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: 194
Post New Message


Belle -:- theonomy -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 20:05:41 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: theonomy -:- Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:50:31 (PDT)
__ Belle -:- Re: theonomy -:- Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:07:35 (PDT)

cousin earl -:- a good explanation about Theony -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:55:31 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: a good explanation about Theonomy -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:58:19 (PDT)
__ cousin earl -:- Re: a good explanation about Theonomy -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 19:57:06 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: a good explanation about Theonomy -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:03:02 (PDT)
____ cousin earl -:- Re: a good explanation about Theonomy -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:15:21 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: a good explanation about Theonomy -:- Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:45:42 (PDT)
_____ Theo -:- A link on theonomy -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:19:04 (PDT)

Tom -:- The Trinity -:- Tues, Jul 25, 2000 at 18:39:17 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 07:04:38 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 17:30:26 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:00:47 (PDT)
____ Tom -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 18:01:51 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 18:31:56 (PDT)
______ Tom -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 18:20:41 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 20:44:24 (PDT)
________ Tom -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 12:01:55 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:45:00 (PDT)
__________ john hampshire -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 00:58:24 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 06:51:11 (PDT)
____________ john hampshire -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Tues, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:05:22 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Tues, Aug 01, 2000 at 07:37:12 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 14:25:19 (PDT)
__________ Rod -:- Well, you guys have smoked me out! :> -:- Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 13:31:05 (PDT)

kevin -:- covenant theology -:- Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 06:38:55 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: covenant theology -:- Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 20:44:40 (PDT)
_ John P. -:- Re: covenant theology -:- Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 20:02:04 (PDT)

Mark -:- The Trinity -:- Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 15:25:07 (PDT)
_
Tom -:- Re: The Trinity -:- Thurs, Jul 20, 2000 at 22:47:04 (PDT)

Rod -:- Foreknowledge -:- Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 14:44:15 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Regarding glorification -:- Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 14:11:23 (PDT)

LetsObeyChrist Lk.6:46 Mt -:- Why was the Pope killed? -:- Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 17:54:01 (PDT)
_
Anne -:- Re: Why was the Pope killed? -:- Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 19:57:13 (PDT)
__ keyboardQB -:- Re: Why was the Pope killed? -:- Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 22:42:34 (PDT)
___ Anne -:- Re: Why was the Pope killed? -:- Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:56:38 (PDT)
____ keyboardQB -:- Re: Why was the Pope killed? -:- Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 18:15:42 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Why was the Pope killed? -:- Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 07:22:58 (PDT)
______ keyboardQB -:- Re: Why was the Pope killed? -:- Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 20:07:31 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:- The many faces of sovereign gracers? -:- Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 20:56:30 (PDT)
______ keyboardQB -:- Re: The many faces of sovereign gracers -:- Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 21:24:36 (PDT)
____ John P. -:- Re: Why was the Pope killed? -:- Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 16:38:00 (PDT)

Eric -:- Since it's slow... -:- Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 09:05:58 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Since it's slow... -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 06:45:42 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Since it's slow... -:- Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 22:32:21 (PDT)
__ Eric -:- A combined response -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 08:33:56 (PDT)
___ laz -:- Re: A combined response -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 19:02:03 (PDT)
____ Eric -:- I am really troubled by your response -:- Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 05:20:51 (PDT)
_____ Anne -:- A book you might enjoy reading. . . -:- Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 06:50:15 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- The heart of the whole matter -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 10:33:13 (PDT)
____ Eric -:- Re: The heart of the whole matter -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:18:57 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:- Man, Eric, are you confused! -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 12:34:57 (PDT)
______ Eric -:- I noticed... -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 13:38:02 (PDT)
_______ John P. -:- Re: I noticed... -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 17:33:18 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:- I didn't 'refute' your postion... -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 15:25:51 (PDT)
________ Eric -:- And you call me confused! -:- Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:23:32 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Since it's slow... -:- Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 12:15:36 (PDT)

Knowfear (Lk.12:5) -:- question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 04:47:55 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 11:39:26 (PDT)
__ Anne -:- Re: question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 14:13:07 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Re: question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 20:52:39 (PDT)
_ Anne -:- Re: question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 06:35:59 (PDT)
__ Knowfear -:- Re: question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 10:22:11 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re: question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 10:16:32 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: question -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 18:25:46 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Huh? I agree completely. What? :> -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 20:54:29 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:-
I am... -:- Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 17:22:30 (PDT)
______ Rod -:- Re: I am... -:- Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 18:46:53 (PDT)

Tom -:- Persecution -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 12:07:37 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Persecution -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 18:24:57 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re: Persecution -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 20:11:33 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Persecution -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 10:37:48 (PDT)
____ Tom -:- Re: Persecution -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 15:20:26 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Persecution -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 18:17:36 (PDT)
______ Tom -:- Re: Persecution -:- Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 17:07:48 (PDT)
_______ john hampshire -:- Re: Persecution -:- Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 23:37:07 (PDT)
________ Tom -:- Re: Persecution -:- Tues, Jul 11, 2000 at 22:17:49 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Persecution -:- Tues, Jul 11, 2000 at 07:57:06 (PDT)
_________ john hampshire -:- Re: Persecution -:- Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 01:40:18 (PDT)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Persecution -:- Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 07:27:16 (PDT)
___________ laz -:- Re: Persecution -:- Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 06:59:59 (PDT)
_ Tom -:- Gave wrong e-mail address -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 12:11:29 (PDT)

LetsObeyChrist Lk.6:46 Mt -:- Fatima's 3rd secret interpreted -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 00:56:25 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- your point? -:- Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 18:32:24 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Fatima's 3rd secret interpreted -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 17:46:31 (PDT)

John P. -:- Jerrold Lewis, Separation, and SL&C -:- Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 12:17:54 (PDT)
_
Jerrold Lewis -:- Re: Jerrold Lewis, Separation, and SL&C -:- Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 23:07:53 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Jerrold Lewis, Separation, and SL&C -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 11:54:38 (PDT)
___ John P. -:- A Request -:- Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 13:56:51 (PDT)

Tom -:- Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 17:28:07 (PDT)
_
Diaconeo -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 01:42:20 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 07:25:54 (PDT)
___ Diaconeo -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 02:09:03 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 19:44:25 (PDT)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 19:30:46 (PDT)
__ stan -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 20:55:14 (PDT)
___ Tom -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 17:47:07 (PDT)
____ John P. -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 18:13:59 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 21:26:09 (PDT)
______ laz -:- Re: Rev. 9:3, 7 -:- Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 09:45:15 (PDT)

Brother Bret -:- Spurgeon Quote On 'Free Will' -:- Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 20:12:18 (PDT)

stan -:- assist me if you can -:- Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 22:26:50 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: assist me if you can -:- Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 18:50:01 (PDT)
__ stan -:- Re: tanks! -:- Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 20:16:16 (PDT)
_ Theo -:- Richard Chenevix Trench -:- Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 07:28:17 (PDT)
__ Rod -:- Re: Richard Chenevix Trench -:- Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 14:46:41 (PDT)
___ Theo -:- Re: Richard Chenevix Trench -:- Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 17:42:03 (PDT)
____ stan -:- Re: here is the .... -:- Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 20:12:58 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:- Hmmm... -:- Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 23:13:38 (PDT)
______ stan -:- Re: Hmmm... -:- Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 07:44:34 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:- Re: Hmmm... -:- Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 12:48:32 (PDT)
________ stan -:- Re: So true! ;-) NT -:- Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 15:02:24 (PDT)

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)
_____ stan -:- Re: Can someone explain this reference? -:- Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 22:21:34 (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)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: 1Tim.2:11-12 and the Greek -:- Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 16:28:08 (PDT)
____ Brother Bret -:- Re: 1Tim.2:11-12 and the Greek -:- Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 20:05:10 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: 1Tim.2:11-12 and the Greek -:- Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 21:45:41 (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)
__ Marty -:- Re: Presby Church & Leavened Bread -:- Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 12:12:27 (PDT)

kevin -:- question on Greek -:- Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:05:12 (PDT)
_
Jimmy -:- Endless time or timelessness?? -:- Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 09:32:30 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Endless time or timelessness? -:- Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 22:00:07 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Ex. 3:13-14 & John 8:58 -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 07:25:17 (PDT)
___ Jimmy -:- Re: Endless time or timelessness?? -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 07:20:15 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Jimmy's part? -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 07:31:04 (PDT)
_____ Jimmy -:- Re: Jimmy's part? -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 08:04:00 (PDT)
______ a monitor -:- Re: Jimmy's part? -:- Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 09:52:09 (PDT)
______ Rod -:- Glad your day was brightened. NT -:- Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 08:40:35 (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)


Post New Message


Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



Subject: theonomy
From: Belle
To: pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 20:05:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I too am interested in theonomy, but I need it in simple concepts. We are made to think if we don't accept these teachings, we are rejecting the Bible as a whole...that the O.T. is as authoritative for our practice today as the N.T.

Subject: Re: theonomy
From: Pilgrim
To: Belle
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:50:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Belle, You might start by reading the article referred to by Theo in his reply to 'cousin earl'. You can view that article by Clicking Here. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: theonomy
From: Belle
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:07:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thank you, Pilgrim. I printed it out to study

Subject: a good explanation about Theony
From: cousin earl
To: pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:55:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim-I have been a frequent reader of the highway and enjoy it very much. I seek to know God better and enjoy Him. Recently our family has left a PCA church because of the harshness of Theonomy being preached there. I am grieved in my heart because of this . I have sought to learn about all the things like paedocommunion. I have read so many of your post and respect your opinion. Could you please direct me to books or articles concerning this problem. It has done so much damage to our family. I know it is hard to discuss these things but know that I am sincere in asking for help

Subject: Re: a good explanation about Theonomy
From: Pilgrim
To: cousin earl
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:58:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim-I have been a frequent reader of the highway and enjoy it very much. I seek to know God better and enjoy Him. Recently our family has left a PCA church because of the harshness of Theonomy being preached there. I am grieved in my heart because of this . I have sought to learn about all the things like paedocommunion. I have read so many of your post and respect your opinion. Could you please direct me to books or articles concerning this problem. It has done so much damage to our family. I know it is hard to discuss these things but know that I am sincere in asking for help
---
cousin earl,
Probably one of the more recent and better critiques of Theonomy is Theonomy: A Reformed Critique ed. William s. barker and W. Robert Godfrey. This book is a compilation of articles written by some of the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. I admit, I haven't done much reading on this subject in years as I rejected the 'Theonomy' position while still at WTS. VanTil was partly influential in guiding me in my studies of the subject and I am deeply indebted to his wisdom. It's a very complex subject and therefore not one easily grasped. And to me, this is part of the problem; that the Theonomists have woven a very precise and complex web which is meant to trap the unwary and those who are not given to much study. The average Christian is probably most susceptible to its influence, but to be honest, Theonomy isn't 'guilty' solely of negatively influencing 'nominal Christians' for the entire world and 'every wind of doctrine' also has succeeded in moving professing Christians off the 'narrow path'.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: a good explanation about Theonomy
From: cousin earl
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 19:57:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Subject: Re: a good explanation about Theonomy
From: Pilgrim
To: cousin earl
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:03:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

---
cousin earl,
You are indeed a man of few words! :-)

Subject: Re: a good explanation about Theonomy
From: cousin earl
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:15:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That was great! I did write a post but something must have happened. What a good laugh-I needed that. I ask, if while studying the book you would answer questions? I have the book and tried to read it but it is hard for me to understand. I know there are many teachings out there to keep us off the straight path.

Subject: Re: a good explanation about Theonomy
From: Pilgrim
To: cousin earl
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:45:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That was great! I did write a post but something must have happened. What a good laugh-I needed that. I ask, if while studying the book you would answer questions? I have the book and tried to read it but it is hard for me to understand. I know there are many teachings out there to keep us off the straight path.
---
cousin earl,
I am glad you got a chuckle, :-). Laughter is a good medicine for the soul. Now as to answering questions you might have while reading that book, not only I, but I am sure others would be glad to help you out as we are able, D.v. May the LORD God guide you in your study and grant you wisdom and knowledge.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: A link on theonomy
From: Theo
To: cousin earl
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:19:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Cousin Earl, You might find the attached link to be of help. Lee Irons has a good mind, I think--and this is a good article. In Christ the King, Theo Lee Irons on theonomy members.aol.com/ironslee/private/Commonargs.htm

Subject: The Trinity
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Jul 25, 2000 at 18:39:17 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I am hoping you can help me. Recently I was listening to an excellent series of messages called The Holy Spirit and Ourselves by JI Packer. I have learned a great deal from Dr.Packer over the years, and this series is no exception. However something he said, contradicts (I think) with what I have been taught about the Trinity, that I am hoping for some more light on. In the series, when he was talking about proof of the Trinity. He said when we baptize , we say in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. He said it is significant that we don't say 'in the names of...' for it proves that each member of the Trinity have a name. While I like this line of reasoning, from my studies (if they are correct), I have learned that when we say 'in the name of...', what the statement means is 'by the authority of'. Similar to a police officer saying 'stop in the name of the law!' In other words, it is not that the Trinity are named Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, when scripture tells us to be baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. What the passage is saying is we should be baptized 'by the authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit'. I have a document in front of me that says the following: The church has always believed that one must be baptized in the name of (or in the authority of) Jesus. However, the actual formula used when a person was being baptized was to recite the Trinitarian 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit.' This is confirmed in the ancient catechism of the early church called the Didache which was written between 90-120 A.D. For documentation, see The Apostolic Father by J.B. Lightfoot, edited by Michael W. Holmes (Baker Book). Does what Professor Packer say contradict with what I have learned about the subject of the Trinity? Why or why not? In His grace Tom Hardy

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 07:04:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
I see no contradiction is what Dr. Packer has written. All that he is emphasizing, I believe, is that the Trinity is just that: TRIUNE. Within the economic Trinity there are 3 distinct persons, each identified as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is consistent with the teaching of the early Christian creeds, eg., the Nicene and Athanasian Creed. So, what he wrote is simply dealing with another aspect/perspective on the Trinity and not a replacement and/or contradiction of the fact that when one is baptized the tri-fold name of the Trinity it indeed expresses the truth that the church is administering the baptismal formula by and under the authority of the triune God.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 17:30:26 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Thanks for that information. Do you understand why it seemed to me to be a contradiction, to what I had previously learned about the Trinity? What Dr.Packer seemed to be saying(at least to me), is that the Trinity(God's) name was the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In other words, each person of the Trinity has a name, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. My understanding is that these are titles, not names. This kind of reminds me with what my brother's pastor wrote in his book 'The Lord's Last call'. I suppose if Dr.Packer had antisipated a question such as mine. He would have clarified what he meant. Tom

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 21:00:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
But each person of the divine Trinity does in fact 'have a name' for each is a distinct person, yet inseparable from the other two. (cf. Athanasian Creed). The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit, etc. Remember the biblical formula?: 3 PERSONS yet 1 GOD.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 18:01:51 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Yes I know each member of the Trinity has a name, however what Dr. Packer seemed to be saying (at least to me) is that the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit are their names. However as I said before, I believe that if Dr. Packer had anticipated my question, he would have alaborated on what he meant. Tom

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 27, 2000 at 18:31:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim Yes I know each member of the Trinity has a name, however what Dr. Packer seemed to be saying (at least to me) is that the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit are their names. However as I said before, I believe that if Dr. Packer had anticipated my question, he would have alaborated on what he meant. Tom
---
Tom,
Now you have me confused by referring to the words, 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' as 'titles'. Most often in my readings the use of the word 'title' is used by Monotheists and Modalists. They confess that God is one, and that references to the 'Son' or the 'Holy Spirit' are just 'titles' used to designate a different manifestation of the 'one God'. Whereas, orthodox theologians most always use the word 'names' because it refers to the identity of an actual 'person' within the Godhead. So please expand a bit if you would on where and why you are wanting to refer to what historically are known as the 'names' of the 3 persons of the Godhead as 'titles. :-) Thanks.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 18:20:41 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgim Perhaps it is me that is confused? I have always understood the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit as titles of the Trinity. For example my title is 'father', because I am the father of my children. But my name isn't father, it is Thomas. One of the debates I had with my brother about the Trinity, is that he believed that the Trinity's name was Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I told him that when scripture said 'in the name of the Father Son, and Holy Ghost, it wasn't saying that the Trinity's name was Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It was saying 'by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost'. Similar to a police officer saying 'stop in the name of the law'! Am I to conclude that my brother was right all along? I am not using the word 'titles' in the way a modelist would use it. I am using 'titles' to refer to the identity of an actual 'person' within the Godhead. Not just a mode of the one God. Maybe 'titles' does not convey that in the same way that 'name' does. However, when I see the word 'name' or 'names'. I think of a name like 'Jesus', not the 'Son'. I hope I have made you understand what is on my mind? Can you explain to me, how I am wrong in using the word 'titles' and how 'name' is a better word to convey this truth? Tom

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 20:44:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
Your brother is totally wrong in saying 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' is the name of the Trinity, for they are names of the three persons within the Trinity. Each name belongs respectively to the individual person Himself! You, on the other hand are 1/2 right, in that with the baptismal formula there is that aspect that the ordained man is indeed baptizing the individual 'under and with the authority of the Triune God'; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, the names are far more than just 'titles' for the names are inseparably descriptive of the personalities of the three persons and their economic functions within the Trinity, especially in relation to our redemption. Here's what the Athanasian Creed says (I am posting it here in the event there are some who have never read it before.)
Athanasian Creed
Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [1] faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally. Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and one Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity. But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.
As you can see, the Creed makes clear that there is but one and only one GOD. But it equally affirms that the ONE GOD is three persons co=equal in all aspects, yet distinctively three, not only in number but in personality and function. Thus each of the three Persons has His own name and are never to be referred to as 'it', or in the case here, they actually have personal names and not simply 'titles'. If you are still confused, let me know and perhaps I can post one or two good articles on the Trinity for your edification. Again, it is not 'either/or' (Dr. Packer vs. Tom), but 'both/and'! :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 12:01:55 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim You wrote: Your brother is totally wrong in saying 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' is the name of the Trinity, for they are names of the three persons within the Trinity. Each name belongs respectively to the individual person Himself! I believe my what my brother meant, was that the 'Father' was the name of the first person of the Trinity, the 'Son' the name of the second person of the Trinity and the 'Holy Ghost', the name of the third person of the Trinity. Just to clarify, are you saying that 'the Father' is the name of the first person in the Trinity, 'the Son' is the name of the second person in the Trinity, and 'the Holy Spirit', is the name of the third person in the Trinity? Is not the name of 'the Son' Jesus? etc... I must be daft, for I don't see a contradiction between what I wrote(at least my understanding) and what the Athanasian Creed says. Though I take it that my understanding of the word 'title' is flawed. Tom

