O my God, it found out me! Long my imprisoned sprit lay, fast bound in sin and nature's night; thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; my chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee. My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee. No condemnation now I dread; Jesus, and all in him, is mine; alive in him, my living Head, and clothed in righteousness divine, bold I approach th' eternal throne, and claim the crown, through Christ my own. Bold I approach th' eternal throne, and claim the crown, through Christ my own. I don't affirm that the hymn is perfect theologically, but much of it is very good indeed! I leave it up to the board, can we deny the salvation of those who make such a confession and live lives based on that belief and confession?


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:03:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No, theology alone does not save, but the true gospel embraces and contains sound doctrine. Under normal conditions, as Kuyper writes, true saving faith is exercized by all of God's elect... My point is, if professing Christians NEVER see the light on their election, imputed righteousness, and particular atonement, and the security of the believer, are they really one of Christ's sheep at all? They are not just 'almost' God's children, but are still lost, sad to say, and are in need of salvation. That's my point. Of course, A head knowledge does not save. God must change a person's heart, so that they will thirst for the living God, and not just be content with doing religious exercises, duties, etc. It is a very difficul thing to renounce one's own righteousness! We shall through much tribulation enter the kingdom of God.. At least that is what I have experienced, laz. And I will be 65 this year, so have had many trials because of leaving my 'home Arminian denomination'.. but I would not change a thing....Romans 8:28. fg


Subject: Re: Defending the TRUTH
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:34:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

You have denied Whitefield's own conviction concerning the salvation of the Arminian, yet you quoted him as being reliable and a true regenerate man of God. Now you quote from Kuyper, with the intent of bolstering your error. But Abraham Kuyper stands against you also for this is what Kuyper said on this subject:

'Religion on earth finds its highest expression in the act of prayer. But Calvinism in the Christian Church is simply that tendency which makes a man assume the same attitude toward God in his profession and life which he exhibits in prayer. There is no Christian, be he Lutheran or Baptist, Methodist or Greek, whose prayer is not thoroughly Calvinistic; no child of God, to whatever Church organization he may be- long, but in his prayer he gives glory to God above and renders thanks to his Father in heaven for all the grace working in him, and acknowledges that the eternal love of God alone has, in the face of his resistance, drawn him out of darkness into light. On his knees before God everyone that has been saved will recognize the sole efficiency of the Holy Spirit in every good work performed, and will acknowledge that without the atoning grace of Him who is rich in mercies, he would not exist for a moment, but would sink away in guilt and sin. In a word, whoever truly prays ascribes nothing to his own will or power except the sin that condemns him before God, and knows of nothing that could endure the judgment of God except it be wrought in him by divine love. But whilst all other tendencies in the Church preserve this attitude as long as the prayer lasts, to lose themselves in radically different conceptions as soon as the Amen has been pronounced, the Calvinist adheres to the truth of his prayer, in his confession, in his theology, in his life, and the Amen that has closed his petition re-echoes in the depth of his consciousness and throughout the whole of his existence.'

It is obvious that Kuyper is saying exactly what I and the others on this forum have been trying to get across to you; there can be and often is an inconsistency between what a person TRULY BELIEVES and what he formally holds to be true theologically. Salvation is a matter of the heart; that which has been renewed by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. It may be that an Arminian may NEVER come to understand the doctrine of 'Imputed Righteousness', yet his heart is surely embracing the Lord Christ, 'Our Righteousness'. And thus this individual is no less a child of God than one who is able to articulate biblical doctrine more than any man.

Without getting into further discussion concerning the place of doctrine, which I believe is a necessary element in the life of a Christian, it must be firmly maintained that a sinner is justified by GRACE through FAITH in the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and not when or if he/she comprehends a doctrine; even Imputed Righteousness, with the mind. It is CHRIST who saves!!

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: AMEN! n/t
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:51:53 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 00:06:08 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
freegrace, I answered you on this before. Please read the whole post: Sunday May 14, 2000 @ 13:08:13 below.


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: Joel H
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 20:24:27 (PDT)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu

Message:
FreeGrace, I agree with you that those who truly believe in Arminianism with their whole heart and mind without contradiction and fully understand the implications of such theology are not saved. However, if you mean that all those who understand themselves as 'Arminians' are not saved, then I do not agree. Many of them possess contradictions between their heart and mind, and we can not know if they are saved or not. You can be saved and have an imperfect knowledge of doctrine. Thank God! Perhaps when you spoke of Arminians in the terms of salvation, you only meant those who fully grasp this doctrine and firmly believe unwaveringly with no contradiction that they are the 'authors' of their faith which makes them 'worthy' of salvation. Joel H


Subject: Re: Defending the truth
From: stan
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 21:17:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Before one can fully know and believe in the system and not be saved they must go through a time of not knowing for sure of their doctrine and being unsure in their mind/heart and be saved - for surely you must go through a period of 'mperfect knowledge of doctrine' to get to fully persuaded. INTERESTING! Seems the logical end of what you say - just observing. stan


Subject: Example of Arminian inconsistency
From: Eric
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 07:29:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I attended an Arminian church on yesterday morning. Now this church, I believe is led by godly men and the members of the church seem to be strong men and women of God. However, the church is unashamedly Arminian in all their doctrines. The congregation sang many songs that mentioned God was sovereign over all things, and the like. At the end of the service, they had an altar call, but all throughout the the invitation, the speaker made reference to the fact that nobody is here by accident, and that God has directed people to be sitting in this church today to hear this message, etc. One person responded to the call and came forward. After much prayer and talking with the gentleman, the pastor in his closing remarks mentioned that the individual was not even planning on attending church that morning, but was just driving around, and he said that he had a strong feeling come over him that he should be in that church. Well, if the man was truly converted yesterday, it should be plain to all that it was God who caused that man to be saved, and orchestrated the events of the day to cause that man to hear the gospel message and 'accept' Christ. God Bless.


Subject: Imputed Righteousness
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 05:07:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This week I learned that 'all Arminians believe in an imputed righteousness'. If this is true, then how can they also teach that a saved person can fall from grace and become lost? Evidently their imputed righteousness is not eternal, and does not work very well for them! The doctrine of our imputed righteousness is the foundation for our Christian assurance, is it not? At least that is the way I see it now. The reason that none of the chosen sheep of Christ shall never perish is because they have a covering - the Robe of God's righteousness placed to their account! God's righteousness is eternal, and so our salvation is eternal! This is good news for any Arminian who thinks that they can 'fall from grace'... It was sure good news for me many years ago! freegrace


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 20:16:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, You said 'This week I learned that 'all Arminians believe in an imputed righteousness'. ' You never answered Pilgrim, asking where you learned this but I assume you say this from a post I made to you in another thread. Is this right? if so you misqoute me, I never said 'all' I just said Arminians. You assume too much. You also said something strange: 'then how can they [arminians] also teach that a saved person can fall from grace and become lost?' First, I am aware that the Arminian 5pts has 'fall from grace' as one of its points but I will be honest with you. I have NEVER met an Arminian who believed in 'fall from grace' (nor did I when I was Arminian) everyone I have met believes in 'once saved, always saved'. So if that is your justification that if someone believes in 'loss of salvation' then you cannot say Arminian. Second,(Pilgrim has voiced this before) just because someone voices that they believe in loss of salvation does not negate their salvation. I am dealing with a CHRISTIAN brother who thinks he can lose his salvation. I am trying to show him is inconsistencies of his view. He is just cofused intellectually on the topic. I think you are continually confusing Regeneration with Sanctification. When we are saved we have all kinds of false teachings and beliefs (unless you think you were doctrinally error free at salvation). Our sanctification begins our 'journey' and the Spirits work in us to make us more like Christ. Just look at the early church fathers, they were full of some errors that they began to work out as heretics challenged their views, etc. Five Sola ps. you still refuse to answer my question: do you consider all of us unsaved because we believe Arminians can be saved?


