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: 358
Rod -:- Can someone explain this reference?? -:- Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 12:52:32 (PDT)
_ stan -:- Re: Can someone explain this reference? -:- Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 15:41:39 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
Can someone explain this reference? -:-
Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 15:52:30 (PDT)
___ stan -:- Re:
Can someone explain this reference? -:-
Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 16:02:03 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
Can someone explain this reference??
-:- Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 20:52:32 (PDT)
Brother Bret -:- Opinion On 1Tim.2:11-12 -:- Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 20:17:10 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Opinion On 1Tim.2:11-12 -:- Thurs, Jun 29, 2000 at 07:50:03 (PDT)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Opinion On 1Tim.2:11-12 -:- Thurs, Jun
29, 2000 at 15:12:04 (PDT)
Mark -:- Books on Evangelism -:- Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 15:14:02 (PDT)
_ mebaser -:- Re: Books on Evangelism
-:- Tues, Jun 27, 2000 at 11:15:22 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Books on Evangelism -:- Mon, Jun 26,
2000 at 21:42:40 (PDT)
Grace2me -:- Presby Church & Leavened Bread -:- Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 21:05:32 (PDT)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Presby Church & Leavened Bread -:- Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 22:32:11 (PDT)
kevin -:- question on Greek -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:05:12 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: question on Greek
-:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:20:18 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
question on Greek -:- Thurs, Jun 22,
2000 at 21:58:35 (PDT)
___ kevin -:- john
and rod -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 07:48:22
(PDT)
____ Eric -:- Check
out this link kevin -:- Fri, Jun 23,
2000 at 09:05:16 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:- ??????!! -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 11:03:01 (PDT)
______ Eric -:- Now,
now Rod... -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 12:51:12
(PDT)
_______ Rod -:- Time
to get real, Eric -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000
at 13:47:45 (PDT)
________ Eric -:- Reality
Bites! :) -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 14:18:07
(PDT)
_________ Rod -:- I
am pretty much out of it, but... -:-
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 15:46:13 (PDT)
__________ Eric -:- I
hope this will settle it... -:- Fri,
Jun 23, 2000 at 17:50:28 (PDT)
___________ Rod -:- I
said I was through, but one thing. -:-
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 19:37:53 (PDT)
____________ Eric -:- Re: I said I was through, but one thing. -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 05:40:35 (PDT)
_____________ Rod -:- Good! Glad to hear it! :> -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 13:55:42 (PDT)
Eric -:- Baptism question
-:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:03:22 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Baptism question
-:- Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 15:50:42 (PDT)
_ Prestor John -:- Re:
Baptism question -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000
at 22:45:40 (PDT)
__ mebaser -:- AMEN!!!
(nt) -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 10:39:27
(PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Baptism question -:- Thurs,
Jun 22, 2000 at 19:30:15 (PDT)
__ Grace2Me -:- Re:
Baptism question -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000
at 20:56:28 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
Baptism question -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000
at 22:10:35 (PDT)
Tom -:- Phil. 2:5-11
-:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 23:40:00 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Phil. 2:5-11
-:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:55:38 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Phil. 2:5-11 -:- Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at
14:21:08 (PDT)
___ Diacone -:- Re:
Phil. 2:5-11 -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at
00:10:25 (PDT)
____ Tom -:- Re:
Phil. 2:5-11 -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at
15:11:08 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:- Re:
Phil. 2:5-11 -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at
17:54:54 (PDT)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Phil. 2:5-11 -:- Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at
22:09:38 (PDT)
_ Tom -:- Re:
Phil. 2:5-11 -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at
23:56:29 (PDT)
__ John P. -:- Two
Points -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 13:57:32
(PDT)
Pilgrim -:- M'Cheyne's 'Bible Reading Calendar' -:- Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:50:34 (PDT)
Joel H -:- Civil Disobedience -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 13:14:58 (PDT)
_ Anne -:- Matt 6:5-6 -:-
Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:22:59 (PDT)
__ Bro. Charles -:- Re:
Matt 6:5-6 -:- Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 06:37:35
(PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
Matt 6:5-6 -:- Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 12:23:51
(PDT)
___ Anne -:- Re:
Matt 6:5-6 -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at
05:47:19 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
Matt 6:5-6 -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at
08:25:37 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Matt 6:5-6 -:- Thurs, Jun
22, 2000 at 03:23:07 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
Matt 6:5-6 -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at
05:43:30 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Matt 6:5-6 -:- Thurs, Jun
22, 2000 at 18:12:20 (PDT)
______ Rod -:- Praying
within myself! :> -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:11:33 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000
at 22:42:42 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000
at 16:15:58 (PDT)
__ Anne -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000
at 17:57:06 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000
at 22:56:25 (PDT)
____ Anne -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Tues, Jun 20,
2000 at 05:28:01 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Tues, Jun 20,
2000 at 10:50:40 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Tues, Jun 20,
2000 at 07:30:39 (PDT)
______ Anne -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Tues, Jun 20,
2000 at 09:08:06 (PDT)
_ Anne -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000
at 13:46:20 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Civil Disobedience -:-
Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 15:50:04 (PDT)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Civil Disobedience -:- Mon, Jun 19, 2000
at 23:47:32 (PDT)
John 43 -:- 1 Tim. 4:10
-:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:24:00 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: 1 Tim. 4:10
-:- Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 08:51:55 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- Re:
1 Tim. 4:10 -:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at
10:55:47 (PDT)
Five Sola -:- Dr James M. Boice goes to his Lord -:- Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 19:02:20 (PDT)
_ laz -:- Re: Dr James M. Boice goes to his Lord -:- Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 21:56:28 (PDT)
__ Linda -:- Re:
Dr James M. Boice goes to his Lord -:-
Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 22:28:48 (PDT)
Rod -:- Fertility drugs and Christians -:- Thurs, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:02:14 (PDT)
_ Anne -:- Re: Fertility drugs and Christians -:- Thurs, Jun 15, 2000 at 12:01:24 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
Fertility drugs and Christians -:- Thurs,
Jun 15, 2000 at 12:27:36 (PDT)
___ Anne -:- Re:
Fertility drugs and Christians -:- Thurs,
Jun 15, 2000 at 12:58:15 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
Fertility drugs and Christians -:- Thurs,
Jun 15, 2000 at 13:46:09 (PDT)
_____ Anne -:- Re:
Fertility drugs and Christians -:- Thurs,
Jun 15, 2000 at 14:12:56 (PDT)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Fertility drugs and Christians -:- Thurs,
Jun 15, 2000 at 23:14:53 (PDT)
_______ john hampshire -:- Re: Fertility drugs and Christians
-:- Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 00:38:43 (PDT)
Joel H -:- Gambling
-:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 21:52:43 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Gambling -:-
Thurs, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:20:30 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
Gambling -:- Thurs, Jun 15, 2000 at 08:47:27
(PDT)
_ Rod -:- Re:
Gambling -:- Thurs, Jun 15, 2000 at 06:02:01
(PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
Gambling -:- Thurs, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:00:36
(PDT)
__ Eric -:- Where
did the Fundies come from? :) -:- Fri,
Jun 16, 2000 at 09:11:56 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Re:
Where did the Fundies come from? :) -:-
Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 15:42:01 (PDT)
Bro. Charles -:- Apostacy vs simple math -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 21:13:13 (PDT)
_ laz -:- Re: Apostacy vs simple math -:- Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 07:14:34 (PDT)
__ Bro. Charles -:- Re:
Apostacy vs simple math -:- Fri, Jun
16, 2000 at 09:12:07 (PDT)
___ laz -:- Re:
Apostacy vs simple math -:- Fri, Jun
16, 2000 at 21:50:36 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- The
inner witness and knowledge of salvation.
-:- Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:34:27 (PDT)
kevin -:- 2 Peter 2:1
-:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 16:03:02 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- Re: 2 Peter 2:1
-:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 22:19:27 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
2 Peter 2:1 -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at
21:08:01 (PDT)
__ kevin -:- Pilgrim
and Rod thanks -:- Thurs, Jun 15, 2000
at 08:39:42 (PDT)
Five Sola -:- Dr. Boice update
-:- Tues, Jun 13, 2000 at 20:39:00 (PDT)
kevin -:- to John P.
-:- Tues, Jun 13, 2000 at 07:56:29 (PDT)
_ John P. -:- Re: to John P.
-:- Tues, Jun 13, 2000 at 14:47:05 (PDT)
__ John P. -:- Re:
to John P. -:- Tues, Jun 13, 2000 at
14:50:17 (PDT)
___ kevin -:- Re:
to John P. -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 15:46:37
(PDT)
___ Tom -:- Re:
to John P. -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 00:00:55
(PDT)
____ John P. -:- Re:
to John P. -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 06:23:03
(PDT)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
to John P. -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 15:48:43
(PDT)
Chris -:- Election
-:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 20:44:37 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Election -:-
Tues, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:33:02 (PDT)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Election -:- Tues, Jun 13, 2000 at 04:19:29
(PDT)
Tom -:- Personal note about WWJD -:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 15:29:02 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Personal note about WWJD -:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 17:27:29 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Personal note about WWJD -:- Tues, Jun
13, 2000 at 00:09:56 (PDT)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Personal note about WWJD -:- Mon, Jun
12, 2000 at 20:50:33 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Personal note about WWJD -:- Mon, Jun
12, 2000 at 21:50:53 (PDT)
Anne -:- Imprecations
-:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 14:22:47 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Imprecations
-:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 17:51:06 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Imprecations -:- Mon, Jun
12, 2000 at 17:10:59 (PDT)
Jerrold Lewis -:- Reformed Toleration -:- Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 23:12:32 (PDT)
_ John P. -:- Re: Reformed Toleration
-:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 20:06:03 (PDT) _ Pilgrim -:- Re: Reformed Toleration
-:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:06:22 (PDT)
Rod -:- ''Jesus Day'
-:- Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 20:47:51 (PDT)
_ Tom -:- Re: ''Jesus Day'
-:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 11:17:28 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at
12:32:47 (PDT)
___ Tom -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at
14:17:16 (PDT)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: ''Jesus Day' -:- Tues,
Jun 13, 2000 at 19:38:12 (PDT)
_____ laz -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at
06:37:42 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at
00:09:32 (PDT)
______ Rod -:- Thesauri
and Daffynytions -:- Wed, Jun 14, 2000
at 07:30:04 (PDT)
______ Prestor John -:- Re: ''Jesus Day' -:- Wed, Jun
14, 2000 at 06:24:24 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at
13:06:48 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at
14:52:48 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at
21:03:25 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
''Jesus Day' -:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at
00:07:52 (PDT)
___ stan -:- Re:
Come on Rod! -:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at
08:30:50 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
Come on Rod! -:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at
13:19:56 (PDT)
_____ stan -:- Re:
Come on Rod! -:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at
14:48:19 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Come on Rod! -:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at
12:39:43 (PDT)
_____ stan -:- Re:
BIG :-) and amen! NT -:- Sun, Jun 11,
2000 at 13:05:36 (PDT)
JOwen -:- The Covenanters, PRCE, and SWRB -:- Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 16:39:40 (PDT)
_ B.Riley -:- Re: The Covenanters, PRCE, and SWRB -:- Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:58:24 (PDT)
__ JOwen -:- Re:
The Covenanters, PRCE, and SWRB -:- Mon,
Jun 12, 2000 at 16:02:56 (PDT)
BRiley -:- Ecclesiastical Separation -:- Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 05:29:51 (PDT)
_ John P. -:- Re: Ecclesiastical Separation -:- Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 10:59:44 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
Ecclesiastical Separation -:- Fri, Jun
09, 2000 at 17:01:21 (PDT)
___ John P. -:- re:Ecclesiastical
separation -:- Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 00:44:35
(PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sat,
Jun 10, 2000 at 02:40:34 (PDT)
_____ John P. -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sat,
Jun 10, 2000 at 15:30:04 (PDT)
_____ B.Riley -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sat,
Jun 10, 2000 at 13:49:10 (PDT)
______ Rod -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sun,
Jun 11, 2000 at 00:32:42 (PDT)
_______ B.Riley -:- Re: re:Ecclesiastical separation
-:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 15:04:04 (PDT)
________ Rod -:- Thank
you! n/t -:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 15:27:14
(PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sat,
Jun 10, 2000 at 20:50:14 (PDT)
_______ John P. -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sun,
Jun 11, 2000 at 19:19:54 (PDT)
________ Prestor John -:- Re: re:Ecclesiastical separation
-:- Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 20:31:06 (PDT)
_________ Rod -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Mon,
Jun 12, 2000 at 08:15:26 (PDT)
_______ B.Riley -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sun,
Jun 11, 2000 at 14:55:37 (PDT)
______ Rod -:- Re:
re:Ecclesiastical separation -:- Sat,
Jun 10, 2000 at 15:00:34 (PDT)
__ John P. -:- Re:
Ecclesiastical Separation -:- Fri, Jun
09, 2000 at 11:09:57 (PDT)
__ John P. -:- :)
I don't know how I do it. -:- Fri, Jun
09, 2000 at 11:03:09 (PDT)
Tom -:- The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs, Jun 08, 2000 at 13:21:14 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs, Jun 08, 2000 at 13:53:13 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs,
Jun 08, 2000 at 14:54:39 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs,
Jun 08, 2000 at 16:01:24 (PDT)
____ Tom -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs,
Jun 08, 2000 at 23:33:22 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Fri, Jun
09, 2000 at 10:48:21 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs,
Jun 08, 2000 at 14:44:23 (PDT)
___ Tom -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs,
Jun 08, 2000 at 15:09:22 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs,
Jun 08, 2000 at 17:24:46 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:- Re:
The Arrogance of Preaching -:- Thurs,
Jun 08, 2000 at 23:37:01 (PDT)
Jimmy -:- When God became Man -:- Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 07:00:57 (PDT)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: When God became Man
-:- Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 20:56:26 (PDT)
Tom -:- Postmodernism
-:- Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 00:09:28 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re: Postmodernism
-:- Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 13:09:26 (PDT)
____ Tom N -:- Re:
Postmodernism -:- Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at
18:45:47 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:- Re:
Postmodernism -:- Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at
23:40:10 (PDT)
cousin Earl -:- The purpose of the Law -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 20:04:00 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: The purpose of the Law -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 21:36:55 (PDT)
kevin -:- openess of God and Dr. Boyd -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 16:26:45 (PDT)
_ stan -:- Re: Seems.....
-:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 20:04:26 (PDT)
_ Anne -:- Re:
openess of God and Dr. Boyd -:- Mon,
Jun 05, 2000 at 18:26:16 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: openess of God and Dr. Boyd
-:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 23:26:30 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- Kevin,
very interesting. Thanks.n/t -:- Mon,
Jun 05, 2000 at 17:24:07 (PDT)
__ laz -:- Yeah,
thanks Kevin! n/t -:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000
at 06:03:29 (PDT)
Tom -:- Dr. D.James Kennedy -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 15:10:29 (PDT)
_ Linda -:- Re: Dr. D.James Kennedy
-:- Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 19:37:53 (PDT)
__ Linda -:- Re:
Dr. D.James Kennedy -:- Sat, Jun 10,
2000 at 19:43:38 (PDT)
___ Pat -:- Re:
Dr. D.James Kennedy -:- Sun, Jun 11,
2000 at 04:07:08 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Re:
Dr. D.James Kennedy -:- Sun, Jun 11,
2000 at 01:46:17 (PDT)
_ laz -:- Re:
Dr. D.James Kennedy -:- Mon, Jun 05,
2000 at 15:39:00 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Dr. D.James Kennedy -:- Mon, Jun 05,
2000 at 18:34:12 (PDT)
Jimmy -:- Thy Will Be Done? -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 14:33:56 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done?
-:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 23:42:48 (PDT)
__ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done?? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 06:54:40 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done?? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 08:29:44 (PDT)
____ Anne -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 10:54:57 (PDT)
____ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done?? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 10:23:49 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000
at 00:00:06 (PDT)
______ Jimmy -:- I've
never even heard of Boyd (nt) -:- Tues,
Jun 06, 2000 at 07:07:52 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done?????? -:- Mon, Jun 05,
2000 at 14:59:39 (PDT)
______ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 17:17:05 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done?? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 12:53:59 (PDT)
______ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 13:41:40 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon,
Jun 05, 2000 at 18:05:10 (PDT)
________ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 19:38:57 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon,
Jun 05, 2000 at 22:07:20 (PDT)
__________ Jimmy -:- New Heaven New Earth? -:- Tues,
Jun 06, 2000 at 07:15:01 (PDT)
___________ john hampshire -:- Re: New Heaven New Earth? -:-
Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 22:14:03 (PDT)
___________ laz -:- Re:
New Heaven New Earth? -:- Tues, Jun 06,
2000 at 08:00:46 (PDT)
____________ Jimmy -:- Re: New Heaven New Earth? -:-
Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 08:23:57 (PDT)
__________ Rod -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done?? -:- Tues, Jun 06,
2000 at 05:39:34 (PDT)
___________ laz -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000
at 06:41:29 (PDT)
___ monitor -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 08:14:59 (PDT)
____ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done?? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 09:42:54 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 13:16:44 (PDT)
______ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 13:57:12 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 18:21:58 (PDT)
________ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000
at 19:46:17 (PDT)
_________ john hampshire -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon,
Jun 05, 2000 at 22:55:42 (PDT)
__________ Jimmy -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done??? -:- Tues, Jun 06,
2000 at 07:59:11 (PDT)
___________ john hampshire -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done? -:- Wed,
Jun 07, 2000 at 00:11:17 (PDT)
____________ Jimmy -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done? -:- Wed,
Jun 07, 2000 at 06:47:41 (PDT)
__________ Rod -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done???? -:- Tues, Jun 06,
2000 at 06:40:51 (PDT)
___________ Jimmy -:- Yes, God has eyebrows :o) -:-
Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:42:58 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done? -:- Mon,
Jun 05, 2000 at 22:11:51 (PDT)
__________ Jimmy -:- Re: Thy Will Be Done?? -:-
Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 07:25:49 (PDT)
__________ laz -:- Re:
Thy Will Be Done? -:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000
at 06:24:54 (PDT)
Hail -:- Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 12:34:23 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Tongues in 1 Cor 14:14-15 [Part A] -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 18:31:26 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Cor 14:14-15 [Part B] -:-
Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 18:36:25 (PDT)
_ Prestor John -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:-
Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 15:14:38 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 20:24:45 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:-
Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 19:18:05 (PDT)
___ Hail -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:-
Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 05:42:05 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:-
Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 06:55:21 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:-
Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 13:32:46 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:-
Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 13:35:19 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Re:
Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 -:-
Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 16:46:43 (PDT)
Prestor John -:- Pewsitters
-:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 01:10:49 (PDT)
_ stan -:- Re: Alright-something I relate to! -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 10:58:00 (PDT)
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)
_ Chris -:- Re: God's plans for the reprobate? -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:01:12 (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)
___ Chris -:- Re:
God's plans for the reprobate? -:- Thurs,
Jun 01, 2000 at 20:56:24 (PDT)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: God's plans for the reprobate?
-:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 20:44:26 (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)
_ Pat -:- Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 10:30:41 (PDT)
__ John P. -:- Re:
Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:-
Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 15:49:52 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- This
AGAIN?????? -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at
17:06:16 (PDT)
____ John P. -:- Re:
This AGAIN? -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at
18:50:21 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
This AGAIN? -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at
22:22:39 (PDT)
____ laz -:- Re:
This AGAIN? -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at
17:12:03 (PDT)
_____ John P. -:- Re:
This AGAIN? -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at
19:05:22 (PDT)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: This AGAIN? -:- Mon, Jun
05, 2000 at 00:57:36 (PDT)
_______ John P. -:- Re:
This AGAIN? -:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at
13:24:24 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Good
illustration! n/t -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000
at 12:44:31 (PDT)
_ ttrails -:- Re:
Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:-
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:37:22 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:-
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 20:28:59 (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)
_______ John P. -:- Re:
Regulative Principle -:- Thurs, Jun 01,
2000 at 23:45:59 (PDT)
________ Prestor John -:- Re: Regulative Principle -:-
Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 15:40:37 (PDT)
_________ John P. -:- Re: Regulative Principle -:-
Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 15:12:04 (PDT)
_________ Tom -:- Re:
Regulative Principle -:- Sat, Jun 03,
2000 at 23:22:42 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Regulative Principle -:-
Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 08:28:18 (PDT)
_________ John P. -:- Re: Regulative Principle -:-
Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 15:33:27 (PDT)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Early Church History REFUTES 'EP'
-:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 17:44:06 (PDT)
___________ John P. -:- Re: Early Church History REFUTES 'EP' -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 18:31:30 (PDT)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Early Church History REFUTES 'EP' -:- Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 22:32:03 (PDT)
_____________ Tom -:- Re: Early Church History REFUTES 'EP' -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 11:58:24 (PDT)
______________ John P. -:- Re: Early Church History REFUTES 'EP' -:- Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 21:10:41 (PDT)
_______________ Prestor John -:- Re: Early Church History REFUTES 'EP' -:- Tues, Jun 06, 2000 at 00:03:19 (PDT)
_________ John P. -:- Re: Regulative Principle -:-
Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 19:25:06 (PDT)
________ Rod -:- Twisting
every which way -:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000
at 07:41:28 (PDT)
_________ Tom -:- Re:
Twisting every which way -:- Fri, Jun
02, 2000 at 11:54:35 (PDT)
__________ Rod -:- Re:
Twisting every which way -:- Fri, Jun
02, 2000 at 14:39:21 (PDT)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 12:35:25 (PDT)
___________ Tom -:- Re:
Twisting every which way -:- Fri, Jun
02, 2000 at 14:30:41 (PDT)
____________ John P. -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 20:14:29 (PDT)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 19:44:59 (PDT)
_____________ john hampshire -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 22:23:29 (PDT)
______________ Rod -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 02:46:24 (PDT)
______________ Tom -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 00:17:52 (PDT)
_______________ Rod -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 03:19:53 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 12:11:24 (PDT)
_________________ Rod -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 14:36:26 (PDT)
__________________ John P. -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:26:32 (PDT)
___________________ Rod -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 21:13:52 (PDT)
___________________ John P. -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:29:57 (PDT)
__________________ John P. -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 17:10:17 (PDT)
___________________ Rod -:- Re: Twisting every which way
-:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 21:35:02 (PDT)
___________________ john hampshire -:- Re: Twisting every which way -:- Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 20:28:53 (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)
_____ Prestor John -:- Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 21:27:49 (PDT)
Powerforum Plus+
Paradise
Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998
Subject: Can someone explain this reference?
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 12:52:32 (PDT)
Email Address:
na
Message:
From Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC, Ret., written probably sometime during
the latter part of 1999: ''Curious how 'liberal' journalists cannot
recount history without apologizing for it. I have never been able
to understand the motive behind apologizing for something somebody
else did. Now we see some church group
or other attempting to apologize to the
Arabs for the Crusades. Maybe we should ask the Arabs to apologize
for the conquest of Spain. Obviously a good many people have too
little to do.'' [Italics added by me for emphasis.] Which 'church
group' did this? I missed it. Cooper is a very opinionated man with
whom I sometimes agree, sometimes disagree--in this case I feel
he is absolutely correct.
|
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this reference?
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 15:41:39 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Runs in my mind I heard on the news that the Pope apologized for
that within the last year or so. Will see if I can find it. stan
|
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this reference?
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 15:52:30 (PDT)
Email Address:
na
Message:
You know, stan, I figured it had to be the RCC. Thanks.
|
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this reference?
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 16:02:03 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
I didn't find anything about pope, though think he said something
about it - may have been commenting on the following group??? http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980908/1998090873.html
http://www.duth.gr/maillist-archives/thrace/tl55/msg00057.html http://www.sltrib.com/1999/jul/07171999/Religion/8687.htm
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/99/06/27/repent27.shtml http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/19990716.htm
http://www.baptiststandard.com/8_4/pages/crusades.html http://www.wcicc.org/news/general/09.html
Didn't read all this thought you might give us the synopsis ;-)
|
Subject: Re: Can someone explain this reference?
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 20:52:32 (PDT)
Email Address:
na
Message:
stan, Identifying who these people are is not done. They are universally
described as about '500 Christians.' One of the releases described
them as 'mostly evangelical protestants, mainly from the U.S..'
The other releases say they come from "around the world."
My attitude toward them isn't very charitable. I'd probably have
called them, 'about 500 loopy persons, self-described as ''Christians.'''
The jury seems to still be out on that definition. One wonders (and
doesn't find out) the origin of this 'movement.' Could it be an
outgrowth of the 'Jesus Day?'
|
Subject: Opinion On 1Tim.2:11-12
From: Brother
Bret
To: All
Date Posted:
Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 20:17:10 (PDT)
Email Address:
Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Hi Everyone: Hope everyone is doing well. Currently I am preaching
out if 1Timothy on Sunday Mornings. I coming up to verses 11 and
12, this Sunday Lord willing. Do you agree that this passage, along
with 1Cor.11:3 and 14:34-35 teaches that women should not teach
or have authority over the man in the local church. In addition
(please at least respond to this one), it has been pointed out to
me that in 1Tim.2:9-10 the word 'women' is plural, while in verses
11-12 'woman and man' are singular. Evidently, some believe that
there is a reason for this distinction that it means 'husband and
wife' and/or includes that a woman (especially unmarried)could teach
and have authority over the man. In other passages such as Tit.2:5
and Eph.5:22 it seems that when the wife and husband are intended,
the word 'own' is inserted. Would appreciate any insight you can
offer, including from some of you who know Greek personally :^ ).
Thanks.............Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church
www.ccbcfl.org
|
Subject: Re: Opinion On 1Tim.2:11-12
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 29, 2000 at 07:50:03 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret, This should get you started at least :-):
The Role of Women in the Church
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Opinion On 1Tim.2:11-12
From: Brother
Bret
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 29, 2000 at 15:12:04 (PDT)
Email Address:
Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Brother Pilgrim: Thanks for sharing that 'open letter' with me/us.
It was right to the point. But do have any comments, or do you know
anyone who deals with the singular vs. plural in this passage? Thanks
for your help. Tell the wife hello for me :^). Brother Bret P.S.
Have you checked out our new church webpage? I still have 'The Highway'
as one my links. Is that okay? BB
|
Subject: Books on Evangelism
From: Mark
To: All
Date Posted:
Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 15:14:02 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Please recomend some good books on personal and corporate evangelism.
In christ, Mark
|
Subject: Re: Books on Evangelism
From: mebaser
To: Mark
Date Posted:
Tues, Jun 27, 2000 at 11:15:22 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Please recomend some good books on personal and corporate evangelism.
In christ, Mark
---
Hi Mark, Pilgrim has outlined a great selection for you.
I have a few more books that you may consider as well. They are:
EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE by Richard L. Pratt Jr. THE MASTER PLAN OF
EVANGELISM by Robert E. Coleman The following books are by John
MacArthur and all deal with the method of evangelism: THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO JESUS FAITH WORKS ASHAMED OF THE GOSEL I hope this
helps you. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Books on Evangelism
From: Pilgrim
To: Mark
Date Posted:
Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 21:42:40 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Mark, Here's a few although I'm not sure which are still in print:
1) Tell the Truth
by Will Metzger (IVP) 2) Reformed Evangelism by Morton Smith (online) Click Here 3) Evangelism
and the Sovereignty of God by Dr. J.I.