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:45:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
You asked,
Just to clarify, are you saying that 'the Father' is the name of the first person in the Trinity, 'the Son' is the name of the second person in the Trinity, and 'the Holy Spirit', is the name of the third person in the Trinity? Is not the name of 'the Son' Jesus? etc...
The 'name' of GOD is I AM (Jehovah/Yahweh); actually in Hebrew it is the verb 'to be' consisting of 4 consonants and no vowels. The vowels were added later making it either 'Jehovah or Yahweh'. It is known as the Tetragrammaton; and to the Jews unpronounceable due not only to its spelling, but also because they deemed the name of GOD to be too holy to pronounce. Within the Godhead, exist the three persons, each having their own distinctive name; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As to 'Titles', take for example the title 'The Almighty' which is descriptive on one particular attribute/aspect of GOD. The three persons share in that title, as they do all the titles given to GOD. However, the NAME 'Father' is NOT shared among the three persons, but is owned by but one of the three persons. (Isaiah 9:6 does say that the prophetic 'child/son' would be called 'Almighty God, Everlasting Father, etc., but this is not to mean that there is but one PERSON who has different names, as your brother's pastor, Ross Norris, would suggest (Modalism). But rather this text is emphasizing that the 'child/son' to come is true Deity!) As to the second part of your question, 'Is not the name of 'the Son' Jesus?' The answer is yes and no, hehe. This is what the statement of Chalcedon deals with. The incarnate SON, had two natures; human and divine, distinct yet inseparable. The SON was always the SON, from eternity existing as one of the three persons of the Trinity. It wasn't until the incarnation that the two natures were joined and that union was the person The Lord Jesus Christ. So we can affirm without contradiction that the name 'Son' is the name of the second person of the Trinity. And. . . the name 'Jesus' is NOW ALSO the name of the second person of the Trinity for He forever remains the resurrected and glorified incarnate Son of God. Many fail to take into account the reality of the historical incarnation and attribute to the 'God-man' what solely belongs to the Son; the second person of the Trinity. For example, in John 1:1 we read,
John 1:1 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'
If you were to ask, Who is the 'Word' spoken of in this text, the majority of people would say that it is 'Jesus'. However, this is a gross error! The God-man Christ Jesus did not exist in eternity, but came to being historically at the incarnation. This is what the apostle John labors to show in this first chapter; that GOD BECAME man. He makes this point in verse 14, where we read,
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.'
It is here, that the eternal SON 'was made/became' human flesh, and His name was 'Jesus'
Matt 1:21 'And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.'
Notice the future tense of the verb 'to be' indicating that what was to take place had not been previously, but was to happen in the future. Without doubt, when we try and comprehend all the facets of the Trinity, we as finite creatures can and do often become confused, as our minds are sorely limited in their ability to understand the Infinite One. However, we are greatly blessed in that GOD has provided us with enough information/revelation concerning Himself that we can sufficiently comprehend something of the magnitude and infinite splendor or our Creator.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 00:58:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, The first mention of 'Son of God' that I find is in Daniel 3:24-26 '...and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God'. In Luke 3:38 we have '...the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God'. So here's the question: If Adam was truly the 'Son of God' in that, I suppose, he was His creation... in what manner is Jesus Christ the Son of God? While we know Jesus, in His humanity was the second Adam and thus also the 'Son of God', how did He hold that name prior to His incarnation? It is indeed seems odd on the face of it for the Trinity to be designated with one co-equal member as the 'Son of God' from eternity past. How is it that Jesus was the Son of God from eternity past (prior to His incarnation). Yes, I see the name looks forward to the time when Jesus would be brought forth from Mariam, just as Adam was brought forth from the dust (both Sons of God), but Adam was created and the 'Son of God' is eternal and not created. john

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 06:51:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,
The simple answer is that the phrase/name 'Son of God' has different meanings, which personally I find more than obvious. :-) Luke's genealogy which ends with '. . . the son of God.' certainly cannot be construed as being synonymous with the passage in Daniel! Luke's point is to point out that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was truly God who was also REALLY MAN; one who had a real identity and connection with the human race. God had truly 'become one of us'! But since you asked this question the way you did, I must ask a question in reply: Are you saying that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the historical Jesus was eternal; i.e., part of the Trinity? Also as a corollary, Are you saying that Theophonies but specifically Christophonies, e.g., the third person/angel/visitor who appeared before Abraham and to whom Abraham addressed as LORD was non other than Jesus of Nazareth but in another 'form' rather than the second person of the Trinity, the Son, who was the PRE-INCARNATE Christ and Who would later on in history take upon Himself human flesh to be His own and whose name was Jesus?
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:05:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I don't find the meaning of 'Son of God' to be as obvious as 'Son of Man', and it is not clear to me exactly how 'Son of God' relates or carries over from OT to NT (or vice versa). It isn't difficult to equate the Son of God to 'The Most High' who is equated easily to 'Yahweh' and to 'Elohiym'. 1. Ps 83:18 'That they may know that You alone, whose name is the Yahweh, Are the Most High over all the earth. 2. Ps 57:2 'I will cry to Elohiym Most High , To El who accomplishes for me.' 3. Mr 5:7 'And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High Theos?' It isn't difficult to equate Jesus, the Son of God with Yahweh the One who saves. We then find, Ge 3:8 'And they heard the voice of the Yahweh Elohim walking in the garden in the cool of the day:' And who was walking in the garden but the pre-incarnate Yahweh, which for a better word is the Messiah (to be). Obviously Jesus of Nazareth was not born of women as the Son of Man until 7BC. Therefore whatever form Yahweh took to relate to Adam one-to-one, or Abraham, etc., was a body not born of Mariam's genetics and not rightly part of the lineage of Adam (not a suitable sacrifice). Jesus IS Yahweh the Most High in bodily human form. Whereas I would assume God the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mariam to meld Yahweh Himself rather than a created spirit (breath). I take it, Jesus did not possess a spirit as we do (created), but rather His Spirit is God's Spirit. The body I would not contend to be God, but just a body given to Him as my spirit possesses my body. The body of Jesus in the tomb was not a dead God. When a s(S)pirit inhabits its body, we then have a single being. So, when Jesus' body contained the Holy Spirit, He was both body/Spirit together the Deity Jesus (we cannot pull his humanity apart and dissect it). So I would say in the garden, Adam walked with God wrapped in flesh, but flesh not born of women, yet very real. If I were to construct a Triune God I might name the Godhead as Father, Spirit, Messenger/Obedient One. Since Yahweh is not created, He cannot be rightly the 'son of' God, except in some particular sense. In this regard it may be that 'Son of God' carries a meaning of 'obedient One sent by God' or 'speaking for God'. In this way the Son acts as the Father's reflection in all things. I have not ready anyone who tries to understand the meaning of Christ calling Himself the 'Son of God', it seems to be taken at face value without much analysis. If I am off target, perhaps someday I'll get a better handle on it. As I said, the idea of Jesus being the son of man and the first born of creation, the begotten of God, must all play into the idea of Christ as Son. Heb 1:5 'For to which of the messengers said He ever, `My Son Thou art -- I to-day have begotten Thee?' and again, `I will be to Him for a Father, and he shall be to Me for a Son?' Jesus being the first born from the dead, raised to life, He is begotten of God-- God's Son. Hence, in this sense Jesus is the fulfillment of the name 'Son of God', the 'sent one' who fulfills the 'word of God'--the Logos, all meanings wrapped up in 'Son of God'. To answer your questions: Jesus of Nazareth is not part of the Trinity, except in part, as Jesus' Spirit and the Holy Spirit are the same. As stated, the body of Jesus was not created until 7BC and was not the body used by the Son of God as He appeared to various people. As for calling the persons of the Trinity 'persons', I don't know. Is God a 'person'?, He is a Spirit which dwells in Light. Perhaps 'the three Spirits of the Trinity' is more fitting. But then how is the 'Holy' (Set apart) Spirit to be differentiated from the Father who is Spirit? Are they both not 'Holy Spirits'? If you think I'm in error, how? john

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Aug 01, 2000 at 07:37:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Whew. . . you do have your OWN ideas about things, that's for sure John. I think I'll just stick with what the Scriptures say and give my subscription secondly to the Athanasian, Nicene, and Chalcedon Creeds as they faithfully teach the infallible Word of God concerning God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Chalcedonian Creed
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
The Lord Jesus Christ was both FULLY God and FULLY man having both a body and SOUL in His manhood and the Holy Spirit in His Godhood. In this you err. God being Spirit (John 4:24) is no contradiction to God also being a person; having a distinct and real 'personality'. I don't really have the time nor interest at this point go through a Theology 101 course to explain/teach the Scriptures concerning the existence and nature/attributes of God. Perhaps you might consider reading Stephen Charnock's book of that same title The Existence and Attributes of God which I believe, along with countless thousands of other Christians, scholars and lay persons alike, to be one of, if not the finest work on this topic to date. It is full of Scripture, just in case you don't think any work of man is worthy of your time compared to just reading the Scriptures. :-)
Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 14:25:19 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Thanks for your patience with me:-). I think I now have a grasp of what you are saying. Though the Trinity will always remain a mystery to a certain extent. I now understand why you say that 'Father','Son' and 'Holy Spirit' are more than 'titles'. As to your saying: If you were to ask, Who is the 'Word' spoken of in this text, the majority of people would say that it is 'Jesus'. However, this is a gross error! The God-man Christ Jesus did not exist in eternity, but came to being historically at the incarnation. This is what the apostle John labors to show in this first chapter; that GOD BECAME man. He makes this point in verse 14, where we read,... I agree with you on this point, though I think that mistake is easily made. Personally speaking I wouldn't make a big deal about it, unless of course someone was falling into a trap some cults find themselves in. I have found that when I try to correct some on points such as this, the original topic at hand is lost. Or I turn them off entirely. Take for instance the movement of WWJD. When I hear someone say WWJD, I simply ask them, what they mean by it? If they say, 'what does the Bible say about the topic?' or something to that effect. I usually don't say too much more, unless they ask me why I asked the question. But if they say 'we should try to do what Jesus would do in a given situation'. I would ask them can they calm a storm, simply by saying ' be still' like the time Jesus and the disciples were in the boat? Then I would say something to the effect of, shouldn't the real question be, 'what do the scripture's say'? I am slowly learning that (sometimes through the grape vine) I need to use wisdom in how I say things. I have a tendancy to over power some people that I know. Yes, I know that may surprise you, concidering I feel like I know very little, when I compare myself to people such as yourself. But never the less it is true. When I learn a scripture truth, that has helped me, I think everyone should want to know this truth, but only a handful of my friends seem to want to hear it. Unfortunately my wife and children, rarely are one of them. I don't think it is because these people don't want to know truth, I think it is because I haven't learned how to put these truths in words that they aren't overwelmed by. In the words of my daughter after I wrote her a letter recently. 'You are boring, to read'. Tom

Subject: Well, you guys have smoked me out! :>)
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 13:31:05 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I was going to stay out of this and haven't been posting lately to give others a whack, but I guess I have to jump in. Before that, I apologize for not being educated in the fine points of theology and will probably show my ignorance, but the text Tom originally brought up is important, I think. 'GO YE, THEREFORE, AND TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.' Matt. 28:19 I take that text as emphasizing the unity within the Trinity. I have taken it to indicate that there is one Name (I suppose it could be rendered 'authority' or 'power') under Whose direction the baptism is performed, that of God, the Living God, supreme in all the Cosmos. As each of these Persons is God, or Lord, they are in agreement that the saved person who is undergoing water bapitsm should receive the outward administration, by man, under the imperative of God as one of the ordinances of the Church. (I know that the board as a whole regards this as a 'sacrament'; it is not my place or purpose to argue that here.) The Three in One are so unified (though each is a distinct personality) in purpose, and design, and attributes, that the foregone conclusion is that each of the three Persons concurs wholeheartedly with the other two Persons. God, the Lord, wants His followers to undergo baptrism by water as a part of being 'in Christ' and a member of His body, the Church. There is a big 'hullaballoo' over being baptized 'in the name of Jesus' by some (particularly charismatics) today, many insisting on being re-baptized with that specific pronouncement. Some of these I have corresponded with on the various boards have used the expression that they were previously baptized ''only in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not in the 'name of Jesus''' the first time. What ignorance! (Notice, I did NOT call these folks 'stupid!') As Pilgrim pointed out above, the name 'Jesus' is the human name of the Lord Jesus. As He is inseparably linked in His divine and human natures now, it does indicate the Son of God, but not ideally in my estimation. And there are several Scriptural passages in the NT where the being baptized 'in the name of Jesus' is specifically mentioned. That is truth, but it is not truth that the Lord Jesus or His Apostles ever meant that the fullness of the Godhead was to go unrecognized or undeclared in baptism, the reason, I think, that the Lord Jesus emphasized the three Personages in the Matthew verse. It is God, in each of His three Persons and offices and manifestations, Who ordains that His spiritually 'born again' child be baptized in identification with the saving work of the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus was emphasizing that salvation was the work of God, not just One Person within the Godhead. The Father sent the Son; the Son accomplished the work the Father ordained; and God's Spirit, sent by both the Father and the Son, creates a spiritually alive child of God and indwells that new person, giving faith and illumination through God's revealed truth in His Word. Each agrees with and approves the actions of the other Two and the Three as a unified Godhead; the plan and actions are not in a vacuum, nor are they undertaken alone. It's important to note that, while men today go about teaching falsely concerning being baptized 'in the name of Jesus,' the Lord Jesus, in this one particular verse, capsulizes the essence of the work of God in the salvation of His people.

Subject: covenant theology
From: kevin
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 06:38:55 (PDT)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
I am looking for some good works on covenant theology. Preferably by Puritans because it has been my experience that they had a good grasp on God and His covenant with His children. Any suggestions? I am going to search this web page for articles but I was also looking for some outside sources in book form as well. I read The Light and the Glory and Peter Marshall's explanation of the covenant in the lives of the Puritans and Pilgrims was very insightful. Thanks. In Him, kevin sdg sf ss

Subject: Re: covenant theology
From: Pilgrim
To: kevin
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 20:44:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Kevin, The classic Reformed work which is a MUST read is J. Vos' Biblical Theology. It can be found and/or ordered from any local bookstore I am sure. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: covenant theology
From: John P.
To: kevin
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 20:02:04 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
It could be a difficult book to read because it is a facsimile; however, it was written by Patrick Gillespie (the brother of George, the Westminster Divine), and is excellent (I haven't read every page, but that is only because I am short on time to do anything). It's title is, The Ark of the Testament Opened, or, The Secret of the Lords Covenant unsealed in A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. Then it has for a subtitle, 'Wherein an Essay is made for the promoving and increase of Knowledge, in the mysterie of the Gospel-covenant, which hath been hid from Ages and Generations, but now is made manifest to the saints.' (1661) If you are not used to reading 17th century works prior to their being being updated to modern spellings, &c., then you may find the first few pages difficult to read. However, usually they become much easier as you get involved in reading your first book of this sort. Besides, the good books weren't reprinted all the time, so it is certainly worth learning how to read these if you haven't already. Nevertheless, I think this book would certainly be a blessing to you. His other book on the Covenant of Redemption would also be a good read. In Christ, John P. PS - The book is some 566 pages long, but the pages are relatively small. It can be purchased from Still Water Revival Books. Click at the top of the page, and you will be able to find the book if you scroll to Patrick Gillespie's name. His other book on the Covenant of Redemption is on sale - so you may desire to look into it, as well. Order Book Here www.swrb.com/catalog/g.htm

Subject: The Trinity
From: Mark
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 15:25:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Is it possible to see the Trinity in the Creation story: God-Father, Spirit-Holy Spirit and God said/ the word-Jesus? In christ, Mark

Subject: Re: The Trinity
From: Tom
To: Mark
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 20, 2000 at 22:47:04 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Mark I don't have a lot of time to give you a lot of proof, but the answer is yes we can see the the Trinity in the creation story. Read all of chapter one of Genesis, especially verse 26, where it says 'Then God said, 'Let Us make man...' Then turn to John chapter one and read the first five verses. Pay close attention to verses 3-4. You should notice the similarities between these verses and the Genesis account of creation. Hope that helps Tom

Subject: Foreknowledge
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 14:44:15 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
From time to time it becomes necessary to review the basic, elemental, and (dare I say it?) fundamental concepts of the faith. Foreknowledge is one such concept which is particularly misunderstood and misinterpreted. This is so because the English word(s) do not convey the actual depth of the meaning of the term. In Acts 2:23, we find the Lord Jesus Christ 'delivered' to be crucified. He was 'delivered,' as the gospels demonstrate, by Judas Iscariot, who was picked by the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the plan and purpose of God, to be with the disciples, to be given every opportunity to trust, love, and and obey the Lord Jesus as Savior, but who was placed there in the group for that very purpose, to betray and deliver the Lord Jesus to be 'crucified and slain.' I won't go into all the Scripture surrounding this and the support for it, but if anyone doubts this, I suggest he start (and not end there) by comparing John 6:70-71; 12:4; 13:2,26; 17;12; Acts 1:15-20; Ps. 41:9 (with John 13:18-19); Ps. 69:25; and other related passages. As one understands the sovereign plan and purpose of God and the Scriptures are opened and unfolded for him, he sees that all this was according to the design of the Lord God from the beginning. Without these events, not one person would ever have been saved, and we perceive that salvation is the result of meticulous planning and detailed execution of the intent of the Lord God, according to exact prophecy and literal fulfillment. In that twenty-third verse of Acts 2, the words 'determinate counsel,' which are definitive in themselves, are inseparably linked and associated with 'the foreknowledge of God.' That determinate counsel took place in the far reaches of eternity; the actions and outcomes already determinate in God's plan and mind prior to even the creation of man. The 'foreknowledge,' so translated here, indicating that exact thing, that God had considered the intricacies of the event prior to its occurence and at a time and place far removed from it in order to make 'determinate' what would occur in the ages to transpire. (Please note that I did not indicate that He "looked down through time" to learn what would happen!) That 'foreknowledge,' that prior consideration from afar, that careful planning and consideration, is what made His counsel (His will arrived at by deliberation) 'determinate.' Being 'determinate,' it was solidified and set, never to be altered or affected by the actions or will of others. And that unalterability was His considered determination also. The marvelous, immaculate plan of salvation was considered and decided in eternity past and complete before ever set into motion. There were no 'contingencies,' hence it was 'determinate' and perfectly suited to accomplish the purpose of God. That omnipotent, omniscient, almighty, full-of-glory One decided from the beginning that He would redeem those of His choosing by this method of the shed blood of the Incarnate Word at the hands of 'wicked' men who, because they were unsaved and enemies of God, were pleased and satisfied to do their sin and thereby unwittingly perfect the outworking of the will of God. All this done and decreed (determined) through 'foreknowledge' in God's perfect counsel. While we consider 'foreknowledge,' we can't miss something else. The same basic word and concept is again used in Romans 8:29. Here we see that this 'foreknowledge' is the initial, determinate event and attribute in the 'golden chain of salvation,' being foundational to predestination, which led to effectual calling of the predestined, resulting in their justification, which results in what the Apostle sees in verse 30 as already accomplished, being part of the 'determinate' counsel of God, glorification. We who are now saved are not yet seen on this earth as 'glorified,' but it is a determined fact, nonetheless. As such, it is very comforting and reassuring. We have to ask ourselves why this should be so. Why should God's 'foreknowledge' benefit us so? There are many verses which answer this, but we'll confine ourselves to a very few for now. One place is in Eph. 2: 'But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath made us[the predestinated and elect whom He has saved] alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)' (verses 4-5). There we have it illuminated for us. The foreknowledge of God is totally involved with, and wrapped up in, God's love for those whom He saves and intended to save. Except for that loving foreknowledge, there would have been no decision to make His mercy available to us in the Lord Jesus Christ; no determinate counsel to deliver up His beloved Son for our benefit. There would have been no grace afforded us and we would not have been 'made...alive toether with Christ!' In short, not one person would ever have been saved. This is an astounding and amazing thing. God loved His own so much when they existed only in His plan and mind and heart that he counselled within Himself to make the Lord Jesus Christ our Sacrifice and Savior, so that we could be made alive from a dead and lost condition (by the benevolent grace of God) together with Him. Note how Paul says this in Romans: 'For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FIRST BORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN' (8:29). No wonder Charles Wesley wrote 'Amazing Love!' It is nothing short of amazing that God loved us that much from eternity. It is also amazing how it glorifies Him when we become cognizant of His plan and purpose in that love. This fact is also confirmed by additional Scripture. Compare these two passages in which the English word 'knew' (different word, but extremely revelant) is used: 'And Joseph...knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name JESUS' (Matt. 1:24-25); [the Lord Jesus said] 'And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity' (Matt. 7:23). The same basic word for 'knowing' is used in both instances. So, this 'knowing' is bound up in intimacy and love. We find Joseph forbidden by God to 'know' Mary until she was the mother of the firstborn of God; then he could know her intimately and delightfully in the fullness of marriage and its relationship. But the Lord Jesus, Who knew all about these people He condemned, Who had perfect knowledge of their iniquitous works, never knew them! He never had any association with them at all in love, mercy, or intimacy. They were none of His in His determinate plan and He had no love for them, not 'knowing' them in the close and intimate way He did those given Him by the Father. They were outside His 'foreknowledge' and, therefore, they could not traverse the links of the 'golden chain' to glorification because of the foreknowledge and determinate counsel of God. Let's not be caught in, nor allow others to be ensnared by, the limited conception of 'foreknowledge' that comes from lack of study and lack of comprehension of God's meaning and purpose. May God enable each of us to grasp more and more of the depth of His love and mercy to the predestined and elect so lovingly provided in the Life, the Sacrifice and the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, our beloved Savior.