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: freegrace
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:19:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Only God can see the heart. It is not my place to say any here are unsaved, just because they think that Arminians can be saved. Of course God can save Arminians, just as well as anyone else! My point is, if they NEVER embrace God's imputed righteousness for their eternal justification, they will be lost. The self righteous person is just as lost as the down and out sinner. Both kinds of persons are in need of God's so great eternal salvation! Now is the DAY OF SALVATION - (not damnation). freegrace


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:11:14 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
freegrace We both know that God saves, not anything an individual does (work) to gain salvation, correct? You keep mentioning Romans 10:1-3, you seem to be wielding it in a way that proves the opposite of what you espouse. Since God is the one that does the work of salvation, these verses are not talking about a work we must do, but rather it is an indication of a truly regenerate person. Ie. they have submitted themselves unto the rightiousnes of God. This doesn't mean that they have full knowledge of the theology behind it. Just that they have put their faith in Christ and not going about to establish their own rightiousness. I believe some Arminians have indeed done that. They do submitt to God and do change their understanding of theology as light is shed on the issue. Nobody does that who is not truly regenerate, because the natural man does not submitt to the things of the Spirit. Romans 8:5 Tom


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 07:07:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
OK, I think I see the problem... If you are saying that only those trusting FULLY in Christ's work and THAT alone for salvation are saved...then AMEN! This 'salvation' is soley based on CHrist's righteousness imputed to us. No argument from me. But since when does someone unable to understand (or yet to be taught) this concept (retarded person, new/unlearned believer, infant, etc) preclude them from FREE GRACE...from going from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of Light? Or is your beef with those UNWILLING to embrace the biblical doctrine of imputed righteousness? laz


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:12:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Please see message above on the righteousness of God Revealed. All of God's people are 'made willing in the day of God's power'...Psalm 110:3. I think the problem is ignorance. It the clergy would preach this truth, the self-righteous religious folk may quite giving and\or coming to church, etc. But this ignorance God does not 'wink at'. In that day, we will be judged according to Paul's gospel of sovereign free grace alone. As Kuyper says, normal faith is the rule for all of God's elect. fg


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:39:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - but aren't you on the slippery slope whereby you make knowledge of doctrine the OBJECT of faith...instead of Christ? laz


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:08:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg - but aren't you on the slippery slope whereby you make knowledge of doctrine the OBJECT of faith...instead of Christ? laz
---
============ No, I did not say that theology is the 'object of our faith', of course Christ Himself is the object of faith; What I am saying is, 'The Lord God will *perfect* that which concerneth me'. Trusting in the gospel that Arminianism teaches saves no one. God says, Come out of her, my people. Those who are called by God will leave heretical churches with their false idol shepherds! My sheep HEAR MY VOICE (regeneration), and they follow Me, our conversion and sanctification. fg


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 09:06:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

You wrote: 'This week I learned that 'all Arminians believe in an imputed righteousness'.' Pray tell, just WHERE did you learn that? I know for a fact that it wasn't here on this forum. Nor was this error found in anything on The Highway web site. Further if you have indeed, learned this, then why are you disputing it? Again, this type of statement reveals the sad truth that you have not LEARNED sound theology and/or how it all fits together biblically. The antithesis of the doctrine of 'Imputed Righteousness' is NOT 'free-will' but rather the doctrine of 'Infused Righteousness' whereby a person is actually changed in soul to possess God's perfect righteousness in whole or in part unto JUSTIFICATION! There is no contradiction between someone holding to the Arminian doctrine of 'free-will' and 'Imputed Righteousness'. The REAL issue with the doctrine of 'free-will' is the CAUSE of apprehending the 'Imputed Righteousness' of the Lord Christ. This CAUSE then becomes an ADDITION to God's free justification and thus it nullifies its efficacy and substitutes faith as a 'work'. But again, you wantonly ignore the doctrine of Total Depravity as true Calvinism holds to be true from the Scriptures. And this is certainly an irony on your part, as you are consigning all Arminians to hell, for you contend that they deny 'Imputed Righteousness' which Calvinists hold dear. What an anomaly this is. For a TRUE Calvinist knows of all men, the horrid affects which the Fall has on their hearts, minds and souls, especially his own heart. I could easily use your 'logic' and thus conclude that you hold to Weslyian 'Perfectionism' for if a person is truly saved by the 'Imputed Righteousness' of Christ, then his/her doctrine will then be without error. For, in your condemnation of all those who don't embrace Calvinism, you will not allow any dysfunction between the 'mind' and the 'heart'. And this 'condemnation' of yours has NEVER been shared by HISTORIC CALVINISM. Doubtless there are little sectarian and narrow-minded groups which do hold this to be true, but they are not representative of Calvinism nor of the view of John Calvin himself. What is more revealing is that for one who insists that the only true 'baptism' given to the Church is 'Spirit Baptism', your summary condemnation of PEOPLE who hold to errant doctrine is not of the Spirit. For the Spirit has taught us that the LORD God ALONE knows the hearts of men.

1Cor 4:5 'Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.' Rom 2:1 'Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.' Jas 4:12 'There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?' Matt 7:1 'Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'

Again, I exhort you to examine your own heart to see if what you are saying comes from the Spirit of God or from the flesh. Have you fallen into the odious habit of some wherein they 'follow cunningly devised fables', which will if allowed to continue will show you as being 'not one of us'? Here, you might again distort what I am saying and assert that I am holding to the possibility of one 'falling from grace,' even knowing that I hold no such view. But rather what I am saying is that there are those who say they belong to Christ and even outwardly manifest 'fruit' to the eye, but inwardly are ravenous wolves; never having tasted of the goodness of God in Christ Jesus. Take heed therefore unto THYSELF brother... lest you fall!!

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:52:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim... If the self-righteous person (who is a Calvinist or Arminian) is not lost, then why did Paul pray THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED in Romans 10:1...? Jesus came not to call the (self) righteous, but sinners to repentance... Why do you seem to be angry with me? Is it because i now have full assurance of salvation based on God's imputed righteousness, and not my own 'filthy rags?' It seems that way, brother. freegrace


Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 15:57:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace,

You have yet misjudged another item again; that being the tenure in which I have replied to you. There is no anger whatsoever in my heart toward you. But rather there is much concern and sadness. There is no disagreement on your general statement concerning the 'self-righteous'. The disagreement lies in your making judgments concerning the condition of a person's heart who holds to a different theological view than you do, which you are not given the ability nor the right. Apparently you didn't even take the time to let what I wrote to you penetrate your mind, never mind your heart. It appears to have gone 'in one ear and out the other.' What you are doing is exactly what you have rightly said was condemning... i.e., being 'self-righteous.' For only one who is guilty of 'self-righteousness' would take it upon himself/herself to boast of being able to discern the thoughts and intents of another man's heart. Therefore what you are doing is 'self-condemning'!

Prov 11:2 ¶ 'When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.' Prov 16:18 ¶'Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.'

Brother, I think I have said all I can to you in this matter. I leave you to the Spirit of God to bring conviction and enlightenment to your soul.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: For your possible interest.
From: stan
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, May 12, 2000 at 09:39:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just scanned in ON THE BAN: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS By Menno Simons; 1550. If there is interest I can post it or can email if that would be better. (about six pages)


Subject: Deacons and Elders
From: GRACE2Me
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 14:28:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What do you see as the difference in the functions of Deacons and Elders? What about the 'seven' that were chosen in Acts 6 that included Philip and Stephen? Do you think they were Deacons? And what do you believe is intended in the term 'waiting on tables?' Having read through the posts in the the thread below, I am not convinced Scripturally that Elders are seperate from Pastors ans that there must be more than one Pastor and/or Elder. Especially if it is in a very small church like mine :-). Is Paul talking about a different office when he tells Titus about the qualifications of an Elder in 1:5-10? And is Elder and Bishop used interchangeably in that passage (5-7)? Thanks for taking the time to respond. In Christ, GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Deacons and Elders
From: Rod
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 15:09:59 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
GTM, Let me turn the tables on you and ask you a question or two, or twenty. :>) First, what do you make of Acts 6, verses3-4? Keep in mind that the Apostles were just that, 'apostles,' not 'elders.' The function of an Apostle was different from an elder today. Is a precedent set or implied? Remember also that the Apostle Paul instructed Titus (1:5) to appoint 'elders' [not apostles] in every city.' Deacons aren't mentioned in that connection, apparently being selected in some other manner. Second, have you considered the root meaning of the word 'deacon?' How does it differ from "elder?" Next, Peter refers to himself as an 'elder' in 1 Peter 5:1 (an apparent indication that the gifts of an apostle were passing away and diminishing, as other Scripture indicates), but there is no indication in Scripture I can see to indicate that he 'pastored a church,' as people today like to say. How does this bear on your thinking? Finally, have you read the Murray article Pilgrim put up? It's very interesting on the matter of elders.


Subject: Cain and Abel both very religious
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 08:07:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Both Cain and Abel were both very religious and sincere, but one was saved, and the other was not. Cain and Abel www.heritagebooks.org/rad-20.html


Subject: Re: Cain and Abel both very religious
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 14:02:26 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
fg, Yes, I recognize your point to me, but you've, once again, missed something very important. Cain's problem, at its root, and in its essence, wasn't 'religion,' or improper worship, but the fact that he didn't believe God's revelation to man. He didn't believe God. He had a 'better way' of salvation, works, not faith. What is the 'way of Cain' of which Jude speaks (verse 11)? It is the rejection of redemption by blood,
as God had revealed it to him. Arminian Christians do not reject the redemptive value of the blood of Jesus Christ and His substitutionary work on their behalf. Why do you insist on missing that point? Have you considered Matt. 12:25-30 and Luke 9:49-50 in conjunction with one another and in this regard of who really is "for" the Lord Jesus?