Packer (IVP) 4) The Art of Man-Fishing by Thomas Boston (Baker Books) 5) The
Grace of God in the Gospel by Cheeseman,
Gardner, Sadgrove and Wright (Banner of Truth) 6) God-Centered
Evangelism by R.B. Kuiper (Baker Books)
7) Explosive Evangelism by George Jaffrey, Jr. (online)Click Here 8) See also the other
listings on this topic in Calvinism and the Reformed Faith.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Presby Church & Leavened Bread
From: Grace2me
To: All
Date Posted:
Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 21:05:32 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Hello All: Recently while out of town, I visited a Presbyterian
Church (PCA I believe) for the first time (I'm Baptist). I enjoyed
the service very much and even used a couple of things for our service.
However, when it was time for Communion which they have once a month,
they used LEAVENED bread. What do some of you think about that?
And do you think a Christian should patake of Communion when that
happens? Thanks, Grace2Me
|
Subject: Re: Presby Church & Leavened Bread
From: Prestor
John
To: Grace2me
Date Posted:
Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 22:32:11 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Hello Grace2me: Now first of all I'm not a presbyterian (reformed
baptist) but I have to ask you since you brought up the subject
of what should be used during the Supper. Do you use those little
cracker squares and grape juice? Since I believe that you are appealing
to fact that the Passover called for unleaven bread do these crackers
fit the bill? Does the grape juice? Seeing how that Jesus broke
the bread and passed it around shouldn't we use matzohs (bread made
especially for Passover) to really emulate what happened then? Shouldn't
we use kosher wine instead of grape juice? Or is it that God chose
ordinary elements (bread and wine) and used them as a means of grace
so that we could be strengthened? If the latter is true it doesn't
matter whether the bread is leavened or unleavened, or its wine
or grape juice. What matters is that we celebrate the Supper in
the right manner. Prestor John Servabo Fidem
|
Subject: question on Greek
From: kevin
To: All
Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:05:12 (PDT)
Email Address:
amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
An argument that Universalists use to defend their position rests
in the meaning of the word that is translated 'eternal,' 'aoin.'
It is argued that this word means age and not eternal. Now I have
found some serious difficulties with translating the word as age,
i.e. the sheep then go to and age of life, what must I do to get
an age of life, etc. Now I have heard or read, don't recall which,
that the Greek the NT is written in does not have a word that means
eternal by today's definition. Hence the author's using forever
and ever and everlasting to everlasting to get across the point
of never ending. Now I am aware of the soteriological difficulties
with this understanding of aoin, but my question is am I correct
that the Greek had no word for eternal in the modern sense and that
aoin was the best possible word to use? If this is so where could
I get some documentation on the issue? Thanks again for ya'lls help.
I even tried looking up aoin on the search engine here and it didn't
have the word. In Him, kevin sdg sf ss
|
Subject: Re: question on Greek
From: john hampshire
To: kevin
Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:20:18 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Kevin, >>>>I even tried looking up aoin on the search
engine here and it didn't have the word. No, it wouldn't. But it
does have aion (not aoin). Apparently the word origin is from the
Greek meaning perpetually, incessantly and is translated in the
KJV as 'alway', 'always', or 'ever'. Example 2Co 6:10 'As sorrowful,
yet alway rejoicing...'. Aion itself has a definition of 'for ever',
'perpetuity of time', 'an unbroken age', and 'eternity'. It is translated
in the KJV as 'ever', 'evermore', 'age', or 'eternal'. An example
is: 1Pe 1:25 'But the word of the Lord endureth for ever (aion)'.
2Co 11:31 ' The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is
blessed for ever more, knoweth that I lie not.' It would be curious
if Paul thought that the Lord Jesus Christ should be blessed only
'unto the age' rather than 'everlastingly'. The idea that aion is
a duration of time with a beginning and end doesn't make much sense
with Rev 11:15b 'The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms
of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and
ever.' How long will Christ reign? Forever! How long will the lost
be in the Lake of Fire, 'and shall be tormented day and night for
ever and ever'(Rev20:10)? Forever! If we restrict the duration of
'hell' we must restrict the duration of Christ's reign. Besides,
what does Rev 20:10 mean if we say the wicked are tormented 'to
the ages of the ages'. Does that have meaning? The whole argument
over the meaning of aion is manufactured to put an end to eternal
punishment. There is no mystery until it is re-defined as 'to the
ages of the ages'. Does God live forever? 'I did become dead, and,
lo, I am living to the ages of the ages' (Rev 1:18). If 'ages of
the ages' is limited (to get folks out of 'hell') then God's lifespan
is limited too, unless we re-define the word to grant God eternal
life but the wicked in 'hell' limited eternal death. Talking to
those who hold to limited 'hell' is like talking to a brick wall,
they have their minds made up. They are not really motivated by
the meaning of Greek words, they personally cannot accept the idea
of God punishing the wicked forever--it is not in their concept
of God. They have fashioned their own god and cannot be convinced
otherwise. john
|
Subject: Re: question on Greek
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 21:58:35 (PDT)
Email Address:
na
Message:
Kevin, john, I don't personally know Greek, but I looked up Matthew
19:16 in at least 12 English versions. With the exception of Young's
Literal Translation, they all rendered the verse essentially the
same, the last two words being 'eternal life.' Only the YLT rendered
it as you have suggested, Kevin, in your post. What does this say
to us? Well, it says that, universally, (please pardon the pun,
it was unintentional) the translators from several different times
and places all interpreted it to mean the same thing, 'eternal.'
What conclusions can we draw from that? Well, assuming that these
were well educated and informed men, led by the Spirit, and knowledgeable
of the Greek of the Bible, we can say, 'They are so overwhelmingly
in agreement, this must be the accurate translation.' Or we could
say, 'They were all duped.' We could say, 'Well, one team translated
it 'eternal life' and all the rest just jumped on that bandwagon,
not being careful scholars.' I ask you, based on the context of
the entire Bible and the use of concepts of the Bible by the Holy
Spirit of God Who inspired it, which is most likely? Is it likely
that all these individuals and teams of scholars were all wrong?
Or is it more likely that the aberrant group has taken advantage
of a word and run with that to the intent of pushing their spurious
agenda? As john pointed out, one of the synonyms and concepts involved
in this Greek useage of the word is 'perpetuity.' That speaks powerfully
of 'eternal' and 'everlasting,' it seems to me. The whole objection
of the Universalists you have run across seems to have no foundation
for causing us to doubt the intent and meaning of the Lord God.
|
Subject: john and rod
From: kevin
To: Rod
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 07:48:22 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Thaks for the input. Sometimes one can get into the thick of a discussion
on a topic and fail to see the forest for the trees. I have tried
to avoid such an error, but alas, sinful creature that I am, I failed.
Thank you again for your information and support. May we all continue
to wrestle with scripture, like Jacob wrestled with the angel of
the Lord, until we receive the blessing that God has in it for us.