Subject: Regarding glorification
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 14:11:23 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
It seems to me that a careful reading of that great section of that wonderful chapter 8 of Romans composed of verses 28-30 should give the Christian a profound appreciation of eternal security, or what is the 'P' in TULIP, 'the perseverance of the saints.' God's eternal purpose to save and to complete the process of salvation as described and outlined in these few verses is as immensely comforting as it is illuminating. The ultimate goal of salvation is bringing the saved person into conformation to the image of the Son of God (verse 29). All that this entails is necessarily beyond us, but it does seem to be enfolded in, and encompassed by, the term 'glorification.' Glorification's being the final chapter consumating the process of salvation for those whom God foreknew in predestination fills us with awe, with wonder at the coming events and changes, and with hope. The 'hope' we have isn't the 'hope' the picnicer has, 'I hope it doesn't rain and spoil our outing!' but a 'hope' born out of conviction and certainty. It is the 'sure and certain' hope which is based on acceptance of the Word of God, His promises for His own, whom He has shown mercy and grace because of His love for them and His choice to save them from the death of sin. We grasp some understanding of this, when we hear the expression of the Apostle Paul, '...even the mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest [obvious, plain and clear] to the saints, 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' (Col. 1:26-27). Because we have been saved, placed in Christ by God, justified, and possessing the Holy Spirit of the Living God within, we have this hope, with all its certainty. That certainty is founded on nothing less than the promise of the eternal God and His express Word to His own. We are headed for glorifcation; we will be glorified with out Lord and Savior. And that is the emphasis in it all, not our glorification, as wondrous as that is, but that we are glorified with Him because He is glorious and has done glorious things. In the seventeenth Chapter of John, the Lord Jesus emphasizes seven times that the Father has gifted Him with the saved people for whom He is working and for whom He is about to be the redemption. That gorifies God. Notice the first thing recorded as spoken by the Son in the priestly prayer: 'Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee.' That is the key. And He continues, 'As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thous gavest me to do. And now, O father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was...I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them' (verses 1-9). We are the beneficiaries of the glory, but the glory isn't ours intrinsically. We are as the moon, infinitely lesser than the sun, and brilliant only because of the sun's reflected light, an indirect indication of the power and glory of the main illuminary source. Yet, by shining at all, considering what we are in and of ourselves, we glorify the true Source of the glory which God displays in us to honor His Son and Himself. '...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.'

Subject: Why was the Pope killed?
From: LetsObeyChrist Lk.6:46 Mt
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 17:54:01 (PDT)
Email Address: alpersso@letsobeychrist.com

Message:
What went wrong? Why was the Pope and all with him killed at the foot of the Cross? In the recently released “third secret” of Fatima we read: “…a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.' -Fatima’s 3rd Secret Vatican City, Jun 26, 2000 (VIS) The meaning is clear. The Pope leads his flock through the land of the dead then all who follow him are slain at the judgment seat of Christ. They are never mentioned again. They join the dead corpses seen earlier and are not part of the group that “makes their way to God.” That this is the meaning is made clear by the sudden appearance of two entirely new angels not heretofore seen, this must be the start of a new “scene” or “act.” Those now seen in this part are not part of the group seen earlier. There are two angels to indicate their witness is true (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1), only these marked with the blood of the martyrs “make their way to God” in direct contrast to the Pope and all with him. That this certainly is a vision of judgment against the Pope (and all who follow him) is clear in context. Note how the vision begins: 'After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in In Catholic theology Mary is the “Queen of heaven” and therefore “above” all angels, especially a “fallen angel” which therefore this is not. The “woman” nullifies this angel’s fire by her light and then the angel points to the earth and cries to God “Penance Penance Penance” who then appears in light to judge. Then appear faces “similar” to reflections in a mirror, like those looking into a house through windows from the darkness outside. The meaning is clear. The angel is a messenger of God, not from the devil. He cries out to God who then appears in light. God would not do that for a devil. His message to the earth is one of refining fire, “of repentance” which if allowed to burn on the earth would set it afire for Jesus. But the “woman” prevents that message of repentance from reaching the earth with her “splendor.” That means she blinded those on the earth with “her light.” Clearly this indicates she redefined genuine “repentance” from sin into “penance” which is very different, it employs ritual and incantations to effect salvation. It is not a genuine turning from sin and trusting in Jesus Christ for their salvation. Genuine repentance is synonymous with salvation ( 2 Peter 3:9). Against this horror the angel cries out to God “Penance Penance Penance” saying it thrice to indicate this deception is not quickly broken (Eccl. 4:12), the “Lady” has bested him in battle. Therefore God appears in light to judge, that judgment light shines on faces of those responsible for this hideous deed. The guilty appear like reflections in the mirror because they are in the land of the dead looking into the Kingdom as through a window, with the judgment light of God illuminating their faces in the darkness. Then the scene changes to “a Bishop dressed in white.” The meaning is clear, he is only “dressed in white,” because he only “appears” righteous. He is like a whitewashed tomb, outwardly clean but inwardly filled with unclean things (Mt 23:27). Dead corpses in a ruined city appear to afflict the “Holy Father.” He pities and prays for them however it was not for that they appeared. From the fact the Pope’s prayers do NOT benefit these corpses, they remain dead never to rise again. Hence the meaning of this portion is clear. The dead corpses are in Gehenna where the worm dies not, that garbage dump outside and far away from the City of God (Isa 66:24; Rev. 22:15). It was not for the Pope’s prayer that these appeared, but to condemn him. They appear because the Pope (the apostate Church, the Harlot) is the very reason why these are in Gehenna. That false gospel of “penance,” the “splendor” that radiated from the hand of the Woman blinded them from God’s light, true repentance from sin: Joel 2:12-14 12 Yet even now, says the LORD, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; 13 rend your hearts and not your clothing. Return to the LORD, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing. 14 Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, a grain offering and a drink offering for the LORD, your God?-nrsv Therefore when the Pope and all following him (rather than Christ) are killed, they join those dead corpses seen earlier in the vision, and they are never mentioned again. Therefore they were the “images in the mirror,” that is how they appeared as the looked in through the windows of the Mansion of God, like mere faces in the outer darkness that the light from inside the house radiating from God shined upon. Then appear two angels not seen before in this horrible scene. The meaning is clear, what follows now is completely unrelated to what went before. These snatch the blood out of the hands of the Harlot who was drunk on it, and use it to identify true Christians who will make their way to God. There are two of them to indicate their witness is true (John 8:17), these so marked with the blood of the martyrs are alone true Christians. This group alone repented of their sins and believed in Jesus Christ for their salvation, not magic incantation and rite. These did NOT follow the false gospel of “penance” therefore they were never blinded by the woman’s splendor. Amos 5:18-27 18 Alas for you who desire the day of the LORD! Why do you want the day of the LORD? It is darkness, not light; 19 as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake. 20 Is not the day of the LORD darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it? 21 I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. 22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. 23 Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. 24 But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. 25 Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves; 27 therefore I will take you into exile beyond Damascus, says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts.-nrsv For more on this go here: http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb182438

Subject: Re: Why was the Pope killed?
From: Anne
To: LetsObeyChrist Lk.6:46 Mt
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 19:57:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know, I used to be Catholic, and this stuff doesn't interest me near as much as it apparently intrigues you. Personally, I though the whole 'secret of Fatima' thing was silly when I was Catholic, and it seems even sillier now, so I give it all the attention I feel it deserves. Which is none. The fascination with this stuff by Protestants has been really baffling to me. I can understand why practicing Catholics would care, but why would anyone else? What puzzles me is that when I was Catholic, Catholics paid virtually no attention to Protestants. They weren't criticized; they just weren't mentioned at all. Since then, it has been borne in upon me that the reverse is not true . . . . . Protestants are obsessed with Catholicism., for some reason. This is an honest inquiry . . . . . what is the fascination with Catholicism? Anne

Subject: Re: Why was the Pope killed?
From: keyboardQB
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 22:42:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Most converts are obsessed with that from which they came? Just a thought...

Subject: Re: Why was the Pope killed?
From: Anne
To: keyboardQB
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:56:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
But I WAS a convert! Okay, from Episcopalianism, but still . . . . And most of the Protestants who are unable to leave Catholicism alone never have been Catholic. The ex-Catholic Protestants tend to be like me, wondering what the fascination is. If it was as interesting and worthy of being so much thought about as non-Catholics are convinced it is, we probably wouldn't have left in the first place. ;-> Anne

Subject: Re: Why was the Pope killed?
From: keyboardQB
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 18:15:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That's why I said *most* converts, but I probably should have edited the statement to read 'most converts who like to argue on message boards.' Seems the most passionate opponents of anything on the internet are those who were once that thing themselves. One needs only go to another board frequented by Mr. ObeyChrist, the Catholic Convert Message Board hosted by a Steve Ray (studied under Francis Schaeffer!), to see that the theory has some merit. The converts from Protestantism to RCatholicism are as 'vocal,' if not more so, that those who've gone in the other direction. I've also seen former Christians (of whatever stripe) bashing Christianity after their conversion to Islam. The list could go on. While I don't know about the backgrounds of folks like Webmaster P of this site and Matt Slick of CARM, it would seem that many of the most vocal opponents of Arminianism on their sites were once Arminians themselves. None of which has any bearing on what is true and what is false, of course. Just an observation about people and this here internet thingy... Back to lurk mode...

Subject: Re: Why was the Pope killed?
From: Pilgrim
To: keyboardQB
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 07:22:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
keyboardQB,
Gee, far be it from me to compromise your 'Lurker status', hehe. . . so you need not reply to the following. :-) While you seem to want to bring an indictment against those individuals who have been 'converted' from one position to another, it seems that to do so must also find newborn 'lambs' guilty as well. For what truly regenerated and converted child of Christ isn't initially zealous to bring honor and glory to God their Saviour by speaking both positively about the wonder and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and at the same time negatively about sin? The new babe in Christ has come through a 'shadow of death' as it were, having been shown first the odious corruption of his/her own heart which vision produced a pain and shame that is incomprehensible to the natural man. Further, beyond this experimental knowledge of indwelling of sin also came the realization that the entire world is under the power of the evil one and corrupt beyond measure. Commensurate with this 'sin knowledge' came also the partial comprehension of the love of God in Christ Jesus and the inexorable holiness of His being. For it is God's holiness that makes even more clear His just judgment and wrath upon all men. Seeing the whole world subject to judgment, yet knowing that there is a sure Redeemer for all who will come, spurs the new Christian to zealously proclaim the wonders of grace. No one knows the depth of depravity and the tragedy sin brings more than one who has been brought from death to life. Surely we must not disparage the attempts of Christians, regardless of their spiritual age from zealously exposing sin and sinners for what they are and the need to be converted to the Lord Christ with all expediency? Zeal, in and of itself should not be seen as something indictable, but rather commendable, especially to those of us who may be 'elders in the faith' and have lost that initial zeal for the honor of God's name and the exalting of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of sinners!
Eph 5:8 'For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.'
I would offer as a fine example of one who has come from Roman Catholicism to the Living Christ by a true faith, who is now expending much energy to expose the falsehood of that devilish system of religion; Mr. Richard Bennett, many of whose articles are to be found on The Highway web site in that appropriate section. His dedication and zeal to first see God's name honored and Christ exalted cannot be denied. And the way it is accomplished is through first exposing the deceit and lies of Rome and then by offering the Lord Christ as the 'Way the Truth and the Life'. I for one am thankful to God for bringing this man through dark and deep waters to the everlasting and secure arms of the Lord Jesus and to make him a viable spokesman to those who are yet dead in sin and under the power of Rome.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Why was the Pope killed?
From: keyboardQB
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 20:07:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No, no indictments here. Not interested in finding anyone guilty, either. Just made an observation (and a non-theological one at that, so I probably had no business making it in a Theology Discussion Forum anyway!), no judgments against anyone's zeal intended. Sorry if I came across that way... Yes, Mr Bennett's another good example. Three posts in 24 hours got me booted from the International Lurkers Association (ILA), so I figured there was no harm in responding...don't know if I'll get the pro-rated portion of my pre-paid dues back, though...

Subject: The many faces of sovereign gracers
From: Rod
To: keyboardQB
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 20:56:30 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
KQB, Pilgrim can speak for himself, but he is on record here as always having been a Calvinistic person since his salvation. I, on the other hand, was an ardent Arminian for several years before the Lord dragged me to the sovereign grace position, making many of the same arguments I now hear voiced here and elsewhere. J. Vernon McGee used to say that, when he knew of a drunk who needed the Word presented to him, he sent 'another drunk,' a reformed one. While I don't buy into that line of thinking anymore, since God can and will use whom He pleases in dealing with a person, humanly speaking, it has merit. BTW, there are no "former Christians," merely former professors of Christianity whose true nature has been shown (1 John 2:19).

Subject: Re: The many faces of sovereign gracers
From: keyboardQB
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 21:24:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Maybe I should have said 'former 'Christians?'' Quotation marks can get so confusing! Thanks for the data on Pilgrim. I knew about you... ;) Now please don't say anything more to me. Lurker status has been seriously compromised this weekend, as it is...

Subject: Re: Why was the Pope killed?
From: John P.
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 16:38:00 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
I'm an ex-Catholic Protestant, and I believe the Bible condemns Roman Catholicism as one of the greatest threats to genuine Christianity in the world - it's major competitor being Islam. It is godless, and almost all errors which are held by various sects have some relation (however minor) to an error first begun by Rome. As Luther (wisely) said, 'I would have all those who intend to preach the Gospel, diligently read the popish abominations, their decrees and books; and, above all things, thoroughly consider the horrors of the mass - on account of which idol, God might justly have drowned and destroyed the whole world - to the end their consciences may be armed and confirmed against their adversaries.' and, 'There are many that think I am too fierce against popedom; on the contrary, I complain that I am, alas! too mild; I wish I could breath out lightning against pope and popedom, and that every word were a thunderbolt.' Agreeing with Luther, John P. PS - My response to Mr. Lewis and Pilgrim is slowly but surely coming along. I am still short on time - and other things have come up. However, I am still working on it.

Subject: Since it's slow...
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 09:05:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I'll throw this question out. Can somebody properly call themselves a Calvinist if they: a) deny God's decreeing whatsoever comes to pass b) affirm God granting humans *significant* (but not total) freedom to determine their own physical destiny, and some aspects of their spiritual destiny as well--sanctification, not justification. c) deny double predestination d) affirm that sometimes God (temporarily) does not get what He wants. God bless.

Subject: Re: Since it's slow...
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 06:45:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hey eric - is this about someone we know? haha I suppose one can call themselves what they like...but in my opinion, they are at best quasi-calvinists or worse pseudo-calvinists. It seems such a person has a real problem with God being God having all power and authority to do as He pleases. '....did God REALLY say.....?' It's idolatry when we doubt God's words and substitute our own. The bible CLEARLY teaches sovereignty along with responsibility....why can't we just leave it at that? laz p.s. I hesitate to say 'no' as John and Pilgrim have stated only because 'Calvinism' is more than just the issue of God's sovereignty, as fundamentally important that is to having a healthy, biblical view of God and redemption. But I can be persuaded.... ;-)

Subject: Re: Since it's slow...
From: john hampshire
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 22:32:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rephrasing the question, what do we call someone who: a) believes God manages the universe, but that He would not interfere with man's free-will b) believes God allows men freedom to choose and leaves the choice for salvation with our will c) believes men are predestination to be saved BECAUSE OF God's ability to see their future faith d) believes God can be thwarted in his purposes by man's freewill. I would say this theology fits very neatly into the scheme of modern Semi-pelagianism/Arminianism God-loves-everyone, easy-believism found in nearly every single Christian church everywhere. So the answer to 'can somebody be called a Calvinist' question is: NO. (However, many not knowing the difference label themselves Calvinists anyway). john

Subject: A combined response
From: Eric
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 08:33:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thank you both for your answers. Let me start out by saying that I believe that Calvinist soteriology is for the most part true. But, as I read scripture, I cannot make sense out of God’s “secret” will and His “moral, revealed” will. As well as finding very limited support that God has decreed everything that comes to pass. It is certain that God foreknows what people will do, as well as being able to sovereignly direct the course of human history, through directly decreeing certain events to happen, or placing peole in circumstances that will cause the desired outcome. >>>laz wrote I suppose one can call themselves what they like...but in my opinion, they are at best quasi-calvinists or worse pseudo-calvinists. It seems such a person has a real problem with God being God having all power and authority to do as He pleases. I guess the question would be, not God having authority to do what he pleases, but what it is that he pleases to do. '....did God REALLY say.....?' It's idolatry when we doubt God's words and substitute our own. The bible CLEARLY teaches sovereignty along with responsibility....why can't we just leave it at that? Here again, the question would be, who is actually substituting what the Bible teaches. Yes, the Bible clearly does teach sovereignty and responsibility, but the strict Calvinist position really eliminates true responsibility. (i.e. God decreeing every sin that has ever been commited.) p.s. I hesitate to say 'no' as John and Pilgrim have stated only because 'Calvinism' is more than just the issue of God's sovereignty, as fundamentally important that is to having a healthy, biblical view of God and redemption. But I can be persuaded.... ;-)
Right, is a Calvinist more than someone who upholds the 5 points, or, is it somebody who adheres to the Westminster Confession, in which, no Baptists can rightfully call themselves Calvinists. Is John Macarthur a Calvinist, even though he is dispensational? >>>john wrote So the answer to 'can somebody be called a Calvinist' question is: NO. (However, many not knowing the difference label themselves Calvinists anyway). What you described was not the question. I would agree with you on your definition of the beliefs you put forth. However, here is what I wrote. a) deny God's decreeing whatsoever comes to pass—God does not decree sinful actions, they are a result of man’s decisions. Man is the author of sin—therefore by definition, God did not decree it. b) affirm God granting humans *significant* (but not total) freedom to determine their own physical destiny, and some aspects of their spiritual destiny as well--sanctification, not justification.—God does not casually determine whether I type this message or not, it is a decision coming from me. God wants His children to progress in sanctification, and exceed in holiness, but many do not. Therefore, God does not causally determine that I fall short in my sanctification, it is my fault, not His. c) deny double predestination—again, the reason hell is populated is because of man’s sin, and not God’s decree. d) affirm that sometimes God (temporarily) does not get what He wants.—If God is perfectly holy, how can He **want** man to sin? Therefore God must allow things that are displeasing to Him, for a season. God bless.