Subject: Re: Cain and Abel both very religious
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, May 12, 2000 at 11:58:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg, Yes, I recognize your point to me, but you've, once again, missed something very important. Cain's problem, at its root, and in its essence, wasn't 'religion,' or improper worship, but the fact that he didn't believe God's revelation to man. He didn't believe God. He had a 'better way' of salvation, works, not faith. What is the 'way of Cain' of which Jude speaks (verse 11)? It is the rejection of redemption by blood, as God had revealed it to him. Arminian Christians do not reject the redemptive value of the blood of Jesus Christ and His substitutionary work on their behalf. Why do you insist on missing that point? Have you considered Matt. 12:25-30 and Luke 9:49-50 in conjunction with one another and in this regard of who really is "for" the Lord Jesus?
---
=============== The way of Cain was 'for reward'... Reminds me of many Arminians I have known over the years, who (I have heard say) 'If anybody makes it, surely I will' My question is, do Arminians (who believe in a universal atonement) really have the blood atonement of Christ applied to them individually? I say no. They may speak of grace, and speak much of salvation and redemption, but as long as they think they must 'do something' (in order to be saved) they make salvation a matter of works, or enduring unto the end, etc. And so place themselves among those who try to come to God just as Cain did. Ye shall know them by their 'fruit'. Cain thought that surely he would be accepted, but was not, because he made it a matter of 'reward', and not a gift by grace alone. freegrace


Subject: Proper understanding of the "way of Cain"
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 12, 2000 at 16:53:55 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
freegrace, I haven't even read but one sentience of your post yet, but in reading your first statement, I discovered a prime example of your erroneous interpretative principles! You simply are not allowed to play fast and loose with the Word of God. That is a serious and most dangerous error. Here is your statement and then God's statement. You wrote: 'The way of Cain was 'for reward'...' You lifted that phrase
out of context, misapplying it. Here is what the Holy Spirit of God actually said, 'Woe unto them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward...' (Jude 11). Now its obvious to anyone reading that and comparing the histories of Cain and Balaam that Cain didn't do what he did in sinning for 'reward' (definition and synonyms: 'pay for service,' 'hire,' 'wages'). Balaam, however, was clearly enticed to disobey the direct command of God not to prophesy against God's people by the lure of financial reward; the Bible states that in Numbers 22, 23, 24, where Balaam keeps dealing with Balak in defiance of God's order and suggesting payment (as in 22:18; cp. Is. 29:13) for his services. Cain, on the other hand, disbelieved God and was moved largely by jealousy of his brother. There is no mention of finances in Cain's story--certainly no one 'hired' him to do what he did. Simply applying the usual interpretative principle that a phrase or clause modifies the noun nearest it and having considered the actual events as recorded by Scripture would have eliminated an error in this case. It's the type of error which reflects tellingly on your ability to interpret Scripture. It also casts doubt on your whole doctrine, which, in many ways, is similarly flawed, being based on equally unsound interpretative principles. The depth of your error and prejudice is demonstrated by this statement: 'My question is, do Arminians (who believe in a universal atonement) really have the blood atonement of Christ applied to them individually? I say no.' What a fantastic statement! Hear the words of the Arminian John Wesley: 'In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.' Compare that statement with this one made earlier in his same 'Journal of John Wesley': "He said [speaking to Wesley], 'My brother, I must first ask you one or two questions. Have you the witness within yourself? Does the Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?' I was surprised, and knew not what to answer. He observed it and asked, 'Do you know Jesus Christ?' I paused and said, 'I know He is Saviour of the world' [emphasis added]. 'True,' replied he, 'but do you know he has saved you?' I answered, 'I hope He has died to save me.' He only added, 'Do you know yourself?' I said, 'I do.' But I fear they were vain words." We see in these two instances the unsaved man who doesn't understand the nature of God's salvation (he mentions his fear and dread of his being lost repeatedly in this time period in other places) and then we have contrasted with that the man who, when presented with the sound interpretation of the salvation of God by one who believes in His sovereignty (Luther), comes, by God's grace, to the personal realization of God's salvation of himself by the blood sacrifice of 'Christ alone,' not as the 'Saviour of the world,' as the unsaved man put it, but had 'saved me [individually by His blood] from the law of sin and death.' It seems to me that no reasonalbe, thinking person could deny that was Wesley's meaning. This 'Arminian of the Arminians' was a saved man who, on the testimony of a 'Calvinist,' (to use the term very loosely) came to realize the gift of saving faith in Jesus Christ given by God: 'assurance was given me,' testifies Wesley. Whatever his later grievous doctrinal errors, this man was, by his own compelling testimony, given the revelation of God which saved people receive. I think it is extremely dangerous to deny that fact in the face of overwhelming evidence. Here is another of your errors: 'Cain thought that surely he would be accepted, but was not, because he made it a matter of 'reward', and not a gift by grace alone.' Though you've shown no inclination previously to look at the Bible's clear presentation, I'll say this again. Cain was 'a tiller of the ground' (Gen. 4:2), while his brother was a shepherd. Cain brought his own produce to God, not willing to go to his brother and get an animal worthy of sacrifice BY BLOOD to present to God, due to jealousy of his brother and disbelief in the direct revelation of God. The context of these surrounding verses make it mandatory to believe that God had revealed to both brothers what was required (blood sacrifice), but that Cain was unwilling to make the proper sacrifice. Blood is the only accpetable means of salvation--Cain knew that, surely, having been told of the redemption of God for his parents after their sin by the clothing them by God with animal skins (requiring blood), rather than the 'fruit of the ground' (verse 3), leaves, to cover their sin. He failed to heed the direct Word and the example of God--That is the 'way of Cain.' I repeat my previous words to you and urge you to consider God's truth as revealed to you in Scripture, 'Cain's problem, at its root, and in its essence, wasn't 'religion,' or improper worship, but the fact that he didn't believe God's revelation to man.' No man, disbelieving God, will ever be saved, Arminian or not. You, freegrace, are very far from realizing the truth of the matter, focusing on the wrong things, giving a false interpretation of the Bible, as well as erring in your information about what Arminians, such as Wesley, believe.


Subject: Re: Proper understanding of the
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, May 13, 2000 at 11:42:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, Sorry, maybe I did not make myself very clear - (I said nothing about money). Coming to God 'for reward' has nothing to do with money, but is a heart attitude - such as 'If I do such and such, then God will surely 'reward' me with the blessing (of salvation). Cain (in type) was the first 'Arminian' who thought God would 'reward him' with the blessing (for all of his labors, etc). It is approaching unto God in a humanistic way, by man's own free will - if you please... etc. 'They take delight in approaching unto God', but really are not called by God's sovereign grace at all. If they were , they would submit to the doctrines of election, imputed righteousness, particular redemption, etc. I say Cain's problem was his false 'religion' and 'form of worship' which as you correctly say was a result of not taking heed to God's revelation and God's own Words. regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Proper understanding
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 13, 2000 at 20:30:34 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
freegrace, Sadly, your position has become very clear. Your various posts of the last several days have confirmed what your previous ones of the last several weeks have caused us deep suspicion about. You are either simply unfortunately misled, or deliberately and willfully ignorant of God's Word, twisting it for your own purposes. Your doctrinal postion is full of fundamental and serious error and your teachings are unworthy of serious consideration, except to warn others about the errors therein. Frankly, you seem to have ignored, apparently deliberately, evidence that Wesley was saved and that an outstanding contemporary Calvinist (Whitefield) knew it; that the clear teaching of the Word is that Cain was motivated by jealousy, 'the way of Cain,' and the separate 'error of Balaam' was that he was motivated by "reward," a clear reference to money, as the word used refers directly to "wages." Their
common error was simple, direct disobedience of the truth of God, not accepting His direct revelation to them. Additionally, you have 'blown off' Pilgrim's well-worded and reasoned replies to you, which are full of truth and sound advice, offered in a brotherly manner. You have similarly rejected others' objections to your errors. In short, you have demonstrated not only an 'unteachability,' but an unworthiness of serious consideration by your false teaching and doctrinal stance, because of unsound application of verses taken out of context and your using your own definitions of what words mean, not bothering to consider the Spirit's use of them. This is both sad and disconcerting to me, as I had viewed some of your posts in the past as very thought provoking and promising in their handling of Scripture. If you have recently fallen under the 'spell' of some false teaching and cult-like group, may the Lord see fit to deliver you.