In Him, kevin sdg sf ss
|
Subject: Check out this link kevin
From: Eric
To: kevin
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 09:05:16 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
This link is to a site of the writing of Arthur Custance--a committed
Calvinist. The page you will go to will be to a chapter in an online
book dealing with the Doctrines of Grace. If I recall, he touches
on this subject in this chapter, as well as the next. Read through
both, and you will probably get a good answer, as well as some info
relating to Universalism. God bless. http://www.custance.org/grace/ch18.html
Custance Chapter 18 www.custance.org/grace/ch18.html
|
Subject: ??????!!
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 11:03:01 (PDT)
Email Address:
na
Message:
Well, Eric, I know you wrote to Kevin, but I took the liberty of
visiting the site and I have to say, What
a load of junk! Or maybe 'junque'
would be the appropriate word, since he has so dressed it up with
'intellectualism.' I read as much as I could (quite a lot) before
my stomach turned with his supposed knowledge and enlightenment,
but truly revealed ignorance. It is revealed by several statements,
but this one is the only one with which I'll deal directly: 'On
two counts, therefore, it seems that some attempt ought to be made
to justify the ways of God with men.' We do often offer explanations
for the ways of God to those who question, and there
are real and true explanations of the truth and justice, love and
mercy, of God. But
we should never seek to 'justify' the ways of God with men! Why? Very simply because, If God wants His ways justified,
HE IS PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DOING IT, and He has done it with all the revelation men need
IN HIS INSPIRED WORD.
The true believer and 'defender of the faith' does just that--he
defends the faith as presented in the Bible based solely on Bible
teaching and precepts, not on the ways of men, not in the ways of
the (evil) world. If men who are lost or confused about the Bible
can't understand that, it is because of one reason. That reason
isn't that God hasn't adequately dealt with the issue in His Word;
it is that they haven't had the revelation of the heart of faith
from the Holy Spirit to receive that particular truth yet. That's
very simple and the certain teaching of the Bible as I read it and
God has given me to understand it. This author brings up the tired
old presupposition that 'eternal' doesn't refer to a length of time
or all the ages, but deals with 'quality' of punishment. May I point
out to you and all that if this false logic is accepted, then no
one can be a true 'five pointer' because the 'eternal life' which
the Bible promises to the saved is by no means everlasting! We can
conceivably enjoy the blessings and fellowship of God for an 'eternity
of quality' (whatever that might mean!), but we wouldn't be assured
of everlasting salvation and glorification, and presence with the
Lord! If the punishment is temporary, then the adoption of sonship
with God might not be forever either. Utterly ridiculous! More importantly,
since God is described as "eternal," We could not even
trust that even He is without beginning or end! The word 'saved'
is not ever used as a temporary condition in the Bible. Similarly,
the Bible makes it just as manifest that the punishment and separation
from God of the lost is forever. That's the meaning of 'lost.' 'Saved,'
is something a Christian, one placed by the direct action of God
in Christ, IS.
'Is' is a continuous state, just as God is 'I AM,' a continuing
state of perfection and all that He is at one time and forever.
One is 'saved,' or one is 'lost.' The only ones not permanently
lost are the predestined to be saved by the grace of God. The other
day, Eric, in another thread, you poked fun at several of us for
being 'fundy.' There are no true 'Fundamentalists' here, if I understand
the term correctly. But you superimposed the term and meaning onto
those of us who disagree with your liberal views. You have shown
the same tendency in other posts over the months. Frankly, Eric,
I think you could stand to ask the Lord God to give you a good dose
of the 'fundamentalism' you ridicule. I honestly don't expect you
to do that on your own, so I'm praying that He will do it in spite
of your not asking, so that you may embrace the views you now find
objectionable, but which are solidly based on Biblical truth. That
is my sincere prayer for you.
|
Subject: Now, now Rod...
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 12:51:12 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Dear Brother Rod, Let me respond to a few of the points you made
in your presumptuous post. First, I did not say that I endorsed
Custance, only that he was a committed calvinist. I find some of
the things he has to say interesting--sorry. Also, the article deals
directly with the question kevin asked, and I thought it would be
helpful to him in getting a handle on the different views on this
issue. Second, you misrepresented the tone of the quote you referenced.
Here you lifted one sentance from a 20+ chapter book, and used it
to ridicule. Elsewhere Custance says that God does not need to justify
man, but in a sense a Christian does need to be able to answer objections
given by man. Funny, I heard the same thing by R.C. Sproul the other
day. Third, your argument about the word eternal is with Custance,
and not with me, as I have given no opinion on it, which interestingly
enough, Custance does not come to any conclusions either. Fourth,
my use of the term 'fundie' was made in jest--which by the way,
I made perfectly clear. My post was that it is more of a heart issue,
than an actual stewardship of resources issue, which by the way,
nobody did tell me why spending $20.00 for a night of entertainment
playing blackjack was worse than spending $20 watching a sporting
event. Fifth, perhaps my other liberal views, of which the only
one I can think of is that drinking alcohol in moderation is perfectly
allowable for a Christian to do. Which somehow you found objectionable
(I might have you confused with john hampshire, but from your tone,
I doubt it). Sixth, if you want to pray that I turn into a fundamentalist,
no thank you. Instead pray that I continue to grow in the grace
and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that I will refrain
from presumptuously judging others. BTW, will you list for me the
views that you want me to hold, just so that I can save you some
time and make you aware of what I hold to, and what I don't. ***sheeesh!***
God bless.
|
Subject: Time to get real, Eric
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 13:47:45 (PDT)
Email Address:
na
Message:
Eric, I will respond to your post. First, please don't address me
as, 'dear brother Rod' piously and then ridicule me. I seem anything
but 'dear' to you. First point: You wrote, 'Elsewhere Custance says
that God does not need to justify man, but in a sense a Christian
does need to be able to answer objections given by man. Funny, I
heard the same thing by R.C. Sproul the other day.' Here is what
Custance said, directly quoted and that quote I addressed and still
stand by my statements, 'On two counts, therefore, it seems that
some attempt ought to be made to justify the ways of God with men.'
Now, compare my response: 'We do often offer explanations for the
ways of God to those who question, and there are real and true explanations
of the truth and justice, love and mercy, of God. But we should
never seek to 'justify' the ways of God with men!' If Sproul thinks
we should seek to 'justify the ways of God with men' in the same
way Custance does, which I sincerely doubt, then he is wrong also.
When we exegete Scripture, we don't offer rationalization and explain
away God's actions; instead, we set forth the truth about those
actions and we do it as Peter exhorted: 'If any man speak, let him
speak as the oracles of God...' (1 Peter 4:11). We make no apologies
for what the holy, just, merciful, gracious, almighty, Ancient of
Days (perpetual and eternal) God does or pronounces. And we don't
cheapen His Word with clever words and rhetoric. We glorify Him.
And that sometimes offends certain folks. So be it, so long as we
are seeking to truly magnify the Lord God and honor His truth. You,
Eric, refer to my post as 'presumptuous.' My 'presumption' of what
you mean by that is that I imposed Custance's beliefs onto you.