Subject: Re: A combined response
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 19:02:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I believe the Fall was decreed therefore I believe hell will be populated not ultimately because men sin...but because God was pleased to decree it so. laz

Subject: I am really troubled by your response
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 05:20:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, >>>I believe the Fall was decreed therefore I believe hell will be populated not ultimately because men sin...but because God was pleased to decree it so. In all honesty laz, I am shocked by your post. I do find it unbibilcal, and blasphemous. At least you are forthright enough to come out and say what the logical conclusion is of the Calvinists view of God's decree is though. Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Here we see that hell is a place for the devil and his angels, and not prepared for man. Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? I know it is one of the Arminian proof texts, but it is directly from the Word of God, and it plainly states that God does want men to repent, and cease sinning. 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. God's love is perfect. Perfect love does not delight in tormenting people forever. In your view, hell is not a place of justice, because it is populated by people who were decreed to sin in order that they end up there. Please reconsider your position in light of scripture. BTW, I think you were right about original sin. I saw a link to a sermon on Romans 5:12-21 that really made me see something in the text that I had not considered. :) Take care, laz.

Subject: A book you might enjoy reading. . .
From: Anne
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 06:50:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Has everyone read 'Almighty Over All' by R.C. Sproul Jr.? This is precisely the issue it tackles, in a startlingly forthright manner. Plus it's just a good read, as all the Sprouls', pere et fils, stuff is. Check it out! Anne

Subject: The heart of the whole matter
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 10:33:13 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eric, I am no real theologian, so I've been reluctant to get into this, but I can't remain silent about one thing. You wrote as part of your original question: [Can a person call himself a Calvinist and then] 'd) affirm that sometimes God (temporarily) does not get what He wants.—If God is perfectly holy, how can He **want** man to sin? Therefore God must allow things that are displeasing to Him, for a season.' It's my conviction that a Calvinist or any Christian who is unclear on this concept has a special and very real problem. This is a fundamental issue to Christianity, being the heart and soul of God's sovereignty and His means of salvation. Fundamental to the understanding of Adam's fall and the salvation of men by the Lord Jesus Christ and all the implications thereof is this: A saved person, one who is in Christ Jesus, is now much better off than he would be if he had not sinned. That is simultaneously simple and too complex for us as humans. It is simple in that it is so easy to see. If man had not fallen into sin, he could never have been 'elevated,' by the conformation 'to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). For that to happen, God's plan to allow and to use, intentionally, the entrance of sin had to proceed by the occurence of the sin of man. This was allowed, provided for, and decreed by God. Adam, 'innocent' and free from sin, remains forever in the garden, the plan of God for redemption of man and the glorification of the Lord Jesus Christ is thwarted. By decreeing and allowing sin, God gets precisely His desire, both in the long and short run--it is His exact and definite purpose for man. No one calling himself a Christian should be allowed to go about in ignorance of this basic fact, certainly no believer in sovereign grace! But this is also too deep for us in that we cannot fully fathom at least one part of it. It was just as vital and necessary that some be lost in sin and condemned to hell for the redemption of man to be fully appreciated and for the Lord Jesus Christ to be fully glorified. Just as redemption demonstrates and affirms God's mercy, His justice is affirmed by the punishment of the sinner and the exacting of payment for the sin. There is undoubtedly far more to it than this, but part of the reason sinners are condemned is that it illuminates how precious the salvation of undeserving sinners really is, how shining is the glory of God in redeeeming any of the fallen, sinful humanity. God's plan of salvation and condemnation is perfect--it was perfectly worked out in eternity; it is being, and has been, perfectly executed. God always 'gets what He wants.' He is never thwarted. If one says, 'Then He wants sin,' he is simultaneously correct and in error. God hates sin; His justice demands execution of punishment for it on sinners. Yet, paradoxically, His mercy and love are only found in their true depth in redemption by decree of sinners who He knew would sin and decreed that it be so. We can grasp this only imperfectly, but we must grasp the essence of it as true Christians. One who doesn't cannot understand either the nature or the goodness of God. It is of the utmost importance to recall that the 'them that love God' are also the 'them who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). Without the realization of that purpose, people, Christians or mere professors, will merely flounder around in their efforts at worship, being too hindered by their incomplete understanding and appreciation of the great God to actually worship Him as He demands and deserves.

Subject: Re: The heart of the whole matter
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:18:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, While I admire your well thought out presentation and passion of your position, I must say, that it is precisely your views that I find untenable in light of God’s revelation of Himself. Also, my response is assuming that you maintain that God decreed everything that happens from eternity past. Fundamental to the understanding of Adam's fall and the salvation of men by the Lord Jesus Christ and all the implications thereof is this: A saved person, one who is in Christ Jesus, is now much better off than he would be if he had not sinned. That is simultaneously simple and too complex for us as humans. A saved person, yes. An unsaved, No. For that to happen, God's plan to allow and to use, intentionally, the entrance of sin had to proceed by the occurence of the sin of man. The use of the word allow, is not logically consistent with your position, it is much more so with mine. One cannot allow, what one decrees. Cause is a more fitting word. By decreeing and allowing sin, God gets precisely His desire, both in the long and short run--it is His exact and definite purpose for man. No one can calling himself a Christian should be allowed to go about in ignorance of this basic fact, certainly no believer in sovereign grace! I am sorry Rod, but I see no other way of understanding your point, but that God is the author of sin. But this is also too deep for us in that we cannot fully fathom at least one part of it. It was just as vital and necessary that some be lost in sin and condemned to hell for the redemption of man to be fully appreciated and for the Lord Jesus Christ to be fully glorified. Just as redemption demonstrates and affirms God's mercy, His justice is affirmed by the punishment of the sinner and the exacting of payment for the sin. There is undoubtedly far more to it than this, but part of the reason sinners are condemned is that it illuminates how precious the salvation of undeserving sinners really is, how shining is the glory of God in redeeeming any of the fallen, sinful humanity. Do you have scripture references for this. I think it is entirely possible that God could just as easily “implant” all the saved with a knowledge of the just punishment they would have received had He not saved them. Along the lines of God giving faith. Or, God could give them a glimpse of the fate of satan and his minions. God always 'gets what He wants.' He is never thwarted. If one says, 'Then He wants sin,' he is simultaneously correct and in error. God hates sin; His justice demands execution of punishment for it on sinners. Yet, paradoxically, His mercy and love are only found in their true depth in redemption by decree of sinners who He knew would sin and decreed that it be so. Again Rod, you have just conceded that God is the author of sin, at least in some sense. I don’t think it is a paradox, I think it is unbiblical, and contradictory. There are so many cases in scripture where it clearly teaches that God doesn’t temporally get what he wants, that to try and explain away such things is to render the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture as meaningless. We can grasp this only imperfectly, but we must grasp the essence of it as true Christians. One who doesn't cannot understand either the nature or the goodness of God. It is of the utmost importance to recall that the 'them that love God' are also the 'them who are the called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). Without the realization of that purpose, people, Christians or mere professors, will merely flounder around in their efforts at worship, being too hindered by their incomplete understanding and appreciation of the great God to actually worship Him as He demands and deserves. I think it is essential that one understand that God is sovereign, and nothing that happens is beyond His control. It is also essential for people to understand the holiness of God, and how He cannot tolerate sin. It is also essential for people to know that God is not the author of sin. If I have mischaracterized any of your views, I apologize, and please correct me. God bless.

Subject: Man, Eric, are you confused!
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 12:34:57 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
No wonder you 'joshed' us about being 'fundy!' If you can get from what I wrote that God is morally responsible for sin, which is what your 'author of sin' statement implies and means, then you simply haven't really comprehended what I wrote. Have you ever really read Acts 2:22-36? I fear you have read it, but without real understanding. Very candidly, yours is the semi-Pelagan, Arminian standpoint, as far as I can see. I urge you to ponder the situation prayerfully.

Subject: I noticed...
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 13:38:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
no real refutation of my points, or corrections. Yes, I have read Acts 2:22-36. That is the portion of scripture in which we are told that God used the actions of his creatures to accomplish His purposes. What I don't see is that God commanded those men to crucify Christ. I do see that God knew those men would crucify His Son, and that man's sinful actions accomplished God's purposes. How one can hold that God isn't accountable for irresistible actions that He irrevocably decreed is not logical. Still can't get over that 'fundie' line huh? Let it go. :) God bless.

Subject: Re: I noticed...
From: John P.
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 17:33:18 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Real Quick and I probably won't have time to respond to your objections, nevertheless... You are fond of accusing Calvinists of making God the author of sin. This is simply the Problem of Evil objection which is put against Christians of all types (even Arminians) that says that, if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then, for there to be sin, indicates that there is no God of this nature. Don't you realize that you have to either deny God's existance as a Sovereign God in order to deny His decree of all things to come to pass - even the fall? Consider: If you believe that God knew all things that would come to pass before God created the world, and that He could have chosen various different worlds to create wherein less people would be damned, then that means that, by the fact that this world exists wherein all people have sinned and many are to be damned, you are implicitly confessing that God chose for their to be sin in this world even when He could have it otherwise. Sadly, what people don't realize is this: to combat Calvinism, people have to do one of two things (or both): (1) Ingore clear texts of Scripture (which we prefer to accept while accepting the passages that demonstrate that God's call is genuinely universal and man is genuinely responsible); and / or (2) Use arguments which atheistic philosophers use to combat the very existence of God. Farewell, John PS - 'The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.' Proverbs 16:4

Subject: I didn't 'refute' your postion...
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 15:25:51 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
that's why you didn't see it. I saw no reason to--you totally misconstrued what I said. I will respond this last time to your immediately previous post. I am not offended by the 'fundy' remark. I mention it to point out to you your mindset. It does seem to be very revealing of where you are coming from. I expect to be wrongly identified by those who hold unacceptable and liberal views. Here's what you wrote about Acts 2:22-36. It displays two things: 1) your lack of understanding of my position; 2) your lack of understanding of God's working. 'What I don't see is that God commanded those men to crucify Christ.'--Eric. What a ridiculous declaration, Eric. Of course, you don't see it. It's not there! But you obviously don't see what is there. Here is a very brief rehearsal of the important points pertinent to our 'discussion' (no discussion has actually taken place). First, in verses 22-23, the Apostle points out that the Lord Jesus Christ came from God, as demonstrated by the miracles God enabled Him to do. Next, he says that the Lord Jesus was 'delievered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God'. Now, if God's counsel determined that He would be delivered, Who ultimately caused the deliverance for crucifixion? Since the fact of God's direction is 'determinate,' we can say, without fear of refutation, that He has decreed the event, the motives of the heart, the entire episode. He has orchestrated it, as He has all of history, as the Bible says: 'And we know that all things work together for good for them that love God' (Rom. 8:28). How many things? Why do they work that way? It is 'all things' and it is because God has determined that it be so. '...according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will' (Eph.1:11). How many things? Whose [determinate] will? '...for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning' (Is. 46:10). You see, Eric, it is assigning nothing to God to declare that He determines all thing which come to pass; it's merely allowing His Word to speak clearly. It is assigning human motives and traits to Him to deny it. You wrote this to laz: 'Here again, the question would be, who is actually substituting what the Bible teaches. Yes, the Bible clearly does teach sovereignty and responsibility, but the strict Calvinist position really eliminates true responsibility. (i.e. God decreeing every sin that has ever been commited.)' Now, in view of the four definitive Scriptures quoted for you, who is really denying the Bible's teaching? Though you have pretended to take the moral 'high ground,' looking down your nose at us, it is you who have twisted God's Word. Now, returning to the Acts passage. Even though God assuredly says He has determined the course of events by his counsel and foreknowledge, He ALSO AFFIXES THE BLAME, the moral responsibility. That responsibility and accountability goes to those who witnessed the miracles, but denied the Son of God anyway, crucifying Him 'by wicked hands.' Did you see that, Eric? God wasn't 'wicked' in determining that His Son be taken and crucified, but the people who consented to it and caused it were 'wicked,' that is, responsible moral agents. They are accountable for the sin God decreed and ordained and then allowed them to commit in pursuing their own wills. God had done all His plan in such a way that He was not morally accountable. In your post to me, you wrote: 'Again Rod, you have just conceded that God is the author of sin, at least in some sense. I don’t think it is a paradox, I think it is unbiblical, and contradictory. There are so many cases in scripture where it clearly teaches that God doesn’t temporally get what he wants, that to try and explain away such things is to render the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture as meaningless.' Then, you also wrote, 'The use of the word allow, is not logically consistent with your position, it is much more so with mine. One cannot allow, what one decrees. Cause is a more fitting word.' Here, again, you are grievously mistaken. God would be morally responsible under your position for what He has declared He does and foreordains. He allows the moral agents (men) to do what they desire to do in order to bring about His will--cp. Prov. 16:1,9 for just two examples of this. The unsaved man does what his will decrees. His mind is 'enmity against God' (Rom. 8:7); it can't do otherwise. You find yourself in all this disagreeing with Abraham: 'Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?' (Gen. 18:25), and in sympathy with the man Paul condemns for asking, 'Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?' (Rom. 9:19). This is the truly 'untenable position.'

Subject: And you call me confused!
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:23:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, I expect to be wrongly identified by those who hold unacceptable and liberal views. again with the accusations, Rod. I asked you several times previous to refrain from doing so, or tell me which views I hold that are liberal. It really is unbecoming of you. Next, he says that the Lord Jesus was 'delievered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God'. Now, if God's counsel determined that He would be delivered, Who ultimately caused the deliverance for crucifixion? Since the fact of God's direction is 'determinate,' we can say, without fear of refutation, that He has decreed the event, the motives of the heart, the entire episode. You failed to take into account the word foreknowledge. There is nothing in the text that says that God decreed for the men to sin. God foreknew that they would crucify Him. Perhaps He lifted His restraining influence on them, who knows, but it does not necessitate your view. One can easily interpret the passage to mean that God delivered His son into the hands of sinful men knowing that they would crucify Him. Since the fact of God's direction is 'determinate,' we can say, without fear of refutation, that He has decreed the event, the motives of the heart, the entire episode….<> …God wasn't 'wicked' in determining that His Son be taken and crucified, but the people who consented to it and caused it were 'wicked,' that is, responsible moral agents. They are accountable for the sin God decreed and ordained and then allowed them to commit in pursuing their own wills. This is a blatant contradiction. God determines the motives of the heart, but the people are guilty because God allows them to act on the motives of their heart (will). Do you see it Rod? These are your words. He has orchestrated it, as He has all of history, as the Bible says: 'And we know that all things work together for good for them that love God' (Rom. 8:28). How many things? Why do they work that way? It is 'all things' and it is because God has determined that it be so. '...according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will' (Eph.1:11). How many things? Whose [determinate] will? '...for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning' (Is. 46:10). Rom 8:28 There is no reason to believe that God can’t work all things together for my good, w/o God commanding sin. Eph 1:11 does not use the word determinate Rod, and the context of the passage is referring to God’s plan of salvation, and the benefits that we have in Christ. Is 46:10 The context of this passage is God telling how he is different from the false idols that people worship, with that context in mind the passage is speaking about God’s ability to foretell the future. But the passage also does point out that God’s purpose will stand, however it does not say that everything that happens is a **direct** result of his decree. Also, lets continue on in the same pronouncement by God. Isaiah 47:6 I was angry with my people and desecrated my inheritance; I gave them into your hand… Was God really angry with the Israelites for doing something that He decreed that they do? Does this make sense? You see, Eric, it is assigning nothing to God to declare that He determines all thing which come to pass; it's merely allowing His Word to speak clearly. The Word does speak clearly, your interpretation does not. You have God hating that which He **causes** to happen. Though you have pretended to take the moral 'high ground,' looking down your nose at us, it is you who have twisted God's Word. What is with you Rod, that you feel qualified to judge my attitude and motives? Am I really looking down my nose at you? Again, stop attributing sin to me. …He allows the moral agents (men) to do what they desire to do in order to bring about His will--cp. Prov. 16:1,9 for just two examples of this. The unsaved man does what his will decrees. His mind is 'enmity against God' (Rom. 8:7); it can't do otherwise. Again you contradict yourself. God decrees man’s motives, but the unsaved man does what his will decrees? God decrees man’s desires and yet man is guilty for having those desires? I agree with you, the unsaved man does what his will wants, and his will is at enmity with God. So you are forced to say that God wants man to be at enmity with Him. You find yourself in all this disagreeing with Abraham: 'Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?' (Gen. 18:25). YES He shall do right. That is why my position is what it is. and in sympathy with the man Paul condemns for asking, 'Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?' (Rom. 9:19). This is the truly 'untenable position.' Out of context Rod. Your position has been demonstrated by your own words to be contradictory, which by definition is untenable. God bless.

Subject: Re: Since it's slow...
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 12:15:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

NO!

Subject: question
From: Knowfear (Lk.12:5)
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 04:47:55 (PDT)
Email Address: knowfear@bigfoot.com

Message:
I remember reading somewhere that Calvin had said that the best of theologians are correct only __% of the time. If someone here has read the quote could you please fill in the blank for me. I think if memory serves me correct it was 85% but I cannot be sure. Thanks in advance. to His glory kf.

Subject: Re: question
From: Rod
To: Knowfear (Lk.12:5)
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 11:39:26 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
The very interesting thing about this 80% biz is that Calvin writes as if he's 100% sure! However, that is perfectly in keeping with Scripture: 1 Peter 4:11.

Subject: Re: question
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 14:13:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As Sproul Jr. explained it, if one were to point to each of his (Sproul's) doctrinal beliefs and ask, in turn, 'Is this true?' then he would reply that it was. But if he were to be asked if the entire body of his doctrinal beliefs are true, he'd have to say 'No.' Trouble is, he doesn't know which of his beliefs are the erroneous ones. And mind, that was Calvin's estimate for the best, most knowledgable, devout theologians! I'm probably down in the 60-70% range. If that. Anne

Subject: Re: question
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 20:52:39 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, I've always maintained that I'm no real theologian--still do. I do know I'm with Sproul, though, on this. I think that is an excellent explanation.