Subject: Re: Proper understanding
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 04:43:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, since you are always right, and I am always 'wrong' you tell me what Romans 10:3 means. OK? Thanks. So far, you or Pilgrim have not even mentioned this verse that I have refered to several times now. According to your views, millions of Catholics, etc. who never submit to God's imputed righteousness by faith alone for their eternal justification in the sight of God 'will be saved anyway'. If this is true, then why bother to defend the faith once delivered unto the saints? Why have this HIGHWAY website? If Arminians who believe in 'free will' are 'saved anyway' (in their self-righteous ways) then let's forget about defending Calvinism! The Arminianism that I was raised in (from a child) never even mentioned imputed righteousness! If they believed it years ago, they sure don't now! freegrace


Subject: Re: Proper understanding
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 13:08:13 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
freegrace, Your snide remark about my 'always being right' ignores the fact that you very conveniently ignore every proof that remarks and assertions you have made are clearly wrong. You have been shown irrefutably wrong about Wesley and Whitefield--not a word of acceptance of that proof or any acknowledgement whatsoever. You have been given other evidences of misinterpretations and you refuse to accept them, even though the orthodox (small 'o') Christian Church has never accepted your aberant view of baptism, for example. In short, you don't want proof or real, sound interpretation, you want 'converts' to your spurious views. Incidentally, in a post to Eric below, you 'chastize' Wesley for a view of 'baptismal regeneration,' while you yourself believe that it was true,
but only in passing, that God does change His mind! That's very inconsistent to my way of thinking. And basically dishonest to boot. When you want truthful discussion, I will be glad to have a discussion with you about the entire thrust of the Book of Romans or any other subject. Until then, there is no fruit in it. There is no profit when one wants to 'win' a debate. The only profit is when all seek to honor God in the search for the actual and absolute truth of His Word.


Subject: Re: Cain and Abel both very religious
From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 10:43:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, and interestingly that the judgement passed onto Cain was not due to not worshiping but worshipping in a non-prescribed way. He was sincere but wanted to do things in his own way and not the ways commanded by God. That alone should give us pause. Five Sola


Subject: Bottom Line
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 06, 2000 at 14:52:39 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
I was wondering what answer you would give someone who said the following to you? Bottom Line You know Tom; I don’t want to trivialize the issue of whole argument of who is correct, Calvinists or Arminians. To be sure only one can be correct; however, the bottom line to me is not how one comes to believe. It is whether or not they truly believe in the first place. John 3:16 is an example of this, Arminian’s believe one thing about this verse, and Calvinists another. But one thing both can agree on is belief on the Son is the issue. To be sure we should study to find out all that this verse says in the context of the chapter and the rest of scripture. But in the end the only ones who are saved are the ones who believe. Now if you want to discuss what it is to believe on the Son, I will discuss that, because that is the most important aspect. I think easy believism is the enemy of the Church and should be fought tenaciously. But I find that when we as believers can not agree to disagree on certain issues, it becomes very divisive and Satan is well pleased. I believe you are a brother in the Lord, because based on the things we have discussed you truly do believe in Jesus. I also believe that there are certain facets or groups within both Calvinism and Arminian that are very heretical. But I for the most part believe that most Calvinists and Arminians are within the pail of orthodoxy.


Subject: Re: Bottom Line
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, May 10, 2000 at 14:53:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Tom...I think that the situation is more serious than what you seem to think. If Balaam (Jude 11) just made an 'error' and proved that he was an apostate, it does not look too good for the Arminian 'brothers' who believe in 'another Jesus' and 'another gospel' and have 'another spirit'. Those who are deceived by Arminianism (as I once was) all 'love the Lord' and think that they are 'correct, and on their way to heaven', etc. There is a way that 'seemeth right' the Bible says, but in due time , they will be seen to have taught the 'error of Arminianism'. The bottom line will be the Lord's own words 'Depart from Me, I never knew you'. freegrace


Subject: Re: Bottom Line
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 10, 2000 at 15:15:55 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
fg, So we're back to the 'Arminians aren't and can't possibly be saved' debate, huh? Well, as a former Arminian, I'm here to dispute your stance. Just because I had an incomplete understanding of the LORD Jesus in whom I had faith, I nevertheless had saving faith
as 'the gift of God' though it was not recognized as such at the time. To compare Balaam's error to the Arminian's who has faith in the Lord Jesus is a very serious misinterpretation, indeed.


Subject: Re: Bottom Line
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, May 10, 2000 at 19:28:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg, So we're back to the 'Arminians aren't and can't possibly be saved' debate, huh? Well, as a former Arminian, I'm here to dispute your stance. Just because I had an incomplete understanding of the LORD Jesus in whom I had faith, I nevertheless had saving faith
as 'the gift of God' though it was not recognized as such at the time. To compare Balaam's error to the Arminian's who has faith in the Lord Jesus is a very serious misinterpretation, indeed.
---
=========================== I am sure there are some Arminians that are God's elect, and they will come to see the light in due time by the leadings of the Spirit of Truth... However, The Arminians that I knew and worked with did not even believe in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ for justification; are you saying that these will be saved anyway, even without a certain knowledge of God's imputed Righteousness? Are they not just 'going about to establish their own righteousness'..? see Romans 10:3...? This is more than 'just an error' in doctrine, I think... Are you saying that God will 'overlook' this ignorance at the day of judgement? I think not; however, you are free to think what you will. freegrace


Subject: Re: Bottom Line
From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 17:15:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, I have not read all of this thread and do hope I am not repeating a point brought up by someone else.... You are confusing regeneration with sanctification in a sense. An Arminian may be saved if he truly believes the truths of scripture in his heart (a distinction Pilgrim brought up I believe) and yet still voice an incorrect view in his 'mind'. God sanctifies us from our errors and misunderstandings. Just because God has brought you further along in that understanding and opened you eyes to His truth much sooner then an Arminian brother that gives you no right for pride to codemn the Arminian to Hell. Of course we do need to confront our mistaken brothers in love and attempt to be a tool of God to bring them to a better understanding of Him. This forum is a perfect example. If we as christians were to throw out arminians as unsaved then the monitors here would remove everone at first glimpse of heresy, but from what I have witnessed they continue to try and teach and show the 'brothers' the truth in scripture and if after a time they prove themselves not to be brothers or just plain unteachable then they seem to be removed. I think we must remember that not all are at the same point in their sanctification. I personally would have voiced many of the same views in Reformed theology as I do now if a Refomer were to force me to search my answers out, but on the surface I voiced arminian banter. :-) (I was saved at the time by the way), but praise God a brother didn't give up on me and was used as a vessel to open my eyes to a clearer truth. Five Sola ps. Do you also hold to the common view of those who voice what you have voiced? That is they say that any Calvinist who thinks an Arminian can be saved is himself unsaved? are you willing to throw out most of us as unsaved? I surely hope you don't take on that heresy. In


Subject: Re: Bottom Line
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, May 10, 2000 at 21:41:31 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
fg, I am free to think what I will, and I think,
based on the Scriptures, that one who trusts the Lord Jesus as his Savior is just that, saved by God, not by his own righteousness. Every real Christian understands the substitutionary nature of the cross, having been convicted of sin and recognizing his need for a Savior, that is a given. No one can do that and trust his own righteousness. The fact that a Christian may be in serious error doesn't negate what God does on his behalf. The people you are speaking of are not 'Arminians,' the term itself assuming one is a believer in Christ. If one is an unbeliever, he is a lost person, not an 'Arminian.' These are the people you are describing, the lost. That they may profess to be Christians doesn't change that. Though I hate his doctrine generally, I'm not prepared to put John Wesley in that 'lost' catagory and neither, for example, was the great George Whitefield. You wrote, 'Are you saying that God will 'overlook' this ignorance at the day of judgement?' Please don't put ridiculous words in my mouth. I'm certain there are Baptists or Presbyterians, for example, who are lost, but when we discuss them, we generally assume their salvation. (I might point out that most Baptists I've met are only '2 or 3 pointers,' not buying all the aspects of sovereign grace.) Sadly, many Presbyterians have gone the same way.