Well, you do seem to sympathize with him somewhat and you certainly
gave no indication in your first post that you didn't buy into his
spiel. You invited that presumption, I think. And I think it is
justifiable on the basis of such statements as this, in which you
agree with Custance: 'Third, your argument about the word eternal
is with Custance, and not with me, as I have given no opinion on
it, which interestingly enough, Custance does not come to any conclusions
either.' So, you see, "my argument" is with both of you
who cannot and will not see that God means what He pronounces so
definitely. And BTW, this is not a 'personality issue.' I am adamantly
opposed to anyone who takes the orthodox and accepted meaning of
the Bible and twists it out of shape. So, I actually have not an
argument with you or your mentor, but with your refusing to handle
God's Word with care and reverence on this issue. Again you err:
'Fourth, my use of the term 'fundie' was made in jest--which by
the way, I made perfectly clear. My post was that it is more of
a heart issue, than an actual stewardship of resources issue, which
by the way, nobody did tell me why spending $20.00 for a night of
entertainment playing blackjack was worse than spending $20 watching
a sporting event.' Here is what you actually said, and it isn't
exactly the same as you just portrayed it: 'What is the difference
if somebody wants to spend $20.00 playing nickle slots or craps
in a casino, as opposed to spending $20.00 watching a professional
sports game. Is not the $20.00 spent for ultimately the same cause--entertainment?
Or how about eating out at a restaurant, surely the meal would have
been cheaper if made at home--why waste the money.' I have to point
out that Pilgrim answered that question in his post above yours
before you even asked it--a fact that I pointed out in response
to your objection, asking you to please re-read Pilgrim's post.
(I didn't question in either post that you were jesting, but I did
and do think you were half serious in your 'jest.') Just so you
won't be confused and impose views on me which aren't my own, here
is another of your statements: 'Which somehow you found objectionable
(I might have you confused with john hampshire, but from your tone,
I doubt it).' This was spoken about what you describe as 'drinking
alcohol in moderation.' I had an uncle by marriage who had a vastly
different definition of 'moderation' than I. What is 'moderation'
to one might be excess to you or vice-versa. Let me state my views
on this off topic
subject, so you will know exactly where I stand. Before I was saved
I drank heavily for a few months in college. I was 19 and thought
it was wonderful that no one asked me for I.D.. I never, however,
acquired a taste for alcohol in any form. I just don't enjoy it
or what it does to me. I have had a few beers since being saved,
probably less than 20 in thirty or so years--I am convinced I'm
not going to hell because of drinking them and it wasn't sin for
me. I don't, however, like to be around people who are drinking,
whether in 'moderation' or not. I recognize legitimate differing
Christians' convictions on the issue. For me, I choose not to do
it. My wife thanked me the other day for that precise thing, saying
that, though she was saved, she drank heavily for a time in her
early twenties and was glad that we, together, didn't do it. I was
touched. I have noticed that anyone who says, 'I can take it or
leave it,' invariably "takes it." Bottom line: I don't
like drinking for myself, or others. I don't condemn sincere Christians
who don't think it is sin and who actually don't sin with it. I
will avoid being with those who are drinking, whenever I conveniently
can, Christian or not. You judged my stance on this issue by my
'tone.' Was that a bit presumptuous? :>) Your next statement:
'Sixth, if you want to pray that I turn into a fundamentalist, no
thank you. Instead pray that I continue to grow in the grace and
knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that I will refrain from
presumptuously judging others.' If you read with discernment, that
is exactly the kind of 'fundamentalism' I do wish for you and was
trying to indicate I was praying for for you. That's something I
made clear from my post for those who have eyes to see. Your final
statement: 'BTW, will you list for me the views that you want me
to hold, just so that I can save you some time and make you aware
of what I hold to, and what I don't. ***sheeesh!*** ' Very snide
of you, but okay, here it is: Believe the fundamental precepts which
are clearly taught in the Bible and I will be pleased for you and
can assure you, based on that Bible, that God will be pleased with
you. Then you have the audacity to say, 'God bless.' Eric, This
isn't personal with me, as it became for you. If you think I came
on too strong, may God grant that I always come on strong in the
face of such beliefs as Custance put forth. I'm not trying to offend,
but to tell the truth. If you are offended, then I think you need
to examine yourself. I will stand more firmly for basic issues such
as 'eternity' than on many other things. This seems to be a very
crucial issue for us to get straight. I regret that you don't recognize
that and can't see fit to denounce Custance on it. I am praying
for you in this regard in the manner in which I see fit, as God
leads me.
|
Subject: Reality Bites! :)
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 14:18:07 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
That was the name of a movie by the way. Dear Rod, Are you not my
brother in Christ? Also, ridicule is not what I was doing, and if
it came across that way, then I apologize. I did get a little rankled
by your post, I admit, I have a aversion to people who are quick
to sanctimoniously judge others, Pharisees, especially Reformed
ones make me sick! If that is not what you are doing, then again
I apologize. However, you made no effort to soften the way you come
across. It is real easy to say you are championing truth, and use
it as an excuse to cover up poor manners. Now, on to your post.
If you are so concerned with truth Rod, why would you call Custance
my mentor? What views of Custance do I hold to, if any? You seem
to be awfully indignant if someone makes an assumption about you,
yet you are guilty of it in the same post. Also, what I said was,
that I gave no opinion on Custances work, not that I HAVE no opinion
on it, I can see how you might take this the wrong way though because
of the rest of the sentance. I hope that clarifys. Perhaps you will
apologize for your accusation that I do not hold God's word with
care and reverance on this issue. Perhaps some, dare I say it, brotherly
charity, is in order over a forum such as this, as these posts are
so easily misconstrued. And yes, you did offend me, but you gave
yourself an excuse for your behavior by claiming to be standing
up for the Word of God, when that wasn't the issue at all. Now,
will you please either retract your statement about my liberal views,
or enumerate them for me. This isn't a personality issue for me
either Rod, it is more about giving somebody the benefit of the
doubt, or at least taking the time to clarify somebody's position
before slandering them in public. I do like your last point though
which basically says 'If I offended you, then you are the one with
the problem.' And I sincerely say, God bless. It is easy for me
to wish the best for, and love those who I might disagree with,
only because Christ has poured so much grace into my life. When
you really think about it, it puts a lot of things in perspective.
|
Subject: I am pretty much out of it, but...
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 15:46:13 (PDT)
Email Address:
na
Message:
I did recognize the name of the movie, Eric. I'll answer you this
time and then I'm leaving the topic to you. I believe you've missed
my point both times. I called Custance your 'mentor' because you
seem to admit you share his indecision on the most critical issue,
the one I addressed in my first post to you here, the one on which
the Word of God stands firm: 'Now, on to your post. If you are so
concerned with truth Rod, why would you call Custance my mentor?