Subject: Re: question
From: Anne
To: Knowfear (Lk.12:5)
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 06:35:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
According to R.C. Sproul, Jr. in his book 'Almighty Over All' Calvin estimated that 80% correct is the best that the best theologian can manage. Anne

Subject: Re: question
From: Knowfear
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 10:22:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks Anne. Much appreciated!! :-) kf

Subject: Re: question
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 10:16:32 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Wow, Calvin was 80% smarter than I thought! And I thought he was pretty good! :>)

Subject: Re: question
From: john hampshire
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 18:25:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Perhaps Calvin would say today that 80 percent of theologians are 100 percent correct 50 percent of the time. But since Calvin was, at best, only 80 percent correct it would be best to take 80 percent of your final answer. Unless you are among the 20 percent who are wrong, in which case it wouldn't matter. Happy trails, john

Subject: Huh? I agree completely. What? :>) nt
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 20:54:29 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: I am...
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 17:22:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am not equating myself by any stretch of the emagination with being a theologian. But I just hope and pray that I haven't been more correct about something before, than I am now. I also pray that I continue to have the courage to change anything in my belief system that I find I can no longer support scripturally. Tom

Subject: Re: I am...
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 18:46:53 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom wrote: 'I also pray that I continue to have the courage to change anything in my belief system that I find I can no longer support scripturally.' May our Lord grant us all such an attitude.

Subject: Persecution
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 12:07:37 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Hi I apologise if this is not the place to post messages like this, do not hesitate to tell me not to do it in the future. But I just recieved this message and thought that others would like to see it. Tom Dear Friends: Please read this shocking story and let each one of us examine how much faith we have. Please pray for this man between now and July 12. On that day his options will be to either declare three times before the judge that he was returning to Islam, or face execution. Let us all expose this nonsense to the rest of the world. Please get on the radio in your city (unless you live in the Middle East). Let us ask the United States Department of State, or its corresponding ministry in your country, to rescue this innocent man's life. Please do not minimize the value of your involvement. Please do me a favor, image yourself in this man's place; what would you want the people in the free world to do for you? Now, go and do it, before it is too late. PLEASE DO SOMETHING. This man's faith is amazing. May God bless you as you do your part to try to save his life. Please, let us also pray for the judge who will rule on July 12. Your brother in Christ, Name Withheld
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- FLASH NEWS from COMPASS DIRECT Global News from the Frontlines ********** YEMEN COURT SENTENCES SOMALI CONVERT TO DEATH Former Muslim Given One Week to Recant Christianity or Face Execution by Barbara G. Baker ISTANBUL, July 5 (Compass) -- A Yemen court meted out the death penalty today to a Somali refugee for converting from Islam to Christianity, unless he recants within seven days. Mohammed Omer Haji, 27, was given a one-week ultimatum by Adenrmations Tawahi Court to return to Islam, or face execution under Islamic law for committing apostasy. 'His situation is very serious and very dangerous,' the convert's defense lawyer, Mohammed Abdul Karim Omarawi, told Compass today. Under the court ultimatum issued by Judge Gamal Mohammed Omer, Omarawi said, his client was told to be prepared at his final hearing on July 12 to either declare three times before the judge that he was returning to Islam, or face execution. According to Omarawi, the Yemeni legal system still allows for two final appeal motions, one before an appeals court and the other before the Supreme Court, before the verdict against Haji would be carried out. Married with an infant son, Haji came to Yemen from his native Somalia in 1994. He is formally registered as a refugee under Case No. 11911 with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Aden. Omarawi said that his client's file indicated Haji had become a Christian about two years ago. According to a handwritten letter from Haji drafted after his first arrest this year, five Yemen security police detained him at his home on January 16. After 23 days in the Tawahi police station, he was transferred to security police custody, and then imprisoned in the Mansoora Jail until his release March 13. Haji said police officials gave him no reason for his arrest except his Christian faith. They slapped and hit him, he said, declaring, 'We arrested you because you are a Christian. You are George, the Christian Somali.' An article in the Islam party's 'Al Sahwah' newspaper during this first imprisonment reported that Haji had declared to Tawahi police that he and his wife had embraced Christianity, and that he had changed his name from Mohammed to George. The report said documents indicated both the husband and wife had been born of Muslim parents in Somalia. Headlined 'Two Somali Refugees Embrace Christianity, Abandon Islam,' the report also appeared in the February 7 issue of the 'Yemen Times,' an English-language weekly. According to Haji, during his first imprisonment a UNHCR staff woman named Aisha came to question him at the Tawahi police station where he was being held. In front of the police, the woman told him, 'We don't have anyone called Mohammed who believes in Christianity!' Throughout the following weeks, Haji said he was threatened and beaten every night, 'very badly,' with police officers warning him they would kill him if he did not return to Islam. The officials interrogated him repeatedly about any other Somali Christians he knew, he said. 'They were beating and punishing me every night, [so] I was not able even to stand and walk and even to talk,' he stated. On what the convert called 'my worst night,' three security officers and another three policemen masked him and took him up a high mountain at midnight. After giving him a severe beating, they vowed to throw him off the mountain if he refused to recant. 'To save my life that night,' Haji admitted, 'I said I believe in Islam. Otherwise I would have died.' The following day, the Yemen authorities allowed another individual with UNHCR connections to talk privately with Haji. The convert said this person advised him, 'No one can do anything for you. So you'd better become a Muslim to end your problems.' Haji said he refused, assuring his visitor, 'God will help me and save me. I am not alone.' According to Haji, his wife has been threatened that she will also be arrested if she has any contact with churches or Christians. UNHCR officials reportedly refused her pleas for money to buy milk for the baby while her husband was under arrest. 'What crime has my baby committed?' Haji wrote in his letter. 'Is it because his father is a Christian? Why the Christians don't have the right to live?' After his release in March, Haji said the UNHCR office in Khormaksar told him they would only help him on the condition that he believe in Islam. If he continued to go to church and was arrested for that, then the UNHCR would not take responsibility for him, an official said. Haji was subsequently re-arrested 'about two months ago,' said his lawyer, who could not confirm the exact date. From Aden, UNHCR representative Mohammed Taher denied today that he knew anything about Haji's case. Claiming that the convert's refugee case number indicated it had been issued from Sana'a, the capital city, Taher said in a telephone interview, 'Really, I don't know anything about this.' A copy of Haji's UNHCR card obtained by Compass shows the place of issue as Aden. Lawyer Omarawi said his client's choice is clear cut: He will live if he chooses to return to Islam, and he will die if he chooses to remain Christian. 'But if he returns and says 'I return to Islam' three times, the judge will free him from the court, directly.' 'I know this is very difficult for him,' the lawyer said. 'He says that he is a true Christian, that he believes in Christ. But this is against the constitution and criminal laws of Yemen. And the judge cannot understand this situation. His parents and all of his family, his wife, all are Muslims. How has he now become Christian?' The Yemen Constitution declares Islam to be the state religion, with Islamic law the source of all legislation. The government forbids conversion from Islam or proselytizing by non-Muslims. *A photo of Mohammed Omer Haji is available electronically. Contact Compass Direct for pricing and transmittal. END ********** Copyright 2000 Compass Direct (Reprinted by SWRB by Permission) Compass Direct Flash News is distributed as available to raise awareness of Christians worldwide who are persecuted for their faith. Articles may be reprinted by active subscribers only. For subscription information, contact: Compass Direct P.O. Box 27250 Santa Ana CA 92799-7250 USA TEL: 949-862-0314 FAX: 949-752-6536 E-mail: compassdirect@earthlink.net www.compassdirect.org

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 18:24:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, It would be out of character for the US State Dept to apply diplomatic weight to try and free George the Christian. There are atrocities done against Christians in all communist (and Islamic) regimes under the watchful and disinterested eye of the Clinton administration. During the little conflict with Iraq, then President Bush had an opportunity to speak to the Saudi leaders to try and free American business men taken away illegally by soldiers and held prisoner in Saudi jails. He was urged to speak up, he declined. The US does not want currently to link foreign trade and potential profit with behavior/morality of a nation. There is no 'evil' empire, just business opportunities. The flower children of the 60's are in full bloom. It may be, that to make inroads in an oppressive regime, and overthrow evil, a great many more Georges must become martyrs. Would you rather die of old age, or die holding fast to the truth in the face of such adversity? I know, you would rather die of old age while holding fast to truth. Me too, but that is not to be expected. Work for George's release, but expect persecution (even death). By the way, George would have received persecution of a lesser nature if he had stood firm on his Christianity in America. In the cause of freedom of all religions, we have made it illegal to express any religion (except those that don't threaten us). Poor George would be censored, fired, expelled, or ridiculed by our American corporations, educational and governmental establishments for such blatant insensitivity for the rights of others. Maybe things are different in the land of Moose and Squirrel, but the US has little tolerance for Christian thought. We prefer to kill the person professionally, to marginalize them, ignore and trivialize their concerns, refuse their Constitutional rights, and punish them through illegal governmental actions. Of course David Koresh and Mr. Weaver of Ruby ridge understood all too well our heathen governmental assault upon religious and personal freedoms. There are millions of Georges in jails all over the world and billions who have led the way throughout history. It would be nice if all Georges everywhere could be free to express themselves personally and religiously without threat of torture and death. But it is not the expectation. john

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 20:11:33 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John While I think you are correct about not expecting too much from the government. Never the less, if we do nothing, nothing will happen(unless of course God intervenes). It would seem that our governments will not do anything unless it is in their best interest. So why not try to make it in their best interest to do so? There are enough people, both Christian and non-christian, that if they heard about this story, they would be upset. Don't forget, the majority of Americans concider themselves to be Christian, even though they don't even know what a Christian really is. Not long ago, someone I know said to me, 'I am a Christian, because I am a Canadian'. Yes I know it sounds silly, but this is what many believe. What kind of power do you think it would hold if enough people made it known that they wanted their government to do something about situations like this one? Tom

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 10:37:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
John is absolutely right about this one thing; the U.S. and Canadian governments, legal systems, etc. will do NOTHING by way of acknowledging Christianity as a reason to aid those who profess such. In fact, if one openly stands on the TRUTH of God (the Scriptures) as his/her moral ground and ideology, they will suffer persecution assuredly (2Tim 3:12). However, I know for a fact that John's list is incomplete for incarceration is also meted out as punishment in the U.S. and Canada to faithful adherents to 'the faith once delivered unto the saints.' Nothing angers politicians and judges more than to stand against an unbiblical and immoral 'law' of their respective countries on the grounds that the Supreme Judge has forbid one to obey a particular law when it is clearly wrong to do so. Another FACT which you are going to have to realize and accept, is that although the vast majority of Westerners profess to be Christian, it is in reality 'hot air' with no substance. Apathy reigns among the populace, for there is no commitment in their profession. If their claim to be Christian were true, which it is not, then they would be followers of Christ; disciples of Him and lovers of His laws and thus they would be willing to align themselves with the Apostle Paul and proclaim as he did,
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 15:20:26 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim I am not trying to say that the government will help someone just because they are Christian. All I am trying to say is that, it is possible that the government may do something if it is in their best interest to do so. You said:Another FACT which you are going to have to realize and accept, is that although the vast majority of Westerners profess to be Christian, it is in reality 'hot air' with no substance. Apathy reigns among the populace, for there is no commitment in their profession. If their claim to be Christian were true, which it is not, then they would be followers of Christ; disciples of Him and lovers of His laws and thus they would be willing to align themselves with the Apostle Paul and proclaim as he did, I am well aware of that fact, and I thought I said something similar in my last post. Am I such a bad communicator that you wouldn't recognise that? I am also aware that if indeed this man is executed. It should be concidered gain on his part. For he will be in the presence of our Lord. As Paul said: To live is Christ and to die is gain. But I think we should try to do something. Realising that the situation is in God's hands, not mans. Tom

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 18:17:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Howdy Tom, My editorial on why little interest will be paid to the plight of George: One wonders if we cannot motivate supposed 'Christians' to rise up against the daily murder of unborn babies by American and Canadian 'doctors' for profit, or the mental and ethical stagnation and of our public schools, or the rampant drug use and its accompanying violence, or the hypocrisy and greed of lying politicians of all persuasions who trample morality and Constitutional protections to advance themselves, what should we expect 'Christians' to do about one guy 8,000 miles away? In America there is an overwhelming feeling of apathy, that nothing can be done to affect the evil powers which seek to bury truth, dignity, honor, respect, and trample our laws. Corruption is found high and low. The great experiment in liberty has fallen flat, the backbone of Christian obedience and the exertion of peer pressure upon the common man has been removed. The more the populace is free to sin, the more the populace needs someone to make the sin 'right'. We find those forgiving figures in our caring politicians, our 'loving' pastors, our 'compassionate' CEOs who support our debauchery by forgiving our wickedness. We support our leaders who support us; they love the sin in us. For the most part, Americans have given up personal thought and inquiry to become a goat tended by their handlers. These goats will not rise up in outrage against evil, they see no evil, or else they would see themselves enslaved like beasts. They cannot take a 'stand' for they are not their own man, they are cripples who hang on their handlers assuring words fearing only that their sins should be exposed or worse, restricted. One would think that the term 'Christian' denotes someone with a will of steel, common sense, holding fast to truth and daily exposing this hypocrisy. Instead, 'Christians' are the chief offenders; the most easily tamed, the most puppy-doggish and disinterested lot of timid, weepy-eyed and needy sad-sacks who ever donned the mantle of hypocrisy. Of course there are 'true Christians', but who are they and where do they live? They are scattered like sheep in a flock of goats. Because true truth seekers tend toward stiff-necked obstinacy and budge not to condescend to their brother for fear of aligning with a goat in sheep’s clothing, they remain a house divided against itself. Like a nation of infighting family clans, they cannot rally themselves against the enemy, they remain ineffectual and easily suppressed. Of course governments benefit by this disorganization, and step forward to fill the spiritual and moral vacuum with an abundance of laws, taxes, hand-outs, and rhetoric about 'family values'. If you protest, you are an 'extremist' who hates: did you not know that your government only wants to make your life better by protecting you from evil, let us help--friend. Unfortunately the 'evil' we are protected from is 'truth' in all its forms. The American public will only rise up to oppose an issue enmasse when the media implants the fear that they may lose their freedom (to sin). They oppose what and whom they are told to oppose; to the endless frustration of those who are outside the 'Borg' collective. ***End of editorial*** If you wish to motivate politicians to engage on any issue, please deposit $100,000 with his secretary and he'll get back with you (to see if there is any more personal profit to be made). Remember, despite it all, your local politician is 'working hard' for the American people (and I suppose the Canadian's too--assuming your money is any good, or do you still trade in beaver pelts? (hehe)). john

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 17:07:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John Did you provide a solution in your editorial? Are you a half full, or half empty kind of person? (nothing to do with the heretical positive confession movement) Tom

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 23:37:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Not much can alter the course of events, as I see it. In the US, beginning in 1964 there was a dramatic shift toward government programs and away from personal responsibility. What was it that made husbands and wives willingly turn their children over to the state for training? Where exactly was the game lost? I don't know. The result: personal responsibility and strong family bonds were replaced by a government-nanny (i.e., 'It takes a village-idiot'). The more the government does to help, the more the people want, until they are trapped in a cycle of dependency; an unintended consequence of social engineering. Of course, little of this could have occurred without the silence of most churches, they had already adopted the social gospel decades earlier. Why was Calvinism abandoned for false-gospels? I don't know. It had its heyday for 200 years and then quietly faded away. Perhaps poor marketing and a less catchy message doomed Calvinism. (hehe) Actually, I'm surprised it lasted so long, was so influential and so widespread a doctrine considering how bold a truth it is. Perhaps Pilgrim can explain why it took so long for Arminianism-type theology to prevail after its introduction and why Calvinism could not hold the churches. In keeping with God's plan to prepare the world for judgment, I see this slippage into wickedness and the wreckage of the family unit as a failure to pass God's testing program by the unregenerate. I think God's plan is to cause the true church to become substantially marginalized, not destroyed or persecuted outright, but rather ignored. False gospels are the means of God's test of the church; with signs and wonders offered as a test also. The church failed one after another. I do not find wars, famines, or disasters-- rather those are the norm throughout history. Instead, it will be peace and safety, especially as the 'happy' gospels have replaced the 'mean' gospel of Calvinism. This is not a US/Canada outcome, but a worldwide descent into wickedness with a worldwide silencing of truth. I see no great earthly anti-Christ leader, no one-world government, no rule of Christ upon this earth. Rather, the world is mostly peaceful-- wicked, but peaceful. False gospels rule. There is no fear of God. He is 'love' ya know. Then, Christ returns and it is suddenly judgment day! Upon which the wicked are judged (being found deep in rebellion upon His return). The universe is destroyed, a new world created, and we all live happily thereafter. So I'm not pessimistic about current events, though I don't like to see corruption, and the myriad suffering that has occurred because of the blindness of man, but it is expected and in context. I would not deny anyone the right to fight by legal means to alter bad laws. I just am not sure that’s the fight a Christian needs to make a priority. Only a Christian is capable (and commanded) to present the gospel. I think we should let the dead bury the dead. Christians should be busy feeding the sheep. john

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Jul 11, 2000 at 22:17:49 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
John Personally I think the greatest enemy we the Church face is within the Church itself. Things like pragmatism, have infiltrated the Church and while we should fight to rid things like this from the Church. I do not think it is wrong to try to do what we can when we see injustices done. What I think is wrong is when we make stopping the injustices more of a priority than preaching the gospel and fighting things like pragmatism in the Church. As Calvinists we place a high priority on the soveriegnty of God. Finding the ballance(not sure that is the word I am looking for)in making God's soveriegnty a high priority in our lives and trying to help in matters like I have mentioned in this thread is hard. The way I do this at this momment, is to do what I can and leave the results up to God. Though sometimes I wonder if I really are doing all that I can. Tom