Subject: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 07:44:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The way I understand it, Whitefield preached sound doctrine, Wesley did not. Surely you are not saying that it makes no difference, as long as they 'preach Jesus' etc. - both of theses men are 'saved anyway'...? See Whitefield's Letter to Wesley at the link posted. freegrace Letter from Whitefield to Wesley www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/WHITE1.HTM


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:32:54 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
fg, You wrote, 'Surely you are not saying that it makes no difference, as long as they 'preach Jesus' etc. - both of theses men are 'saved anyway'...?' I've asked you previously not to put words into my mouth,
please don't ignore that request again. It's not only rude, it's unfair to do so, and unworthy of your intelligence. For the record, I do regard Wesley as a saved man, based on reading several of his writings, though, as I say, I disagree with and hate much of his doctrine. I am equally certain that Whitefield regarded him as a brother also, doing all he could to avoid a split among the brothers over the issue of sovereign grace. I have read that letter before, but I question whether you've ever read it carefully. In addition to Pilgrim's remarks below, I would point out several things to you: 1) There is nothing in the letter to indicte that Wesley isn't saved, and every evidence to the contrary; 2) When Paul rebuked Peter for unsound doctrine and error of practice, he wrote this about the incident--''But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed' (Gal. 2:11). He was 'to be blamed,' because he was mistaken, not deserving to be damned to hell!; 3) Though Whitefield is greatly saddened by the turn Wesley has taken, he refers to him in friendship and addresses him as 'dear sir,' and 'dear Mr. Wesley,' far beyond the convention of the day for such things; 4) the conclusion of the letter is most revealing. In it Whitefield refers to Wesley as a 'brother' in the faith of Jesus Christ, 'Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ, George Whitefield.' And be certain, freegrace, to read the paragraph preceding that closing, which nails the issue down: 'There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done.' Whitefiled expects to see Wesley in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ with other saved men and women, doing what the saved will do, casting their crowns at His beloved feet! Hardly the position of a lost man, I'd say. You are wrong on this and some other issues, freegrace. I say that without fear of contradiction, based on the evidence presented and the Scriptures. I urge you to do two things. First, carefully re-examine your principles of interpretation and stop seizing on bits and pieces of Scripture and other writings. Second, re-read Pilgrim's post below, particularly the last paragraph. That's some very good advice and well-meant, as is this.


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 11:33:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

It is sad to read your view concerning the salvation of men. No one here, to the best of my knowledge, at least the 'regulars' would deny that doctrine is important, and even essential. And it is also true that if one TRULY BELIEVES heresy, depending upon what that heresy is, they cannot be saved. But as I have laboured on many occasions on this forum to explain, due to the sin nature which we have ALL inherited, there is inconsistency between what one TRULY BELIEVES in his/her heart and what is held to be true in the head. I would be the first to agree that IF one who holds to Semi-Pelagianism (what is currently considered Arminianism) or historic Arminianism theologically TRULY BELIEVES that it was 'their faith' that is the proximate CAUSE of their salvation, then they are lost. It is also true that it is often most difficult to discern what a person TRULY BELIEVES, and thus it is prudent to not try and judge a person's heart in these matters, but to leave that to the Living God, Who will judge all men by His own standard which is Christ Jesus and His righteousness. What we should do, however, is to warn every man of the dangers entailed in holding to these unbiblical views. Lastly, in regards to Whitefield's letter to John Wesley: Whitefield wrote what he did with a broken heart and great humility to a man whom he greatly admired for his godliness. The issue was 'Election' and NOT Wesley's salvation, for it was Whitefield's solemn belief that John Wesley was a true child of God and was in fact, 'in Christ'. For when he was asked if he thought he would see John Wesley in heaven, his reply was something to the affect, 'No, I don't think I will. Because Mr. Wesley will be so far to the front in the throng of worshippers that I won't be able to see him.' Apparently and obviously, George Whitefield had a totally different conviction concerning John Wesley's salvation than you do. I would exhort you to consider from whence you came and why you are no longer there.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim and All
Date Posted: Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:47:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Of course we all can hope that Wesley was a saved man, but from what he taught and believed, we have good reason to doubt his salvation. You defend Calvinism and the doctrines of grace so well, and then turn abound and seem to say that 'people will be saved anyway' - even if they embrace a false gospel that does not even teach God's election and imputed Righteousness (for their eternal justification). Sorry, I just don't understand that. In Romans chapter ten, Paul gave no assurance or hope to those who (as Arminians and many others do today) only had a 'zeal for God', but were just going about to esatblish their own righteousness, and were really ignorant of God's imputed Righteousness. Those of us who are truly converted from Arminianism have come to realize that we were really *lost Arminians*...going about to 'esatablish own own righteousness in the sight of God' - just as those Paul speak about in Romans 10:3. Now i count all my 'good works' as DEAD works, and only dung in the sight of God. The doctrine of God's imputed righteousness is the most important part of the true Gospel of sovereign Grace! Those are are found to be without this covering are still lost, sad to say. freegrace


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, May 12, 2000 at 13:08:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

I perceive that you are greatly confused concerning salvation. You have many of the right 'words and terms' but apparently you haven't learned how they all fit together biblically. I will give you a clear example from a statement you made above: 'even if they embrace a false gospel that does not even teach God's election and imputed Righteousness (for their eternal justification).' The doctrine of 'Election' Sola Gratia is an entirely different matter than 'imputed righteousness' Sola Fide. Do I need remind you that historic Arminianism, that which was presented at Dortrecht by the 'Remonstrants' firmly held to an Imputed Righteousness? You are making sweeping and false accusations against many who are innocent of what you claim they believe. This smacks of a prideful sectarianism; that which I love to coin as the 'Elijah Syndrome'. For it was in WEAKNESS of faith that Elijah cried unto God, 'I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left;' (IKgs 19:10). Do you seriously believe that heaven and thereafter the New Heaven and New Earth will be solely populated with nothing but 'Calvinists'? You arrogantly protest that George Whitefield, who knew John and Charles Wesley personally for many years was mistaken about Wesley's salvation. This would be rather comical if it weren't so pitiful, for there is little doubt that George Whitefield was far more of a Calvinist and understood the doctrines of grace far beyond what you comprehend of the grace of God. Mr. Whitefield, albeit reluctantly, contended for the doctrines of grace, in particular the doctrine of election, publicly with John Wesley for several years. Yet, he was convinced with an unwavering assurance that his opponent in the matter of the doctrine of election was not only saved, but a man who excelled in godliness and passion for sinners in excess of his own. Brother, you have allowed a spirit of pride and judgmentalism to be your guide. And no doubt much of this has come from those web sites which you have referred us to and of which I have taken the time to visit. What I saw there was shameful in part, for they are 'gods' unto themselves and speak as if all others are of the Devil. Praise God that His GRACE is sufficient to save the vilest of sinner, even those who never come to understand and/or embrace the blessed doctrine of Divine and Sovereign Election. May I strongly suggest you cease this 'straining of gnats' for you may indeed end up choking on a camel. Abraham Kuyper was another outspoken defender of what we call Calvinism but this is what he said about 'Arminians' and their ultimate salvation:

'Religion on earth finds its highest expression in the act of prayer. But Calvinism in the Christian Church is simply that tendency which makes a man assume the same attitude toward God in his profession and life which he exhibits in prayer. There is no Christian, be he Lutheran or Baptist, Methodist or Greek, whose prayer is not thoroughly Calvinistic; no child of God, to whatever Church organization he may be- long, but in his prayer he gives glory to God above and renders thanks to his Father in heaven for all the grace working in him, and acknowledges that the eternal love of God alone has, in the face of his resistance, drawn him out of darkness into light. On his knees before God everyone that has been saved will recognize the sole efficiency of the Holy Spirit in every good work performed, and will acknowledge that without the atoning grace of Him who is rich in mercies, he would not exist for a moment, but would sink away in guilt and sin. In a word, whoever truly prays ascribes nothing to his own will or power except the sin that condemns him before God, and knows of nothing that could endure the judgment of God except it be wrought in him by divine love. But whilst all other tendencies in the Church preserve this attitude as long as the prayer lasts, to lose themselves in radically different conceptions as soon as the Amen has been pronounced, the Calvinist adheres to the truth of his prayer, in his confession, in his theology, in his life, and the Amen that has closed his petition re-echoes in the depth of his consciousness and throughout the whole of his existence.'

I have little doubt that there are a goodly number of men, women and children, although their numbers be small when compared to the whole, who profess with their mouths what we call 'Arminianism' but believe in sovereign grace and in the efficacious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ no less than you or I do in their 'heart of hearts'. If you are not careful brother, it will be these very same brethren, who you have consigned to everlasting hell who will be YOUR judge at the last day. God's ways are NOT your ways! 'Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.'(1Cor 10:12).

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, May 13, 2000 at 14:54:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim...Now *you* speak as an Arminian! Are you saying that I might 'fall from grace' and become lost? It sounds that way, brother. Also, I have consigned no one to hell. The Scriptures alone can do that, and the Word of Christ will judge all men in that day. All I have said is, that all those who do not have God's imputed righteousness (for their eternal justification in the sight of God) are lost. Those who go about to establish their own righteousness Romans 10:3 are lost - that is what Paul says, so I must agree with the apostle Paul! freegrace


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 13, 2000 at 16:33:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

You would accuse me of 'speaking like an Arminian'? You would deduce from what I said that one can 'fall from grace'? No wonder you write such things; evidently not having the ability to comprehend even the simplest things. But to your unwarranted judgment concerning Mr. Wesley, can you show me where the godly John Wesley ever denied 'Imputed Righteousness'? And if not, he shall be indeed as his brother George Whitefield was confident to say, 'In the front of the throng of heaven, singing praises to God.'