What views of Custance do I hold to, if any? You seem to be awfully
indignant if someone makes an assumption about you, yet you are
guilty of it in the same post.' Here is what you said, and by not
committing, as Custance does, you tacitly agree by not vehemently
disagreeing with his heretical stance: 'Third, your argument about
the word eternal is with Custance, and not with me, as I have given no opinion on it, which interestingly
enough, Custance does not come to any conclusions either.' That is your statement and stance. Your noncommittment
to the truth of the declarations of the Bible about eternality is
your stance. It is a distrust of the declarations of God. This is
the pronouncement of God incarnate: 'And as Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have eternal life' (John
3:15; cp 16 where the 'not perish[ing]' is mentioned again for reinforcement).
If you can read such statements as this and have no opinion on how
long eternity is, then that is serious error on your part. The word
'perish' refers to 'utter destruction,' and complete ruin. Believers
will 'never perish.' (John 10:28) There they are also said to have
'eternal life,' again the use of the word you don't affirm, in spite
of the fact that it is coupled with 'never perishing,' or always
possessing life in perpetuity. This is incomprehensible and indefensible.
Who does 'perish?' 'While I was with them in the world, I kept them
in thy name; those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of
them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might
be fulfilled' (John 17:12). The word 'perdition' may be actually
derived from the word 'perish' and it carries the connotation of
utter ruin. Furthermore the word 'lost' in that verse is the same
word translated 'perish' in the earlier verses referenced in John
3. So, we have the eternal lifers never perishing and the lost described
as eternally perishing and in perdition, each carrying the same
essential thought. Yet neither Custance nor you can commit to the
length of time for these conditions. I'm sorry, I must condemn that
lack of commitment in the strongest terms. So that is my reply to
your statement: 'Perhaps you will apologize for your accusation
that I do not hold God's word with care and reverance on this issue.'
I can't see that you do hold it with care and reverence on this
issue. Here is another statement which is inconsitent: 'I have a
aversion to people who are quick to sanctimoniously judge others,
Pharisees, especially Reformed ones make me sick! If that is not
what you are doing, then again I apologize. However, you made no
effort to soften the way you come across. It is real easy to say
you are championing truth, and use it as an excuse to cover up poor
manners.' I invite you to once again, Eric, look at what I've said.
This is not personal.
As for softening what I say, I don't think you would be served by
that. I think you need truth and lots of it on this issue and why
you have misjudged it. 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but
the kisses of an enemy are deceitful' (Prov. 27:6). I don't think,
if I have understood you right, you have any reason for being offended,
except that you are espousing an indefinsible position and hurt
that I don't accept it. This is not a 'negociable' issue, and I'm
discussing issues, not personalities. Besies, the "reformed"
people here don't accept me as one of their own--I'm not strictly
"reformed," but a sovereign gracer.
|
Subject: I hope this will settle it...
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted:
Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 17:50:28 (PDT)
Email Address:
Not Provided
Message:
Hi Rod, You wrote: >>> I invite you to once again, Eric,
look at what I've said. This is not personal. As for softening what
I say, I don't think you would be served by that. I think you need
truth and lots of it on this issue and why you have misjudged it.
Ok, I did, and here is what I saw. You will notice that you never
did ask me what I believed concerning hell. And as far as softening
goes, we don’t soften truth, we only soften the way we treat each
other, and that includes giving somebody the benefit of the doubt
until we ***KNOW*** what it is we are rebuking. >>>The
other day, Eric, in another thread, you poked fun at several of
us for being 'fundy.' There are no true 'Fundamentalists' here,
if I understand the term correctly. But you superimposed the term
and meaning onto those of us who disagree with your liberal views.
You have shown the same tendency in other posts over the months.
Frankly, Eric, I think you could stand to ask the Lord God to give
you a good dose of the 'fundamentalism' you ridicule. I honestly
don't expect you to do that on your own, so I'm praying that He
will do it in spite of your not asking, so that you may embrace
the views you now find objectionable, but which are solidly based
on Biblical truth. That is my sincere prayer for you. I asked you
to identify which liberal views I hold to, and you have failed to
do so. Assumption #1 on which you were wrong. >>>You, Eric,
refer to my post as 'presumptuous.' My 'presumption' of what you
mean by that is that I imposed Custance's beliefs onto you. Well,
you do seem to sympathize with him somewhat and you certainly gave
no indication in your first post that you didn't buy into his spiel.
You invited that presumption, I think. And I think it is justifiable
on the basis of such statements as this, in which you agree with
Custance: 'Third, your argument about the word eternal is with Custance,
and not with me, as I have given no opinion on it, which interestingly
enough, Custance does not come to any conclusions either.' So, you
see, 'my argument' is with both of you who cannot and will not see
that God means what He pronounces so definitely. I corrected your
understanding of my position, and yet in the next post, you completely
ignored my correction and continued with your wrong assumption.
>>>And BTW, this is not a 'personality issue.' I am adamantly
opposed to anyone who takes the orthodox and accepted meaning of
the Bible and twists it out of shape. So, I actually have not an
argument with you or your mentor, but with your refusing to handle
God's Word with care and reverence on this issue. Another derogatory
statement based upon your false assumption. >>>I called
Custance your 'mentor' because you seem to admit you share his indecision
on the most critical issue, the one I addressed in my first post
to you here, the one on which the Word of God stands firm: >>>'Now,
on to your post. If you are so concerned with truth Rod, why would
you call Custance my mentor? What views of Custance do I hold to,
if any? You seem to be awfully indignant if someone makes an assumption
about you, yet you are guilty of it in the same post.' Here is what
you said, and by not committing, as Custance does, you tacitly agree
by not vehemently disagreeing with his heretical stance: 'Third,
your argument about the word eternal is with Custance, and not with
me, as I have given no opinion on it, which interestingly enough,
Custance does not come to any conclusions either.' That is your
statement and stance. Your noncommittment to the truth of the declarations
of the Bible about eternality is your stance. It is a distrust of
the declarations of God. I was very disappointed with this Rod,
I specifically clarified my intent, and you disregarded it, and
continued on with your false assumption. >>>I'm sorry,
I must condemn that lack of commitment in the strongest terms. So
that is my reply to your statement: 'Perhaps you will apologize
for your accusation that I do not hold God's word with care and
reverance on this issue.' I can't see that you do hold it with care
and reverence on this issue. >>>I don't think, if I have
understood you right, you have any reason for being offended, except
that you are espousing an indefinsible position and hurt that I
don't accept it. This is not a 'negociable' issue, and I'm discussing
issues, not personalities. Rod, in all sincerity, you have not understood
me right, nor asked if you have, you have only assumed wrongly,
and then proceeded to run from there. Just so you know Rod, I do
hold to hell as being a place of eternal, as in unending, torment.
Why didn’t you ask me this in the first place? >>>Besies,
the 'reformed' people here don't accept me as one of their own--I'm
not strictly 'reformed,' but a sovereign gracer. Then you know of
the attitude that I am fighting against, and perhaps you can see
how someone might benefit from a little more Christian charity.
I hope you see where I was coming from Rod, but from where I sit,
you were awfully quick to assume. I do forgive you, and hold no
ill will towards you at all. I can indeed call you my brother. May
God continue to shine His grace upon you.
|