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Jul 11, 2000 at 07:57:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,
The answer to your question (was it supposed to be an actual question, or a tongue and cheeky toward me?) is that God's sovereign government over the affairs of this world determined that the Gospel of Christ should be allowed to go into a decline and the wiles of Satan increase and infiltrate the earth. Now, is this the 'loosing of Satan'? Don't know, and to be truthful, I have little interest in knowing. :-) But I am sure that that wasn't what you were looking for in an answer (again, if indeed the question was seriously asked?). What I am assuming is that you were looking for the 'horizontal' reasons for the decline of Calvinism and the increase of all the false gospels throughout the Western Hemisphere. It seems to me, that in the U.S. anyway, Charles Finney was probably the most influential individual of his time and one of the greatest proponents of a false gospel. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am NOT saying that Charles Finney is singularly responsible for the re-introduction of Semi-Pelagianism and the near demise of Calvinism. There were many who held to much of what he taught, but who were far less charismatic in character and were not involved in the 'right places' as was Finney. Again, God's sovereign providence is more than obvious in all this. For at and about the same period of time, the cults also came into existence/prominence; cf. Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, Helen White, etc. Add to this the classic Liberalism of the German existentialists; cf. Schleiemacher, Ritschl, etc. forming in Europe and Horace Bushnell in America. As I read through the history of the mid 1700's through the 20th Century, I cannot but be impressed with the outpouring of so many unbiblical/anti-biblical teachings. As far as the actual decline of Calvinism, apart from the obvious introduction and onslaught of the false gospels and religions which had a great appeal to the unregenerate of the day, there were those within the Presbyterian and Congregational churches who were greatly concerned with losing what members they had within their own congregations to these other influences. Rather than trust in Christ to build His church, they thought adopting these 'new teachings', at least in part would diminish the losses. Surely, one can sympathize with some of these pastors for trying to hold on to what they had worked so hard to establish over many years; having given of themselves totally to the service of Christ and the good of their flocks. Wrong they were, but the pressures must have been extreme for some of them. Be that as it may, their adoption of the 'new methodology' served both to further Finney's heresies and to diminish Calvinism and stifle the Gospel. This part of American church history is certainly not unique, for the O.T. prophets cried out to the LORD as they witnessed the pragmatism, pluralism and decline into pure paganism of God's chosen nation. Restoration was then given by God but only to see the very same thing happen, again and again, thus bringing the harsh judgment of the LORD to bear upon the people. Will the true Church be given restoration through reformation and revival again before Christ returns? Of course, I would hope so. And, I think we should all be working toward that end since we are not privy to the secret providence of God. Should the Lord Christ appear tomorrow, His sheep will surely rejoice in their redemption coming to completion.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 01:40:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Actually I am serious. I know with the rise of Semi-Pelagianism there was a continued attrition upon the church which eventually bled them dry. But one wonders what instigated these events. It is odd how public awareness changes or is re-directed sometimes all at once. One moment the mood is against a thing, and the next everyone is clamoring to become involved. Signs and wonders was generally acknowledged by the mainstream churches initially as an evil, but rather quickly some critical mass in acceptance was reached and most all Christendom folded in acceptance. Suddenly, for instance, macroevolution has overwhelmed the churches like Assyrian soldiers. The churches have no defense. Calvinism defended itself, the arguments were presented, but the people wanted excitement and visual stimuli, not tightly woven proofs. I can only guess that something occurred in America during the 1800's which affect the collective mind of most people instilling a desire for emotion overagainst critical thought. Perhaps it was the advent of industry and scientific progress that caused a reanalysis of perceptions. We came to expect a God who could be touched, felt, and experienced. Perhaps we grew wise in our estimation as we advanced in technology and in our collective pride needed to see (or bring down to our level) God, we felt it possible because our advances made us seem worthy enough to demand it. We wanted God to join us in our prosperity, and created a God that would appreciate us just as we are. Humility was unnecessary; we have captured God and made Him our 'friend'. The initial fear that God is fearsome turned out to be incorrect, and when the signs and wonders demonstrated that God was indeed with us, the respect/fear melted away. The God of Calvinism became incompatible with the God of the Industrial age. Whatever the cause, it was fatal. Any thoughts? Anyone. john

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 07:27:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,
I think one of the factors during the 1800's was the fact that most of the churches, being of Calvinistic heritage, held to a Post Millennial view of eschatology. And when the Civil War finally broke out, their hopes of an earthly 'peace and prosperity' were quickly dashed to the ground. There is little doubt that this was a major factor in the 'change' that took place during that period of time. Another major consideration is one that we tend to either overlook or perhaps consciously ignore; that there are a good number of 'members' within churches that are yet unregenerate. It is these in particular who are susceptible to 'every wind of doctrine' and who are governed by their corrupt natures and the Evil One rather than being 'led by the Spirit'. This is also true today; the 'trends' that the churches follow, being like goats, many times originate within the 'church'are deliberately designed to attract the worldly without the world having to compromise its own philosophy and 'values'. So what you end up with is a big party with a 'worldly cake' frosted with 'churchianity'. The mix of sheep and goats within the church is unpreventable as it has been ordained of God despite some of our Baptist brethren's attempts to 'purify' their congregations :-). Despite the best efforts of the most godly men, in many cases, the world 'wins' the battle, albeit they have and will lose the war. I offer as an example, Gresham Machen and others who fought valiantly to preserve orthodox conservative Christianity at Princeton Seminary in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The result was of course that the Liberals prevailed, but in consequence, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia was formed and from that institution, some of the most prolific apologists for the Faith were produced ('ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.' Gen 50:20). There is little doubt in my own mind that obviously the LORD God is orchestrating all these things through His perfect providence and eternal counsel for His own glory; many times through the putting on and taking away of restraints within the church for the edification of Christ's true sheep and the calling in of those who are to be redeemed and part of the family of God. It is CHRIST who builds HIS church, and we who are to be faithful to do those things which are in the law to the best of our abilities with the gifts given to us by the Holy Spirit. It is clear, that with the introduction of heresies within the church, it actually serves for growth and purification. (1Cor 11:19; 2Pet 2:1ff; 1Jh 2:19).
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Persecution
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 13, 2000 at 06:59:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - I can relate....the result of the ugly church split I was involved in (I left the scene altogether to join the local OPC) has been VERY positive. The remaining faithful flock now has an excellent retired seminary professor as pastor/teacher who is captivating the spiritual/intellectual imaginations of men/women who for years attended a 'reformed' church in name only. Husbands are returning to Church with their more faithful wives, the doctrines of the faith are being taught and embraced...etc. We ran into a group from this faithful remnant at a McDonald's last night and where only about 10% used to attend Wed eve service...now about 60-75% attend and new members are being added monthly. I was so pleased to see God making good coming out of evil. Blessings, laz

Subject: Gave wrong e-mail address
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 12:11:29 (PDT)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
My new e-mail address thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Subject: Fatima's 3rd secret interpreted
From: LetsObeyChrist Lk.6:46 Mt
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 00:56:25 (PDT)
Email Address: alpersso@letsobeychrist.com

Message:
The Interpretation of The Third Secret of Fatima: Given below is the complete translation of the original Portuguese text of the third part of the secret of Fatima that was revealed to the three shepherd children at Cova da Iria-Fatima on July 13, 1917, and committed to paper by Sr. Lucia on January 3, 1944. The text is from the Vatican City, Jun 26, 2000 (VIS), with inserted bracketed numbering which refer to its interpretation. 'I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine. 'After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand[1]; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand[2]: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. [3]And we saw in an immense light that is God[4]: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it'[5] a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'.[6] Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain[7], at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark[8]; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins[9] and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way[10]; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross [11] he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions [12]. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.'[13] Its Interpretation: The vision is not good for Rome, none of the dammed the Pope prays for are benefited[10]. They all remain dammed forever outside of the kingdom of God in Gehenna, a garbage dump outside of the city of God (Isaiah 66:25), a furnace of fire (Matthew 13:42, 50). Only the Judgement light of God’s inspection shines upon them[4] as they tremble in the darkness outside, they appear as shades looking in through a window of a well lit banquet room (Luke 13:23-30) [5]. Not one of these lawless persons who hypocritically call Christ “lord lord” but never do as He commanded in Scripture will enter (Matthew 7:19-27; Luke 6:46; John 14:23-24). Their profession of faith was dead (James 2:26), it did not radiate in obedience to Christ (2 John 2:19)[1A]. The Pope is made to walk among the dead papists of all ages who lay in the ruins of Babylon. The Pope’s spiritual experiences lead him to believe he is a servant of God but that is a strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Matthew 7:22-23). He pities these dead and prays for them not understanding these are being shown to him because he and those like him are responsible for their deaths (Revelation 18:24), their blood is upon the heads of all Popes and the entire Magisterium that misled them. That is clearly seen by the fact that the Pope’s prayers accomplish nothing, the condition of these dead is not changed whatsoever, they remain dead never to be mentioned again. They are eternally lost. When he reaches the Judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10) he is killed by God’s soldiers the Cherubim (cp Genesis 3:24) who guard the tree of life from the unclean (Revelation 22:14-15), and His angels (Isaiah 37:36) [11]. Next after the Pope the Bishops, Priests, lay persons and all those rebels against Christ who preferred the teachings of men rather than that of the Living God, these also are killed there, each one in their proper order, according to all they have done in their flesh (Isaiah 59:15-20; Galatians 6:7-8). They will be punished with everlasting destruction from before the presence of the LORD, their existence before the face of God (2 Thessalonians 1:9) is finished. They will hurled into the outer darkness away from God’s Face to exist on that side of God where only His great and terrible wrath is revealed [12]. 'Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are invited, but few are chosen' (Matthew 22:7-14); “Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Revelation 22:15). Never again will these be drunk with the blood of the Holy Martyrs (Revelation 17:6), that is taken away from them by the two angels who are representing angels of God. Upon the testimony of two witnesses a thing is established (Deuteronomy 19:15). This shows that these angles are indicating something truthful, by this form of baptism, the sprinkling of blood upon, the angels are identifying these few as saved unlike the great crowd of papists before them (cp Romans 6:4-5). Additional Notes: 1A] Such useless faith is not a gift from God, that can be seen in its characteristics. The essential element missing in demonic like faith is obedience to God (James 2:19-20). Genuine faith radiates works just as genuine electricity radiates light in a light bulb or just as a body with its spirit still in it is alive (James 2:26; Ephesians 2:10). Counterfeit self generated and demonic inspired faith is characterized by rebellion against Christ’s teachings found in the Bible (2 Jn 1:6-11), it is antichrist faith i.e., a faith that substitutes the real Christ with a false one and follows that one’s teachings instead of the real Jesus Christ revealed only in Scripture. The LORD Jesus Christ is sovereign over all and He alone is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23; Matthew 28:19-20; Philippians 2:11; Romans 10:9) and to Him alone does the obedience of the people belong (Genesis 49:10). 1] Actors in demonic visions are always disguised demons (2 Corinthians 11:14), the one that disguises itself as “Our Lady” cannot be Mary the Mother of Christ. All believers are kings and priest to God and will judge angels in that day (1 Corinthians 6:3) therefore if Mary was being portrayed she would be “above” these angels. She is the Mother of Harlots, the apostate Church Babylon the Great. The real identity of these two angels is being broadcast to satanists by reversal of what is proper, swords are not wielded in the left hand by angels of God (Ex 15:6). 2] The meaning is clear, for a while it appeared the light of God’s truth would set the earth on fire for Jesus (cp Revelation 1:16; 2:12), but satan was able to blind mankind (2 Cor 4:4; 1 John 5:19) to the glorious gospel of Christ with his own “light” through Babylon, the Mother of Harlots. 3]By pointing with his right hand satan is indicating what he intensely wants his followers to do, they are to redefine “repentance” (Luke 13:1-9; Acts 2:38; 3:19; Revelation 2:22-23) as “penance” because thereby they can lessen the number of those who make their way to God later in the vision. By changing genuine repentance into penance, a rite of mere words and sacrament (Isaiah 29:13), a mere incantation with supposed charms that effect regeneration when done “properly.” That is changing a genuine forsaking of sin and commitment to Christ with a magic rite. It is impossible for God’s grace or regeneration power to be mixed into any material object no matter how it is defined. God is everywhere, His power or grace cannot operate where God is not (Jeremiah 23:23-24; 1 Kings 8:27; Acts 17:27-28). Indeed, His grace is the revelation of His Essence in a certain way, it is not separate from Him. Therefore it is heretical to imagine God’s Nature can be fused into matter just as it is heretical to say the human nature of Christ is fused with His Divine Nature. These unite in the One Person of Christ but remain separate and distinct nonetheless. That is the “right thinking” concept of God, for it is written: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), not ‘in the beginning God changed a part of himself into matter found in heaven and earth and therefore is part of it.’ God does not change (Hebrews 13:8). His grace and regenerative power are but revelations of His Infinite Essence and therefore are not bound up in material things, creatures cannot manipulate God by rite and incantation no matter “how well done.” 4] God is light (1 John 1:5) but in this context the light is one of inspection of these dammed, revealing their deeds. 5] A reflection in a mirror has the same appearance of a face peering into the window from the darkness outside as light from the room strikes it. 6] The last pope. 7]'Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.-Matthew 7:13-14 nrsv 8] “If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.”-Exodus 20:25 niv Traditions of men defile (Mark 7:7-17), being a rough hewn cross represents The Faith undefiled by man’s traditions, the real thing. It is written: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:-Revelation 22:18 kjv As the book of Revelation is the last book written by God and as it details what is to occur to the end of the ages, it follows that God 1)had no intention of sending more prophets who could add to this revelation 2)had no intention of revealing more about the end times. Otherwise Revelation 22:18 could not have been written. We do not need additional revelation about any subject, the Bible already has within its pages all the information we need to know to be “perfect” and “thoroughly equipped”: As it is written: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.-2 Timothy 3:16-17 kjv It is clear our Bibles contain all the doctrine or teaching that is required to render the man of God “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” One cannot be better than perfect and thoroughly furnished, that is elementary. In 1 Corinthians 13:8-14:1 Paul notes that the apparent ceasing of Prophecy, tongues and supernatural knowledge is causing problems in the Corinthian Church. The majority wanted to forbid the speaking in tongues entirely (1 Corinthians 14:39), they preferred wisdom (1 Cor. 1:11-31). To combat these schisms that was being fueled by the cessation of these things Paul notes that Love never fails (1 Cor. 13:8), God does not love them less if they don’t speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:25-13:8). To paraphrase Paul he is saying “God does not love you less if you don’t speak in tongues, and as for those who wonder why these things are failing, why are you so upset, they were destined to fail anyway when the Kingdom of God comes. Then revelation from God will be perfect and not partial as it is now.” When the Teleios (the complete) arrives then the Meros (incomplete) will cease. Now we know in part, then we will know perfectly. As Paul obediently expected Christ could usher in the Teleios within his lifetime, he speaks to all as though they might see this event, but he does not say they will. The text is teaching and not prophecy. The context is “light to heavy” Qal Wahomer argumentation practiced 'to some extent by first century rabbis.' Cf. Rm 5:15-21; 2Co.3:7 18. Compare 'heavy to light' Rm.5:6-9; 5:10; 8:32; 11:24; 1 Cor.6:2; 13:12. See 'Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period,' Richard Longenecker, (William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1975) p.117. So Paul says the “complete” revelation of God will cause the incomplete to cease. Therefore, as the Bible is the Complete revelation of God for our age (2 Tim 3:16-17) the incomplete has ceased. The analogy is literal for Scripture testifies it is able to make the man of God “Perfect.” All Modern visions such as Fatima, like UFO abduction experiences are but manifestations of satan’s ability to telepathically impress his “3d movies” complete with “physical and mental sensations” into the minds of men, to deceive them utterly. The experience is completely “real.” If only those who are subjected to such satanic power would obey Scripture the truth would set them free. We are commanded to test the spirits when something like that occurs, then the demons involved in the vision or dream would be revealed for what they truly are. The test is simple, easy to do. Just ask the people you see in that vision or dream if they can confess “Jesus Christ is their LORD” or that “The Word became flesh.” Then their disguise would drop and you will see them for what they really are. In 1 Corinthians 12:3 we see that persons under the direct influence of a demonic spirit cannot in that state say “Jesus Christ is LORD,” that is because the spirits controlling them cannot say it. Of course, false prophets when not under the control of a spirit can say it, then they are simply lying. Neither can evil spirits say “Jesus Christ came in the flesh” (1 John 4:3), they choke on the words because the Incarnation condemns them utterly. Christ proved in both realms, that of heaven and earth, that there are those who love the Father above all else. By selling all He owned in heaven to serve the Father here on earth for loves sake, Christ silenced forever satan’s argument against God (Job 2:5), that no one loves Him in truth, all are selfish. Satan argued that as God created man to share life with him in love if no man would actually do so then that proves God makes mistakes. If God made a mistake, He is not God and has no authority to demand any live according to His commands, therefore God should allow him to exist outside of the Lake of Fire. While Job proved that argument unsound, Christ conclusively proved it wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt ( compare the allusions Phil 2:3-12). Not only did the Son show His infinite love for the Father by forsaking all and becoming flesh, adding to His Divine Nature human nature (Phil 2:7-12) through the Virgin Birth by the Holy Spirit, He also did thus as man. Christ truly became flesh in every possible way, He limited His access to Deity so that in all points He was like as we (Heb 4:15), fully human. Then as man Christ again forsook all He owned to serve the Father in true love, even unto the excruciating pain of the cross. There is no doubt, God did not make a mistake in creating man. Satan’s ability to telegraph these “experiences” in humans is incredible, he also can manipulate matter to deceive whole crowds of people into believing they saw UFO’s. It does not matter how “real” such things seem to be, for example the wood satan transformed into serpents was quite real (Exodus 7:11-12), hence fabricating “alien life forms” would be easy for him, these are but masterful deceptions designed to lead folks away from the truth in the Bible. Spiritual experiences are very real, not fabrications of deranged minds. Cleverly disguised spiritism is misleading many antichrists (counterfeit Christians) into believing they are being led by the real Holy Spirit (1 John 4:1; 1 Corinthians 12:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12; Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 2:18-21). Note the contrast in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-15 and 1 John 2:18-21, there experience led antichrists who follow their experiences (visions, voices, feelings) are dammed because they do not love the truth in the Bible, real Christians on the other hand are faithful to the teachings of the Apostles in the Bible. These antichrists consider their spiritistic experiences more authoritative than Scripture, to their own destruction. Because they chose not to love the truth, God stops hindering the satanic power consuming their lives. Remember, test the spirits to see if they are of God: Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.-2 Corinthians 2:11 While the fatima vision is of the devil, God has permitted this interpretation to come to light that all might see these spurious visions are to be rejected. They are worthless. They reveal nothing new and actually are secret communication to satanists. It is clear satan finds it humorous that he can so clearly depict the destruction of these papists and yet they will not believe, he will be able to convince them quite easily the vision must mean something else. Let us counsel the papists and all those mislead by their experiences or that of others: Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.-James 4:7 kjv Why should God repeat Himself in visions when He has already said all we need to know in the Bible? Great King don’t repeat themselves, that is weakness: …For I am a great King,' says the LORD of hosts, 'And My name is to be feared among the nations.-nkjv God would these papists repent and not perish, let us warn them: Joel 2:11 The LORD utters his voice at the head of his army; how vast is his host! Numberless are those who obey his command. Truly the day of the LORD is great; terrible indeed--who can endure it? Joel 2:12 Yet even now, says the LORD, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; Joel 2:13 rend your hearts and not your clothing. Return to the LORD, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing. Joel 2:14 Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, a grain offering and a drink offering for the LORD, your God? Joel 2:15 Blow the trumpet in Zion; sanctify a fast; call a solemn assembly; Joel 2:16 gather the people. Sanctify the congregation; assemble the aged; gather the children, even infants at the breast. Let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her canopy. Joel 2:17 Between the vestibule and the altar let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep. Let them say, 'Spare your people, O LORD, and do not make your heritage a mockery, a byword among the nations. Why should it be said among the peoples, 'Where is their God?'' Joel 2:18 Then the LORD became jealous for his land, and had pity on his people.-nrsv May God open everyone’s eyes. Amen, please come quickly LORD Jesus Christ.

Subject: your point?
From: Five Sola
To: LetsObeyChrist
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 18:32:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
LetsObeyChrist, Your name sounds familiar and the way you stated things in your post makes me think you are the one I have met before. Have you been on 'firetalk' forums? And are you the same one who was/is a ana-baptist whom thinks they are the one and only true church and the rest of us are of satan? I truly hope not. :-) If so, you will not find your heresy, false propaganda, and re-written history acceptable in this forum. I truly hope I have mistaken you for someone else and you are not that person. Five Sola.