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: wrong!
From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, May 13, 2000 at 16:17:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace, Don't mix up your words! If all you said was 'All I have said is, that all those who do not have God's imputed righteousness (for their eternal justification in the sight of God) are lost', then everyone on this site would have agreed with you. What you have tried to twist the Bible into saying is that only those who understand justification as imputed are saved... well actually you haven't said that (because Arminians believe in imputed righteousness). You have tried to say that those who do not understand the Reformed view of salvation are unsaved. If you are going to try and defend your extreme view at least be consistent in it. Five Sola Ps. I ask again... do you also hold (as most in your 'camp') that even those who are Reformed and think Arminians can be saved are themselves unsaved???


Subject: Re: wrong!
From: freegrace
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 04:34:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry....I never used the word 'understand'. All those (Calvinist or Arminian) who are not declared to be righteous by faith alone (by God's imputed righteousness) will be lost. In other words, self-righteous 'Christians' are really lost and not saved at all. I did not say that there is 'no hope for them', or that they never could become saved. It is that simple, because the Bible declares that to be so. Romans 10:3. freegrace


Subject: I agree!
From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 19:53:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'All those who are not declared to be righteous by faith alone (by God's imputed righteousness) will be lost. In other words, self-righteous 'Christians' are really lost and not saved at all. ' Amen! I agree as I imagine all on this forum do with that statement. Where lies your error is in saying Arminians do not believe in imputed righteousness. In that you have the burden to show the proof that Arminians do not hold to that (in their hearts). Five Sola


Subject: Re: I agree!
From: laz
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 13:30:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I always believed in imputed righteousness, even as an unweary Arminian...in fact, the only difference between me NOW and THEN is that I now understand that the imputation was purely the result of
unconditional grace (thru faith of course)...and not applied synergistically. The end result is the same....proper (but never perfect) faith in Christ's atoning work can be made efficacious by the Spirit despite a flawed soteriology. laz


Subject: Re: I agree!
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:35:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I always believed in imputed righteousness, even as an unweary Arminian...in fact, the only difference between me NOW and THEN is that I now understand that the imputation was purely the result of
unconditional grace (thru faith of course)...and not applied synergistically. The end result is the same....proper (but never perfect) faith in Christ's atoning work can be made efficacious by the Spirit despite a flawed soteriology. laz
---
================= Laz, the reason you got it right is, you are 'wired'... and others are not.... :-) fg


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: Eric
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 09:02:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
So you are saying that one must have perfect doctrine to be saved? If not, where do you draw the line? And, can you give a scripture reference to support that line. If I am not mistaken, you neglect a sacrament instituted by the Lord Christ himself, and yet nobody here questions your salvation because of it. I have yet to meet an Arminian who denys salvation by grace alone. They may be illogical in their views, but that does not mean that they aren't saved. And, I have met some Calvinists who profess sound doctrine, but show no fruits of salvation in their lives. God bless.


Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley
From: freegrace
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:53:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Eric, Yes you are correct; we shall know them by their fruit. However, I would think that my view of the one baptism of the Spirit as Paul taught it in Ephesians is more scriptural (and safe) than Wesley's view of baptismal regeneration! Best regards, freegrace


Subject: This joke seems applicable.....
From: Anne
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 11:24:33 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Y'all have probably heard it, but I just read it today: I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, 'Stop! Don't do it!' He said, 'Why shouldn't I?' I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for.' He said, 'Like what?' I said, 'Well, are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said, ' Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?' He said, 'Baptist Church of God!' I said, 'Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist Church of God!' I said, 'Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic!', and I pushed him off.


Subject: Re: This joke seems applicable.....
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:34:25 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hey, Anne, I hadn't heard that one before! And I didn't know there were so many sorts of 'Baptists.'


Subject: The hole point is...
From: Bro. Charles
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:48:36 (PDT)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com

Message:
What I think this 'joke' (I don't think it is funny) is trying to say is that a lot of us nit-pick on every little detail. Saying that anyone who disagrees with our beliefs is wrong and are going to burn in hell (although that is an extreme case). We don't say that out right but some times that message is conveyed. Especially when it comes between the Calvinist and the Armenian views.


Subject: Re: The hole point is...
From: laz
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:49:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
BC - if you ask me, Arm
Inians have never had it better on this 'reformed' website than in the last week! Us Calvinists have been cutting them all kinds of slack! LOL! laz


Subject: Kinds of Baptist.....
From: Five Sola
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 17:52:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Well growing up Baptist I can tell you that's only the start. :-) I can name at least a dozen or so, but as a Presbyterian I can't say too much since we are sometimes called 'Split P's' :-) Five Sola


Subject: Re: Kinds of Baptist.....
From: Rod
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 19:45:53 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Five Sola, I'd heard of some different Baptists, but I know a few Primitives by cyber-space, and I was a Southern for a time and have been around the SBC types all my life, they dominating the little community where I grew up and some others where I have lived. As for the 'Split P's,' :>) it seems that any group which has been around for a time has split, often more than once. That's probably just a sad fact of our depravity, unfortunately. Christians seem to have a harder time getting along than 'regular people.' :>) I suppose we forget our goal: '...but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love' (Eph. 4:15-16). The example of Whitefield and Wesley we've been batting around demonstrates the problem.


Subject: Re: This joke seems applicable.....
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:37:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I hadn't heard that one before! And I didn't know there were so many sorts of 'Baptists.' Glad it wasn't redundant for at least one person here! And I didn't know that about Baptists, either. So much I don't know! Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: This joke seems applicable.....
From: freegrace
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 05:20:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Anne, the joke was really out of place here, I think. May I ask you, what righteousness are you trusting in for *your* justification, your own, or God's imputed righteousness? It has to be one or the other, the two can not be mixed together... God bless you. freegrace


Subject: Re: Bottom Line
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 06:17:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...'
many Presbyterians'? Being one...I believe MOST presbyterians have gone astray.... blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Bottom Line
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, May 06, 2000 at 17:27:01 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, The first thing I'd say is 'Quit trying to weasel out of the debate!' :>) Not really. While it is true that 'whosoever believeth shall not persish but have everlasting life' and that is the starting point of the Christian life, it is not true that we can simply stop there and not mature in the faith. Both Arminians and Calvinists can't possibly be right. Both may be wrong in a few, or many, respects, but I don't think the sovereign grace position is wrong at all, being the only one to let God be God. If God gave us His entire revealed Word, with the 'hard' passages included, did He not intend to have us understand it? Particularly since He has given us His Holy Spirit with the accompanying promise that He will guide us into 'all truth?' (see John 16:7-8; 13-15). Now if that is true, and it is
NO LESS a believable promise than John 3:16 , or any other promise of the Lord God, on what basis do we say that we can't agree, if we are believers each, and each indwelt by the Spirit of God, that Spirit of promise? Isn't it incumbent on us to constantly seek the truth on all issues pertaining to God and His Word and to seek to understand all He has given us? The only reason that we can't agree is that someone, or everyone involved in a theological disagreement, isn't truly open to the leadership of God's Spirit and the revelation of the Word. Frankly, there is no excuse not to seek resolution in this matter, no reason that the truth can't be found by spiritual people. Do I expect all Christians to agree? No. Do I expect all Christians to diligently seek the Spirit of God's guidance into 'all truth?' Yes, I do. I don't think the Arminians have done that realistically. I say that as a former Arminain, whom God has delivered from that error.