Subject: Re: Fatima's 3rd secret interpreted
From: john hampshire
To: LetsObeyChrist Lk.6:46 Mt
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 17:46:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Huh!? and Wow! That was a lot of effort expended to interpret and refute a vision(?) which the writer here apparently finds not to be anything but Satanic impressions fixed upon the wicked. How is it this vision of Fatima is a deception, which it is, but once the deception is interpreted it can be used to show the error of the RCC? Indeed such a vision, if there was even a vision to begin with, is a deception of Satan and of no value! So rather than interpret its meaning (as if that were possible) let it go as you'd let the mutterings and babbling of charismatic pentecostals go. The vision has no 'power', it is as equally as fraudulent coming from Satan as from the (supposed) three shepherd children. You might as well decipher the hidden 'truth' behind the ranting of Charles Manson, an equally useless endeavor. This 'vision' is as important as the musings of Jeannie Dixon, an astrologer to the stars, and all around nugget. In other words, it is void of meaning. Further, the RCC is not wrong because some vision says so, they are in gross error because the Bible shows them to be; they repel truth like water on a duck, they stand opposed to truth. I would not concern myself with the intrigues of any religion so deeply blind to truth. john

Subject: Jerrold Lewis, Separation, and SL&C
From: John P.
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 12:17:54 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Dear Brethren and particularly Mr. Lewis: Greetings. I'm sorry that I have taken so long to respond - these delays will likely be common if I am at all able to continue in the debate for any length of time. Notwithstanding, I think that it is important that I at least respond to the questions and objections raised by Jerrold Lewis (some under the name JOwen) here in this post. I intend on answering these questions with honesty and a gracious spirit - so if my style of writing seems to convey a different spirit, please judge me with charity as far as is reasonable. I suspect Mr. Lewis would desire the same for himself, too, from those following along. However, since both of us are men, and, to err is human (at least since the fall), I recommend to those who are following along to judge our arguments less based on our rhetoric and more by the Biblicity and rationality of them. Some of these issues are such in which many on the board may be less interested (namely, those dealing with the history of the Westminster Assembly and the Second Reformation confessional attainments, &c.); other issues which will be addressed will deal with the important biblical arguments which (if these issues come up) justify the importance of arguing the aforementioned issues of a post-canonical historical nature, and deal immediately with the importance of issues like ecclesiastical separation and what Mr. Lewis calls, 'Reformed Toleration,' from the Holy Bible. Having said that, I will deal with Jerrold's two posts in the order they were posted. In his first post, which he posted under the name 'JOwen,' he essentially argued against me - following a similar outline to my initial post in which I argued for ecclesiastical intolerance with respect confessional errors - by first listing Scriptures which he believed taught that we are permitted (and possibly duty-bound) to attend worship in backslidden churches and nations. I will deal with each of these passages briefly. They are the following: (1) He first listed three passages which could be easily grouped together as similar and answered the same way. These passages deal with Christ's customarily teaching in the Jewish synagogues. The first of these passages was Matthew 13:54 (which is a sufficient summary of the other two), in which we read: “When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue.” Following this verse (and the other two he gave in this group), Mr. Lewis wrote, 'This was a backslidden Covenanted Nation—ergo occasional hearing.' For those of you who may not be aware of what he is speaking about when he speaks of 'occasional hearing,' it is simply the following teaching: Occasional hearing is simply the doctrine which says that it is sinful to even occasionally attend the worship of a church, or sit under a minister thereof in his official capacity, from which one has (or ought to) separate because of their countenancing error. In other words, if you separated from the local Arminian church, or PCUSA church (or any other church) because of some error propagated thereat causing it to be unlawful for you to attend there regularly, then it is also unlawful to attend there occasionally. ****Note: This does not mean it is unlawful to read, privately listen to, or study, what other ministers have said - we are simply asserting that it is unlawful to countenance them in their public and official capacity.**** Now, in order to disprove this doctrine, and prove that we are indeed permitted to sit under the teaching of a minister who errs from the truth, Mr. Lewis brought forth this passage. By quoting it, he seems to have intended to show that, because Christ could go to the synagogue during a backslidden time in history, we can go to churches that are corrupt. Ergo, he believes in 'reformed toleration.' However, this doesn't at all follow from that passage. Why? Consider: A. Jesus is not sitting under the preaching of a habitually and willfully covenant-breaking / confessionally erring teacher. Rather, Jesus Christ Himself is 'customarily' doing the teaching. Hence, this passage (nor the other two) have anything to do with teaching us that we are not permitted to sit under the teaching of an unlawful minister. Greg Price himself has told me that he would preach at a Romish church if they permitted him to preach the true Gospel and conduct worship in a reformed manner; for, it would be an opportunity to teach the ignorant the simplicity of the Gospel, the reformed faith, and to testify against their sinful and pernicious doctrines. His warrant for doing this partly comes from these texts. B. If this passage proved that Jesus sat under unlawful teachers, then we would assume that he would consider the synagogues His own. He, being the Lord Jesus Christ, certainly would be the Lord of - and willing to own - a synagogue whose rulers teach that under which He is able to sit. However, the passage above quoted says that Jesus, 'taught them in their synagogue.' Now, when Matthew used the third person possessive pronoun - as he did here - we ought to assume it was used normally. Namely, that, if the synagogue was, 'theirs' (3rd person) it means it wasn't 'mine,' (1st person) or, 'yours' (2cd person). Furthermore, it was 'theirs,' in relation to Jesus Christ and His disciples. Therefore, neither Christ, nor His disciples (amongst whom Matthew was one), considered the synagogues their own - but rather those of the backslidden, covenant-breaking church. Christ only taught there in order to testify against their sins (which He apparently did very well, seeing as though it wasn’t uncommon for the rulers to seek to kill Him). Now, in case one is to object saying that, “Simply because it is ‘their’ synagogue doesn’t mean that it is unlawful! I could visit another church which is lawful when on a trip somewhere, or with a friend who attends a lawful church, and still call it ‘theirs’ who regularly attend at that locality!” That is true, however, in this passage we read that Jesus distinctly had just come “into his own country,” and therefore, it violates our ordinary way of speaking to say that one’s hometown synagogue is not your own. For, the people attending there were people who could say, “Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” (Matt 13:55-56) Furthermore, although I think this argument is a good argument, I think that gains importance when considering the following arguments. C. Furthermore, these passages prove too much for Mr. Lewis. For, if (from these passages) we find warrant to worship at backslidden churches (under their teaching), then we must confess that we are permitted to sit under the preaching of a so-called ‘minister’ who denies the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the synagogues at which Christ taught had done. And yet, Mr. Lewis wants us to believe that, by Christ's attending - and teaching at - the synagogues, we are bound to sit under backslidden teachers. If his reasoning follows, and it is true that we are to gather (from this passage) that we are permitted to sit under the preaching of backslidden churches, then - we may be certain - that Mr. Lewis has led us to conclusions which are too extreme for a person who genuinely loves Christ. For, if to argue from these passages what Mr. Lewis would have us conclude from them is legitimate Biblical argumentation, then we are bound to worship under ministers who deny the divinity of Christ; therefore, these passages prove too much. D. Furthermore, in these passages (the other two being Mark 1:21 and Luke 4:16), it is rather apparent that, when Christ taught, He wasn't making friends at these synagogues (at least not with the rulers). For, after teaching at the synagogue in Luke 4, they tried to kill Him. Why? Because He essentially taught that they hadn't been chosen. This further shows that these passages prove to much. For, this means Mr. Lewis’ argument from these passages requires us to attend Arminian churches which (by their doctrine) show they hate the sovereign Lord of glory! (No, Rod, I'm not saying every Arminian in name is damned - just that the Arminian doctrine is damning if it is held sincerely and with understanding of the works-righteous inferences. See previous posts for a further explanation of this.) Mr. Lewis’s argument from these passages has been reduced to leading him to absurd conclusions, and, had he thought of them before posting it, he likely (Lord willing) wouldn't have presumed to use them for this conclusion. Furthermore, this also refutes Thomas Boston's argument which he quoted. The next passages which Mr. Lewis brought forth as witnesses for his position are also easily shown to have nothing to do with this issue. He quoted Acts 21:26, wherein it is written, 'Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.' After this passage, he says that we therefore have warrant to worship at a church which worships using the Jewish ceremonies (sacrificing, too?) after the death of Christ. He wrote, 'Post cross ceremonial worship-ergo idolatry.' Again, this is an argument which proves too much. Namely, that we could worship with a church that requires us to worship only in a temple in Jerusalem; that we may attend a church which continues sacrifices on an altar; we could worship at a church that restricts the ministry to the descendants of Levi; &c. The reason why Paul could do this without sin, was the time in history in which it happened. God, being a good and merciful God, gave the Jews a grace period following the cross in which the ceremonial means of worship were slowly being weaned from the church. For, although it is true that, at the time of Christ's fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT on the cross, these ceremonies were old or obsolete judicially; nevertheless, in practice they were only waxing old and becoming obsolete. This is clearly seen in Hebrews 8:13, wherein it is written, 'In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.' (KJV) and, in the NAS, it reads, 'When He said, 'A new covenant' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.'(NAS) So, from this passage, all we have warrant to conclude is this: during the time of the apostles, before Christ in His providence and justice destroyed the ceremonial worship in Jerusalem (by destroying the Temple), it was lawful to participate in the 'decaying' ceremonies which would be actually - and in practice - 'vanished' in Christ's time of justice. Dan 9:26-27, 'And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.' Next, Mr. Lewis gave Romans 15:5 and Galatians 6:2, which concern essentially the same thing: bearing patiently with weak - not obstinate - Christian. In Romans 15, the weakness is doctrinal; in Galatians 6, the weakness appears to be some besetting sin against which the weak brother daily battles. I really don't think this needs much more of an argument than what I have already written in my first post under the 'ecclesiastical Separation' thread, wherein I responded to this very objection as it is raised from Romans 14. So I will leave it at this: these passages are not at all in conflict with separating from corrupt churches; rather, they are in conflict with being unmerciful to the weak brethren whom the Lord is able to make stand (Romans 14:4). After that, he quoted Ephesians 4:3, wherein it is written, 'Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' Certainly, we all (who are genuine lovers of Christ and His Kingdom) endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. However, those who oppose the truth oftentimes aren't willing to peacefully submit to true Spiritual unity. For, they frequently raise their swords (whether their tongues or steel) against the faithful, and peace is not possible. If this were not the case, then Christ wouldn't have warned His followers so frequently that people would hate them, that they would be slandered, that there would be division even within their households (where often the divisions are between erring Christians and the faithful), and Paul would never have told us that 'heresies' [Gr.*hairesis* = divisions, sects, disunions, &c.] 'must be...among [us]' (1 Cor. 11:19). Hence, when we are commanded to, 'keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,' it is incumbent upon us to remember that we are not to do this at the cost of truth, but only (as Paul also wrote), 'as much as lieth in you.' (Romans 12:18) - by which Paul intimates that there is a point at which we are unable to be at peace with all men. At this point, Mr. Lewis goes into critiquing the session of the PRCE (Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton) by claiming that there are 'divisions' even within the session. First off, to show his rashness in posting these supposed 'divisions,' he demonstrates that he doesn't even understand what he is talking about when he claims that traducianism is opposed to historicism. These two positions (traducianism and historicism) are not even in the same camp, and aren't even discussed together when studying them. Traducianism ought to be compared to a theory which is called ‘creationism,’ whereas historicism ought to be compared to other postmillennial eschatologies. Traducianism is merely the doctrine that says that, although the first souls were created immediately by God (Adam and Eve), all other souls are transmitted to there descendents from their parents during ordinary human generation (and thus, we were [as it were] in the loins of Adam when he sinned; this was Augustine’s position). Furthermore, Greg Barrow, whom Mr. Lewis says is a traducianist, is still studying the issue. It is true, Greg Barrow says he has, 'traducianist leanings'; however, he does not have a settled position which is in opposition to any of the elders. Furthermore, although Greg Price leans towards the Creationist view (meaning that each soul is immediately [rather than mediately] created by God), Mr. Barrow has told me that he also is not totally settled in his position. So, Mr. Lewis missed on two points: (1) what the debate is (traducianism verses creationism, not historicism); and (2) Mr. Lewis overstated the difference between Mr. Price and Mr. Barrow, as though they have a settled difference when, in fact, neither of them has a committed position. I think this ought to be rather embarrassing for Mr. Lewis, since this makes him appear almost so eager to find disagreements in the PRC session, that he makes claims before having a clue as to what he is talking about! To make traducianism opposed to historicism is as fallacious as making Calvinism opposed to infant baptism (i.e., holding one does not exclude holding the other). Also, concerning the other issues which he raised and claimed were (in my words) ‘ignored divisions’ in the session of the PRCE were also misunderstood. Of the so-called disagreements he listed, not a single one is a genuine disagreement. It is true, that on a couple of the issues, two of the elders may have leanings to different positions - but in none of the issues, have they been so convinced of their position that there is a genuine disagreement. Mr. Lewis ought to be more careful before he writes, for he has slandered these men. Indeed, much like the opposers of Nehemiah’s rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Sanballat and Tobiah), Mr. Lewis seems to be writing letters which are intended to prevent such a good work. Nevertheless, as Nehemiah said, “There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart.” (Nehemiah 6:8). At this point, Mr. Lewis went on to give quotations from men of church history who seem to (or really do) agree with him to a certain degree. I’m not going to get into each of them. I already answered the argument from Thomas Boston indirectly in my response to Mr. Lewis’s earlier argument. I realize full well that there have been writers who have disagreed with us as well as those who have agreed with us throughout church history on this point. My claim is that those who disagreed were wrong from the Bible. However, I still do think it is good to see what men have said in the past. On to the next post of Mr. Lewis. This was actually posted under his name: Jerrold Lewis. He asked me the following: “...[P]lease tell me how the Solemn League and Covenant is owned by the Presbyterians of 1638-1649, their descendants, and none other? Why can’t a Reformed Congregationalist own it and nterpret it just the same as a presbyterian? For that matter, why can’t ANY Presbyterian, Anglican, or Reformed Congregationalist own the Solemn League and Covenant and be a duly constituted church as to her ‘well being’. For that is the way it was when it was first subscribed to!” This (essentially one) question is such that appears to demonstrate the ignorance of Mr. Lewis concerning the history of the 2cd Reformation (1638-1650). I will simply respond in two points, followed by some questions of my own for Mr. Lewis. Point #1: Lewis wrote, “...[P]lease tell me how the Solemn League and Covenant is owned by the Presbyterians of 1638-1649, their descendants, and none other?” Answer: The Solemn League and Covenant (hereafter “SL&C”) is owned by the Presbyterians and none other ecause it is a document which bound the swearers to the following: (1) It bound the swearers to reject, and seek the extirpation of, the church government of the Romish church. The SL&C says, “That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery...” (2) It bound the swearers to reject the church government of the church of England (Anglicanism). The SL&C continues, “That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers depending on that hierarchy,)...” (3) It bound the swearers to seek a uniformity in church government, which bound them - even the Independents who swore it - to Presbyterianism. This will (I’m sure) require more proof for Mr. Lewis, since he has apparently not done his homework. The SL&C reads, “That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavor to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.” From this quotation, please notice (and answer in your next post if you care for me to respond again) the following points: A. Even the Independents swore to “endeavor...the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,” &c., &c. Now, unquestionably the Church of Scotland was Presbyterial in their Church Government - and this was the church-government the independents swore to preserve. Therefore, the SL&C is a Presbyterian Document. (And, in case you will argue that they thought it was an indifferent thing to swear to preserve Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland, I would have you notice that they frequently argued [after they broke covenant] that Presbyterianism was akin to Popery, was antichristian, tyrannical, &c. If they believed it was such a devilish form of government, then they certainly ought not to have sworn to preserver it.) B. The Independents also swore this covenant after the British Parliament abolished Prelacy in the land of England and called the Westminster Assembly - with one of its primary purposes to determine what the Bible teaches concerning Ecclesiastical Government - in order to replace the Prelacy. Prelacy had been abolished prior to the June 12, 1643 ordinance calling the Assembly together, and the Independents swore - knowing that the purpose of seeking uniformity in church-government was to be fulfilled in a document proceeding from this assembly - they swore the SL&C on September 25, 1643. Therefore, they were not ignorant of the fact that - when they swore the Covenant - they were swearing to uphold the (Biblical) Government concluded upon by the Assembly of divines. Therefore, when the Assembly agreed upon the Presbyterial form of government, the SL&C decisively was concluded as a Presbyterian Document - for that is how it ultimately was completed Therefore, when the covenanters signed on the dotted line (as it were) to preserve the Presbyterian Government of the Church of Scotland, and swore to uphold the government which the Assembly agreed upon insofar as it is agreeable to the word of God (which - yes - Presbyterianism is), they were binding themselves to a covenant which can only be interpreted as Presbyterian. This is why it shouldn’t surprise us that only Presbyterians have owned and renewed it during the centuries subsequent to that time. If Independents considered it an Independent document, then they certainly have acted like it doesn’t exist! In fact, they have in many instances been hostile to it! And that is quite the mystery, seeing as though Philip Nye (and Independent), when he was preaching to the House of Commons and the Westminster Assembly at the taking of the SL&C said, “We are to exalt and acknowledge Him this day, Who is fearful in praises, swear by that name which holy and reverend, enter into a covenant and league that is never to be forgotten by us nor our posterity, and the fruit I hope of it shall be so great, as both we and they shall have cause to remember it with joy; and such an oath as for matter, persons, and other circumstances, the like hath not been in any age or oath we read of in sacred or human history, yet sufficiently warranted in both' (emphasis added) Now, it seems if he believed (as an Independent) that this League and Covenant were so binding and that it was an Independent document, that he would have kept it, and his posterity (Independents, I mean) would have renewed it. But they haven’t. Point #2: I don’t think many Anglicans would be fond of holding to a Covenant which says, “That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers depending on that hierarchy,)...” &c. :) One more point, which I would like to add: The Independents didn’t merely break the Covenant at the first point, they also violated it at another. They often argued vehemently for all sorts of toleration of various sects, schismatics, and heretics, saying that heretics were not to be counted evil-doers (Goodwin, for instance). This is explicitly contrary to what they swore: “That we shall in like manner, without respect of person, endeavour the extirpation of...superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, lest we partake of other men’s sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms.” (emphasis added) Finally: My questions for Mr. Lewis (which, if they are not answered, the debate will certainly be suspended): (1) How is it that you in your ‘treatise’ did not lead yourself into arguing for absurdities when you wrote (in the following two paragraphs): “The point to be made here [in the quote just taken - with the approbation of Lewis - from Thomas Goodwin--JP] is that if the sickness is not terminal, that is, if the doctrine does not touch the heart of the gospel message, if it does not strike at the very foundation of Christ’s work, his person or his office, we must regard the general end of glorifying God in this man, and bear his burden with him. The PRCES disagrees. They continue to this day, encouraging people to leave their reformed churches to form purer ones with them. It is with the assumption that the Covenanter view of the Solemn League and Covenant is true that Edmonton proceeds to encourage Christians to leave their churches. If it is not true, (that is, the Solemn League and Covenant was not agreed upon as to its meaning by all who subscribed to it) as I suggested in chapter one, on what basis may one separate? I am not speaking of separation from an Arminian church, or a Pentecostal church, I’m not even speaking of a Reformed Baptist church, for we aught [sic] to separate from them because of the obvious biblical anti-reforming easons. On what grounds can we separate from a confessionally reformed church, a church that holds both in principle and practice the tenants of a major confession? I believe that there are no grounds for separation from such churches. Edmonton says quite the opposite.” What, you say, is contradictory in this? The following: concerning Goodwin’s quote, you stated (and apparently approved) that, “if the doctrine does not touch the heart of the gospel message, if it does not strike at the very foundation of Christ’s work, his person or his office, we must regard the general end of glorifying God in this man, and bear his burden with him.” Then, immediately after saying that, in the following paragraph, you said, “I’m not even speaking of a Reformed Baptist church, for we aught [sic] to separate from them because of the obvious biblical anti-reforming reasons.” Now, you are either saying that you believe a “Reformed Baptist church” has struck, “the very foundation of Christ’s work, his person or his office” (which I hope the Reformed Baptists reading this will mercifully overlook); or, you are saying that, you really don’t believe that we ought to “bear with” everyone who doesn’t, “strike at the very foundation of Christ’s work,” but rather believe that we are to separate from any church which has some of these (whatever they are) “obvious biblical anti-reforming reasons.” It would be interesting to see these biblical reasons, rather than merely read that they are obvious. In fact: (2) I would ask you to please prove to me exactly where in Scripture you can determine what doctrines merit separation, and which don’t. What I mean is this: If we are bound to separate over some Biblically defensible nonessentials to salvation, and are not bound to separate over others, please show me from Scripture which are which. Again, if these two points are not clearly answered in the next post of Mr. Lewis, I will not respond to him in an immediate manner. I will, however, reserve the right to comment to him publicly concerning other matters, to ask him for clarifications, respond to others concerning his comments, &c. I sincerely hope Mr. Lewis and I will be able to come to an agreement as a fruit of this debate. Love, John P. The Solemn League and Covenant www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CRTSol.htm