Subject: Dr. Boice.
From: Five Sola
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, May 06, 2000 at 12:10:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear friends, This is NOT theological in manner but I ask the monitor's here be patient with me in this post. I have just been informed (through a cancellation of his speaking scheduled at my church) that Dr. James Montegomery Boice has been diagnosed with liver cancer. We need to lift this hero of the faith up in prayer. His ministry has impacted many of us and if God decides to take him home then Dr. Boice with be missed. Thank you for your prayers in this matter. Five Sola


Subject: ACE Update on the Web re Dr. Boice
From: Theo
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sat, May 06, 2000 at 15:21:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Greetings: This is a Web site provided by ACE that has information about Dr. Boice:
Dr. Boice update I certainly share your feeling about Dr. Boice and pray God's healing on him. In Christ the King, Theo


Subject: Re: Dr. Boice.
From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sat, May 06, 2000 at 12:53:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola,

Thank you for making this news known to us. Without doubt Dr. Boice has been a mighty man of God over the years in making the wonders of God's sovereign grace known throughout the world. It was my privilege back in 1978 to hear him lecture in Wheaton, Ill. at a 'Presbyterian Conference on Reformed Theology'and I was greatly blessed by him. Further, I was able to hear him preach several times at his home church 'Tenth Presbyterian Church' in Philadelphia some years later, and again I was deeply moved by this man's exposition of the Scriptures. May the Lord uphold him and all his family as he struggles through this difficult time in his life. I sometimes express my own weakness of faith when I hear of such things in that I wonder who will step up to take such a man's place once they have gone to be with the Lord. But invariably the LORD raises up another Elisha to herald the truth of Christ in His own time for the edification of the saints and for the calling of sinners to the Lord Christ to receive remission of sins. I would encourage you to post this information in the Prayer Forum also, as that is what it is intended for. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Quiz for our Arminian Friends
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 13:02:19 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Hi I found this quiz at another site, and thought it would be interesting to post it here. A Quiz For Your Arminian Friends, by Jay Banks Eph. 1:11 ...[W]ho [God] worketh all things after the counsel of His will. Q. If God works all things after the counsel of His will, how much does He work to the will of you, me, Satan, etc.? A. None. B. 20% C. 50% D. 85% Is. 14:24 Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying , Surely, as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand. Q. How much of what He wants to come to pass, doesn’t? A. All of His thoughts will come to pass B. Some of His thoughts will not come to pass C. A few of His thoughts will not come to pass D. A lot of His thoughts will not come to pass Rom. 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many bretheren: and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. Q. How many do you think have been called, justified, or glorified that He did not first foreknow or foreordain? A. Write in your answer: ___________________ John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. Q. Where does this scripture say that Jesus laid down his life for the sheep and the goats A. It doesn’t B. It doesn’t, but I just know He meant the goats, too John 6:65 No man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father. Q. How many come to Jesus that were not first given to him by the Father? A. 0 B. 5,000 C. 5,000,000 D. 10,000,000 John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me Q. How many that the Father gave Him will not come to Him? A. Two B. A couple of thousand C. A couple of million D. Trick question, it says they will all come unto him John 10:28 I [Jesus] give unto them the (true followers, or ‘sheep’) eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. Q. How many sheep do you think have been snatched from either God’s or Jesus’ hands? A. None B. 50,000 C. 500,000 D. 1,000,000 Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Q. Considering this, and other related scripture, God having to blot out a name from the book of life would mean: A. God makes mistakes. B. Some have been snatched from Jesus’ hands? C. God didn’t know that some of His sheep were really goats. D. None of the above. Q. Could a person whose name was written in the book of life from the foundation of the world not have become a Christian (or have saving faith in God if born before Jesus)? A. No B. Yes C. This confuses me, but I’m going to believe the Bible. D. This confuses me, and I’m going to pretend this isn’t in the Bible (be honest). Matt. 13 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Q. Jesus himself declared that one of the reasons why He spoke in parables was that the truth might be concealed from whom it was not intended. Is this fair? A. No. B. Yes. C. Who are we to question God? D. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse. Rom. 8:28 To them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose. Q. How many things do not work for the good of those who love God? A. 10% of all things B. 40% of all things C. 85% of all things D. Trick question, the Bible says all things work for the good of those who love Him Mark 14:30 And Jesus said unto him (Peter), Verily I say unto thee, that thou, today, even this night before the **** crow twice shall deny me thrice. Questions: A. Could Peter not have denied Jesus three times before the **** crowed twice? Answer here: ____________________________ B. Did Jesus make Peter deny him, or did Peter do it of his own free will? Answer here: ____________________________ Exodus 4:11 [God Himself asks the rhetorical question] Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or dumb? Who gives him his sight or makes him blind? Is it not I the Lord? Q. Is this fair? A. Yes. B. No. C. Who are we to question God? D. I’m going to pretend this isn’t in the Bible.


Subject: Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends
From: Ambassador
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:03:57 (PDT)
Email Address: do_a_uturn@hotmail.com

Message:
That's very funny (and true) where did it come from? I would like to know the name of the guy who wrote that. (If I could send a hand shake through the E-mail I would)


Subject: Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:37:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom...Why give them a quiz about their Bible doctrine? They are all going to be 'saved anyway' according to almost everyone here at this forum. freegrace


Subject: Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 14:56:56 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Freegrace I don't know what posts you have read. But nobody at least on this board that I am aware of, believes that all Arminian's are going to be saved. If that is what you got from their posts, you better read them again! Tom


Subject: Good One!!! N/T
From: GRACE2Me
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 15:04:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: The 'problem' of church government
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, May 03, 2000 at 21:22:41 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: These remarks were directed to me in a thread below by Pilgrim: 'Perhaps you would be so kind as to begin a new thread, if you are so inclined, to start a discussion on church government?' Well, brother Pilgrim, my first reaction was to say, 'Well, thanks a lot!' This is really a 'hot topic' and I'm not at all certain I want to be the one to kick it off! :>) But you were so nice in the way you asked, and in your remarks prefacing the new topic, that I became 'inclined' to delve into the subject. And all the more so after I read Iain Murray's article. You see, as Murray indicated he was, and Plgrim has indicated he is, I am hesitant to say that I have all the answers on this topic as well. I do have some ideas that I'm convinced are Biblical, but there is room for doubt on others. (I commend the Murrary article to all for consideration, reluctance, doubts, and all. :>)) I should say, by way of introduction, for those who are unaware, I am of the opinion that the 'Brethren' are the most correct that I have seen in following the Biblical model. That isn't to say that they are perfect in their application of church govt., but I think their model is very good. I should also stress that, in that system (and in my belief system), there is no 'clergy' or 'laity.' ___________ In the face of all this hesitancy by myself, and by others more godly and more learned than myself, is there anything which can be generalized and said with certainty about 'elders?' I believe there are some things. Foremost among them is this: An elder 'rules' or 'governs.' As simple as that sounds, it becomes most complex when one attempts to define the type of leadership entailed. Personally, I think it is a a leadership which must be founded on the fundamental principle that these men must be appointed by God to the role. As such, they are sort of 'federal heads,' in the sense that they are 'spiritual' and, therefore, qualified by God to make decisions and to provide leadership in the name of the entire assembly. They are in tune with God's Word and submissive to His will and leadership, never forgetting that 'Christ is the head of the Church' (Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18). Such people, identified and appointed by God's leading, the assembly will have no trouble submitting to, even as a godly wife has no trouble submitting to a husband who is seeking with all his heart to serve His Lord. A great many problems within the churches could be solved if the local churches made absolutely certain men of God's choosing were made elders--and those of God's choosing alone! A community leader might not be the kind of man God wants in His office! And the local assembly must understand the 'principle of submission.' If these men are God's leadership choices and they are spiritual men, then they will, necessarily, make choices and decisions which will be 'right' for the church. It's a high calling, but one which can't be forgotten, either by the elders or by the rest of the congregation. Another generalizaton I think we can make is that all elders must be 'teachers.' If the qualification is that they be 'apt to teach,' isn't it necessary that they should be expected to teach? The question becomes, are all elders to be preachers and teachers in the pulpit? That is something which I'm not fully persuaded about yet. I tend to think that some may be more adept in the 'witnessing' arena than in the formal pulpit ministry. They can give 'an answer' for their faith both well and decisively when the circumstances call for it, whether in personal evangelism or in dealing with questions and challenges from those outside the Church of Jesus Christ. Yet another area about which we can be certain, to my way of thinking, is in that there must be a plurality of elders. There are some texts which indicate that more than one elder existed in each local church of the NT. One which comes most readily to mind is Titus 1:5, where it is not 'an elder for every church,' but 'elders in every city.' Acts 14:23 seems to be even more definite: 'And when they had ordained elders in every church....' Other passages support this conclusion. _____________ Who is to rule or lead among the elders? Is one specific or particular person to rule over the elders? We're now getting into a hard area. Is there to be one 'pastor,' 'THE pastor,' who is to be the 'head shed,' the CEO of the local church? I say emphatically,
NO! For one thing, the word translated 'pastor' is an obscure one whose meaning is not entirely clear. It is so translated rarely, most often being rendered 'shepherd.' The main job of the shepherd is 'care of the flock,' it is true, but a 'pastor,' can also be easily said to be the one who does what the root of the word suggests, 'to provide pasturage' (spiritual nourishment). In Eph. 4:11 the word 'pastors' is so closely and intimately linked with 'teachers' that they seem to be welded inseparably together. It is no doubt significant in this respect that the shepherd of that part of the world in that day 'led forth' his sheep and took them where they could graze and drink the 'still waters' rather than driving them. It seems doubtless significant also that the words of the Lord Jesus bear directly on this subject: 'But Jesus called them to him and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever would be great among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever of you would be the chiefest, shall be servant of all' (Mark 19:43-44). Could that be why Peter, who is the acknowledged unofficial 'leader' among the Apostles, refused to stand on his apostleship in his epsitle, instead referring to himself as a fellow 'elder' in 1 Peter 5:1, rather than insisting on his apostleship? I think that's at least part of the reason. ___________ The reason for the strong leader, 'THE pastor.' For this I have to rely on observation and speculation and evidnece outside the Bible. We really have no answer from the Scriptures. It seems that many people want a 'strongman,' a person who has dictator-like qualities in leadership in the local church. Part of the reason, I suspect is that it's just easier to let someone who's willing take the charge and do the work. After all, if a person is willing to take the leadership and the responsibility, it absolves others of the duties that they might not relish. That some people are naturally inclined to take that role and to 'get the job done' makes the acquiesence in that pattern easier. Yet the Biblical example seems to argue against that sort of thing. Turning again to the passage of Eph. 4:11-16, we find a cooperation between the various offices and the membership of the body of Christ. We see that nothing is to be done exclusively by or for the individual, but that all things are to be done to 'edifying' of the body due to 'the effectual working in the measure of every part' (verse 16). It is 'easy' to fall into the trap of letting a strong natural leader take charge and forge ahead, but it is contrary to the pattern of the Lord. With the passing of the Apostles and the fading away in their lifetime of the apostolic gifts, the Bible really doesn't tell us a great deal about exactly how the local churches were governed, but there seems to be nothing to support the 'CEO mentality.' Likewise, it's also easy to do things as the world does them. A strong leader in business is the norm in a successful endeavor. Why not do it that way in the church? After all, it's effective in getting things done, right? I need not point out the fallacies inherent in regarding spiritual things as the world sees things. Another factor to consider is that many local churches hire 'the pastor' to be a Christian for them, a substitute. He is a sort of 'hired man' to do what the membership is supposed to do. He is to do all the preaching and teaching, preside over the business of the church, counsel anyone who needs it, visit the sick, be diligent and constant in prayer, slap backs, attend luncheons and dinners, drive the van or bus when necessary, etc.. After all, it's been said, he's paid to be good and the rest of the people are 'good for nothing!' (I have actually heard a pastor say that proudly!) ____________ Murray argues that multiple preachers and teachers can be rather chaotic. And that is true. When I was preaching and teaching in a 'Brethren' assembly, I was often frustrated that I couldn't achieve continuity, not being given a 'block of time,' to develop a particular topic, but limited to one message at a time on a rotational basis. But, it was also a good thing not to be 'under the gun' all the time to preach every time the doors opened, so that I could read, pray, and study, as well as have some family time. I can tell you that, for me at least, message preparation was intense and long work, involving prayer, research, and a lot of Bible reading. Possibly ideally, shared duties in the pulpit and in teaching could be done with one person developing a topic and carrying it through, then relinquishing the duty for a time to prepare more and let another develop a subject on his own. I do think the 'shared' approach can be carried too far; that there can be too many teachers. If a local assembly really has that many good preachers, it seems likely that God will see fit to move some of them to where they're needed more. Actually, if there are some very good preachers and some who are merely mediocore, some should be encouraged to step aside. In our assembly some men who had been teaching recognized that they should allow others to take up the duties and stepped back voluntarily. The body of elders should be very careful to make certain that the congregation is receiving the best in Word ministry which is available, it's my conviction. The revelation of the Lord God to His people would seem to be, necessarily, the heart of the worship of a local church, the basis on which the other activities thrive because of sound teaching and preaching. One Bible teacher once said that every church should be (among other things, of course) 'a theological school.' I think that is a sound presumption.


Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 07:51:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

Well said brother. I am not a 'Brethren' but neither am I officially a Presbyterian. I am a 'Vacillitarian', hahaha. There is little that I could disagree with in what you wrote, but there is a little. And those things are simply in the area of application or perception rather than in the fundamental principles of which you set forth. It seems to me that the godly Iain Murray has written his article with spiritual wisdom and humility. He is not ashamed to admit that the Scriptures are less than dogmatic in the area of church polity, and more particularly in how the Eldership is to function among themselves. But as you said in your initial remarks, the function of the elder which is set forth in the qualifications and by biblical examples is sufficiently clear. They are first of all to be MEN, who are enraptured with the Lord Christ and are fully submissive to HIS Lordship. They are to be MEN of knowledge; apt to teach and to be able to make a defense of the faith to those who would oppose Christ and His inerrant and infallible Word. They are to be MEN of the Scriptures, from which they obtain both their own spiritual meat and then deliver it up to those whom God has put under their care. They are to be MEN of prayer whereby they are able to gain wisdom, strength and guidance for the awesome responsibility put upon them. They are to be MEN of passion, both for the honor of God's name and the supremacy of Christ over all things as well as for the spiritual welfare of all those who have been brought to repentance and faith by the Holy Spirit and desire to serve the Lord Christ in all righteousness. They are to be MEN who possess those gifts which are required for the office of Elder. These are doubtless varied and distributed as the Spirit wills for the edification of the Body of Christ. They are MEN who have been vested with authority to maintain both order and discipline within the church thereby holding fast to the unity of the faith and purging sin from their assemblies even to the point of excommunicating those who are unrepentant; for the good of all and the honor of God. You wrote: 'It is no doubt significant in this respect that the shepherd of that part of the world in that day 'led forth' his sheep and took them where they could graze and drink the 'still waters' rather than driving them.' It is here, albeit a small point in itself, that I would tend to disagree with your analogy. For the picture and actual practice of a shepherd, which is graphically seen in the Old Testament and Psalms is I think, not consistent with your view of the role of a shepherd. The heart of the shepherd is surely one that is focused upon the welfare of the sheep. It is that of one who desires to provide nurture and protection at all costs, even if that means the forfeiting of his own life. However, the manner in which he does this includes the aspect of driving them when necessary. This was, and still is accomplished by the use of the rod and the staff. King David saw nothing negative about their use whatsoever, for he himself said of his Shepherd (the LORD), 'thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.'. And the prophet Micah also was instructed, 'Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.' (Mic 7:14). The 'rod' was often used to ward off wolves and other predators which would attack the flock from without. And the 'staff' was used to hook the necks of errant sheep to pull them back to the main group. For a wandering sheep was in serious danger of being devoured by wild dogs, wolves and other hungry beasts. There was safety in the numbers of the flock. Further, a shepherd was never to be see 'leading' the sheep by standing in the front of the flock and allowing them to follow. If you have ever tried to do this with sheep, you would know how silly this really is. The shepherd invariably stood behind the sheep and 'drove' them to the desired destination. Sheep are stubborn animals and lack 'good sense', hehehe, and therefore it takes much prodding and effort to get them to where they need to go. Leadership I believe is to be seen in this sense; i.e., the undershepherd will be the one who is last among the sheep, but one who is a driving force that is exercised with both tenderness but also firmness. It is the loving discipline of the shepherd that guides his sheep. There is of course, another sense that the shepherd can be said to 'lead' his sheep, and that is by example. It is here that the shepherd is to be visible to the flock (speaking of people and not animals here). He is to be an example to those under his care; a model of righteousness, strength, compassion and godliness. A man of the Word; one who is obedient to the Head Shepherd and seeks only to please God in all things. Thus I believe that BOTH aspects must be recognized as being an integral part of the Eldership. I therefore lean a bit more toward the first of the three views that Rev. Murray mentioned as being the biblical choices given. I also agree that I Tim 5:17 is rather 'weak' as a proof text for it, hehehe. But if it is indeed a viable option, I think it can be one that works well, at least in principle. Thus to sum up my own position: it would be one that is a combination of Presbyterianism and old, i.e., historic Congregationalism whereby there is a plurality of elders, among whom one or two are gifted to the pulpit ministry and therefore upon whom is given the responsibility of the preaching of the Word. The elders all share in equal authority in the 'ruling' of the church in conjunction with the deacons. And this last office, that of deacon, I believe has been wrongly relegated to an 'inferior office' by the modern church. But that's a subject for another thread! :-) Thanks again for your input. It was well received by this brother at least. I look forward to the comments of others.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government
From: GRACE2Me
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 15:51:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I noticed an emphasis on 'MEN' in your post, AMEN! By the way, my church is small, has one pastor that is bi-vocational, an assistant pastor that is in training, no elders and no deacons. Actually there is only one there that is qualified to be a deacon, but does not feel called to that office. Also, thanks to you and Rod for the excellent posts. GRACE2Me