Subject: Re: Jerrold Lewis, Separation, and SL&C
From: Jerrold Lewis
To: John P.
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 23:07:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear List, Let me begin by saying thank you to Mr. Putz for his thought provoking post entitled “ Jerrold Lewis, Separation, and the SL&C”. I believe his questions to be good ones, and it would be simply wrong in the light of Christian charity not to answer the two questions he has asked. Before I begin, might I add that I do hope that this debate will satisfy the cravings of those who are interested in this subject. Question #1. “How is it that you in your ‘treatise’ did not lead yourself into arguing for absurdities when you wrote” &ff?” To answer Mr. Putz as simply as possible I would say: Clarification needs to be made her when I spoke of Reformed Baptists, and the need to separate from them. In Canada the predominant version of Reformed Baptists have always been “New Covenant” Baptists, such as Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Mission, B.C, and Renfrew Baptist in Burnaby, B.C (Many more in Ontario). These Reformed Baptist Churches hold to the First London Confession of 1644, and while the document they subscribe to is orthodox in the areas of Law and Gospel, the “New Covenanters” have distorted the confession and made its interpretation antinomian. The major leader in this frontal attack on the Law is John Resinger. The Law of God is so tampered with that it warrants a separation from such churches. Recently, in our Province for the very first time a Reformed Baptist Church that holds to the 1689 Confession has appeared. I am not speaking of those Reformed Baptists in my booklet. If there are any 1689 Baptists reading this post, I apologize if I offended you in my booklet by such comments. Question #2. “I would ask you to please prove to me exactly where in Scripture you can determine what doctrines merit separation, and which don’t.” This question is a bit harder to answer. It is difficult (and time consuming) to delineate each and every doctrine that warrants a separation. So I hope that Mr. Putz will forgive me if I do not name them all? In essence I agree with Thomas Goodwin’s thoughts ““If the doctrine does not touch the heart of the gospel message, if it does not strike at the very foundation of Christ’s work, his person or his office, we must regard the general end of glorifying God in this man, and bear his burden with him.” To prove this by scripture I would point you in the direction of 1 Corinthians 11:28,29. “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” In this text we see two qualifications for communion. 1. Self-examination. 2. Discerning the Lord’s body. By Self-examination it appears that one would need to be equipped with the tools of examination. These in my estimation are the 10 rules, or the law of God-- the Ten Commandments. Discerning the Lord’s body likewise would warrant knowledge of the doctrine of Christ’s person and his work, in other words, a correct Soteriology. This is both the start and foundation of church communion in my mind. While there are secondary doctrines that are very important none straddle alongside these two vital heads. The Law. Christ’s Person and work. If these are violated, separation is necessary. I hope this answers your questions. Unfortunately Mr. Puts has concluded his post with “Again, if these two points are not clearly answered in the next post of Mr. Lewis, I will not respond to him in an immediate manner.” I suspect that it is possible that these answers may not suffice. I’m OK with that. Now for a few thoughts of my own on Mr. Putz’ post. On the subject of Matthew 13:54 ““When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue.” What Mr. Puts seems to be overlooking is that Christ was a member of the local synagogue for 30 years before he spoke out against that fraudulent system. That means that for 30 years Christ was under the teaching of “covenant-breaking” elders. Elders who were in substantial, if not complete agreement with the apostate teachings of the National Church in Israel. Mr. Putz says: “Jesus is not sitting under the preaching of a habitually and willfully covenant-breaking / confessionally erring teacher.” Yes, Mr. Putz, he did, he did it for 30 years. Not only that but he took part in all the sacrificial elements of the ceremonial law. Christ, the spotless one! He could never have been called teacher unless he had come through the ceremonial system. This places Christ in the center of an apostate system with all its torahtic corruptions. I will defer the other points of extremity that Mr. Putz implies within his original response (such as the divinity of Christ, and acceptance of Arminianism) simply because they are his words, not mine. Next Acts 21:26 I am glad that Mr. Putz wrote what he did on this text because it will help clarify my own position with fewer words. “Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.” The question at hand should be: How could Paul and his fellows enter a temple that defied and denied the complete and final atonement of Jesus Christ? In the Covenanters mind, if he will be consistent, will reject this kind of blasphemy, in light of their doctrine of occasional hearing. Paul not only went into the temple, but he took part in the ceremonial law as a New Testament believer. Mr. Puts then quotes Hebrews 8:13 “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.' (KJV) and, in the NAS, it reads, 'When He said, 'A new covenant' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear”(NAS). This is a good point. The Old economy was waxing old, and the New covenant was dawning. But let me ask a rhetorical question. Was it any less a sin to enter that system and take part in that system in light of the text just quoted? Mr. Putz has not proven anything by quoting Hebrews 8. All he has done is make an assertion in light of Acts21: 26. May I make an assertion of my own? Both Christ and Paul COULD partake in an apostate system without partaking in their sins because it was not done in heart-worship. Christ said “ But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” This is at the root of our problem here. Christ is not saying that to look upon a woman is sinful, but to look on her with lust is! The lust of the eyes is that which breaks the first, seventh, and tenth commandments. Likewise it is not sinful to attend a less reformed service than your own, but sinful to partake in their sinful acts in your heart. That is why David says in psalm 51: “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” By aiming at the heart, not the flesh, Christ has concurred them both. This is precisely how Jesus, who was subject to all points of the law as we are, could sit for 30 year under the teachings of apostate elders and still NOT sin. The same goes for Paul and the ceremonial cleansings that were post crucifixion. Thomas Boston’s words then aptly fit here in response to Mr. Putz: “…yet our Lord keeps church communion with them in the ordinances of God; though he joined not with them in their corruptions, he joined with them in the ordinances, and consequently it was no sin; and people may keep themselves from the guilt of corruptions in a church, and yet keep communion with a church wherein these corruptions are.” Next as to the SL&C and the Reformed Congregationalists. With all due respect to Mr. Putz, he has misunderstood the point in contention here. That contention centers on whether the Reformed Congregationalists swore to the SL&C with presbyterian intentions or not. I will make this brief, and hope that Mr. Putz will be educated on this point. The dissenting brethren of the Westminster Assembly led by Dr. Thomas Goodwin prove that their intentions were NOT presbyterian in a letter addressed to the Westminster Assembly February 2, 1645. “Whereas the uniformity sworn to in the covenant [Solemn League and Covenant-JL], is now urged here upon this occasion, and continually upon the like turned as the great argument against us in pulpits, presses, and ordinary treaties, as if what we desire were contrary thereunto: this argument cannot hold against us, without affixing an interpretation upon that part of the covenant, and that according to our brethren’s principles only, to the prejudice of ours; who when we took this national covenant were known to be of the same principles [Congregationalists-JL] we now are of; and yet this covenant, was professedly so attempered in the first framing it, as that we of different judgments might take it, both parties being present at the framing of it in Scotland: and if this should be the way of urging, it is as free for us to give our interpretation, of the latitude or nearness of uniformity intended, as for our brethren; we have been present at the debates of the assembly about it, and well know and remember the sense that there was held forth thereof; and further the assembly being appointed by order of the honorable house of commons bearing date September 15, 1643.” For those who do not speak purtianeese, what they were saying was: “ You all (Westminster Divines) know that the SL&C was ratified to such an extent that we as Reformed Congregationalists could swear it in our hearts. It was our covenant too. But now you guys have taken the SL&C to all kinds of places that we can’t agree with. It’s too bad, because we agree in so many other areas. But look, we are going to have to leave this assembly because we just can’t agree in our hearts to what is going on in the area of Synods and the Civil Magistrate. This covenant is as much ours as it is yours, and we have as much a right to interpret it as you do.” How much more plain must it be for Mr. Putz? He says they broke their own covenant. Dr. Goodwin days we are keeping it, and it is the rest of you that are pressing our consciences to go beyond what we can bear. Furthermore, Dr. Douglas in his excellent book Light in the North says: “The subscribers to the Solemn League and Covenant (English Parliament had accepted it) were to bind themselves to preserve the Reformed religion in Scotland, and to secure in England and Ireland a reform in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the “Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches.”…To the Scots, the words quoted had but one connotation: Reformation according to the Word of God would necessarily result in the adoption of Presbyterianism. They did not imagine that to many of the English Puritans the clause would convey a very different meaning
---
that it might signify Independency. It may have, in the same manner, denoted for others some different form of church polity.” Mr. Putz says, “Even the Independents swore to ‘endeavor...the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,’ &c., &c. Now, unquestionably the Church of Scotland was Presbyterial in their Church Government - and this was the church-government the independents swore to preserve. Therefore, the SL&C is a Presbyterian Document.” The phrase “According to the Word of God” preempts the phrase “the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland”. The Reformed Congregationalists would have been happy to oblige on this point had the form of church government been “according to the word of God.” Not only that but Presbyterianism changed forms from Scotland to Westminster. Was the pre-Westminster form of presbyterianism the same as Westminster 1638-1649 presbyterianism? No sir. Read it from the pen of one of their own Westminster Divines (told to us by Thomas McCrie): “They (the Scots) certainly understood Presbytery to be the system most agreeable to the Word of God, and to the example of the best-reformed churches; but it is quite a mistake to suppose that they were “taken in” or artfully led to expect the conformity of England as the bribe for their [the Scots-JL] assistance. The truth is, our ancestors entered into this league with England rather in the hope, and with the desire, that they might be brought into a nearer conformity with the Presbyterian discipline, than with any sanguine expectation of seeing this accomplished. They never supposed that England would submit to their polity without some alteration suited to their circumstances, and accordingly, they joined with them in constructing a new Confession and Directory. “We are not to conceive”, says Henderson in a letter dated 1642, “that they will embrace our form. A new form must be set down for us all.” In short, nothing is more apparent from the whole of their correspondence, that they went up to Westminster with very slender hopes of being able to prevail on the English to submit to Presbytery.” Henderson seems quite open to the fact that there was going to be a substantial change in “forms” of presbyterianism pre and post Westminster Assembly. Read Thomas McCrie again here, “It has been repeatedly asserted that the Independent party in the English parliament outwitted our Scottish Divines, by getting the clause inserted in the covenant which binds them to reform the Church of England “according to the Word of God;” by which it is said, they tacitly understood Independency, while the Scots understood it of their beloved Presbytery.” For Mr. Putz to make such statements as he did by simply quoting the SL&C is a oversimplification of the matter at hand. The point here is there was diversity in the SL&C that allowed Reformed Congregationalists to swear to that document in good conscience. To claim otherwise I’m afraid is simply revisionistic. That is all I will comment on right now. I will await the adjudications of Mr. Putz and see if my answers posted here satisfy his demands of continuance. If they do not, then God bless, and have a good day. Resting in the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant, Jerrold Lewis

Subject: Re: Jerrold Lewis, Separation, and SL&C
From: Pilgrim
To: Jerrold Lewis
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 11:54:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mr. Lewis,
Thank you for your erudite response to Mr. Putz. I think you have made some significant points and have offered some enlightening facts of the matter which is being discussed. Although all this historical facts are fascinating I am, however, driven back to what I deem a more salient question in this entire matter. And this I offer to Mr. Putz for his contemplation and hopeful reply.
How is a 'Covenant' sworn by a group of 17th century believers binding upon other believers outside of their particular group? In fact, is the 'swearing of a covenant with God' even biblical when one considers Jas 5:12 'But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.'.
Of course this then begs yet other questions: 1) Is the Presbyterian form of government and church polity the clear and only teaching of Scripture? 2) Are all those who have not adhered to Presbyterianism throughout church history therefore to be categorized as 'non-churches'? There are of course, other questions that could be asked at this point, but I think the ones I have offered will be sufficient. I look forward to Mr Putz's response and of course any other comments by all who visit here.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: A Request
From: John P.
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 13:56:51 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings: I do think that both of your Emails do warrant a response, and I think each of them are answerable. Indeed, I will be working on responses to them. However, I would like to make a simple request: For those of you who have been interested in reading Mr. Lewis and myself debate, you probably noticed that it took me several weeks just to write one relatively short (only 8 or so pages - which, although long for a post on this thread is still relatively short compared to other things I have written in shorer periods of time) post because I am extremely busy. Now, if it has taken me this long simply to make one post, I can scarcely imagine being able to respond to two, three, or four different posts all at once. So, if at all possible, (although I know many of you would like to have your shot at me), I would ask that you restrict your posting to arguments which you think simply can't be left unsaid for the next few weeks until my schedule could possibly slow down. I hope you understand. Thanks. Love, John Putz PS - Again, I reiterate: unless something in God's providence hinders, I am still intending on responding to both Mr. Lewis's and Pilgrim's posts as soon as I reasonably am able.

Subject: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 17:28:07 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
I have heard some say that the 'smoke locusts' are 'Islamic people'. Do you think there is any validity to that? Why or why not? Tom

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: Diaconeo
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 01:42:20 (PDT)
Email Address: diaconeo@ccnmail.com

Message:
Tom, First, I must ask that you forgive my response as I am a devout Dispensational Premillenialist. I do not believe that the locusts refer to any human. This belief rises out of my interpretation of Scripture, which is faily literal. I believe that these locust are demons that will be loosed during the tribulation period. Obviously from the description they are not truly locusts, but the hordes that will go out will be like a locust plague. I find no reason to discount the idea that they are anything other than demonic beings and not human. I know that my many brothers and sisters may not agree with my belief, but there it is. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: Pilgrim
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 07:25:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, First, I must ask that you forgive my response as I am a devout Dispensational Premillenialist. I do not believe that the locusts refer to any human. This belief rises out of my interpretation of Scripture, which is faily literal. I believe that these locust are demons that will be loosed during the tribulation period. Obviously from the description they are not truly locusts, but the hordes that will go out will be like a locust plague. I find no reason to discount the idea that they are anything other than demonic beings and not human. I know that my many brothers and sisters may not agree with my belief, but there it is. In Christ, Matthew
---
Diaconeo,
Gee, given that the by-word of Dispensationalism, ala Darby and Scofield is 'the Bible is to be understood literally and understood from the plain meaning of the text' for the most part, with all due respect to you, how did you arrive at your view that the locusts are demonic beings? What in the text itself would lend this interpretation? Where in the immediate context is there an indication that locusts are 'demonic beings'? Where in the entire Scriptures can we find a reference, intimation, allusion that locusts refer to 'demonic beings'? Having focused much of my many years as a Christian student on the subject of Hermeneutics I am always fascinated with how people interpret the Scriptures and arrive at their myriad views. In other words, 'Inquiring minds want to know!' hehe.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: Diaconeo
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 02:09:03 (PDT)
Email Address: diaconeo@ccnmail.com

Message:
Pilgrim, First let me start by asking a question. Waht in the immediate context of the passage would indicate that these are humans and not fallen angels from the bottomless pit? The passage itself says the the locust come up from the bottomless pit that is opened by a star, which we are told is an angel in v. 11, that is fallen from heaven. The discription of the locusts themselve is demonic in nature. Thier is a king appointed over them. If this is indeed a demon (fallen angel) that has been appointed over a group of peopl/race or a nation, it is the only instance (at least as far as I am aware) in the Bible that an angel is referred to as a king, rather than a prince over such. Here are some other supporting scriptures. Numbers 16:1-33 - this passage discribes an event that was a 'new thing'. The earth opened up and a pit was formed into which all those that followed Korah, Dathan and Abiram in opposition to Moses fell into. The word in Hebrew is Sheol, translated as Hades in Greek. Psalm 55:15 - let death sieze upon tem and let them go down quick (alive0 into hell (Sheol): for wickednes is in thier dwelling and among them.' Again a referrence to the Pit wherein lies the wicked, and that in the bowels of the earth. II Peter 2:4 tells us that god cast 'the agels that sinned' (ref. Gen. 6:1-4 and Jude 6) 'down into Hell.' The Greek word is Tartarus, a place that is traditonally held to being the lowest part of Hades. Peter goes n to say that they were 'delivered unto chans of darnes...reserved unto judgement.' Here we see that not only humans are in the Pit but also fallen angels (demons). All three passages clearly speak to the same pit that is within the bowles of the earth. There is not reason, from the context of the passages to assume anything else. Note also the simalarities of Joel 1 and 2 to the locust mentioned in Rev. 9. Both passages describe them as having 1.) teeth like lions, 2.) the appearance of horses, 3.) and noise as chariots. Again, scriptural context as well as scriptural cross referrencing does not support that these locusts are humans. The fact that these locusts are given the power to cause harm for five months, and yet the people afflicted wont be able to die leaves out the possibility that they are human. The very discription is demonic and I beleive that there is sufficient scripture to support that. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 19:44:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Howdy Tom, Rev 9:3,7 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. >>>I have heard some say that the 'smoke locusts' are 'Islamic people'. Well of course, what else could they be! (hehe). IMO, Locusts are pictured in the Bible as the wicked who go out to decieve. In Nahum 3, for instance, speaking of 'Woe to the bloody city! it is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not;(1)' it is here that the 'Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy captains as the great locusts, which camp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are.'(17) If we can accept that the Bible explains itself (and we should never impose outside types upon it) then locusts are easily references to the wicked who rise up against God and the children of God. In Luke 10:19 we see that scorpions have to do with the power of Satan, especially in regards to poison that kills. Notice in verse 4 the wicked who come with poison, like a scorpion, are not allowed to kill the green things. The five months probably refers to Gen 8:3-4 where God covered the earth in judgment (water) for 150 days (5 months). This is underscoring that this event in Rev 9 is a judgment of God upon the wicked. This judgment does not end with physical death either, verse 6 points to the unending wrath of God upon the wicked, which continues in the second death (the lake of fire). The Bible uses living, green things as symbols for believers, those who would not be harmed by the poison of false gospels. Verse 7 describes the locusts as men, prepared for battle (against Christ who in Rev 6 rode a white horse going forth with the gospel). The locust-men appear to have crowns of gold (normally believers have crowns, see Rev 4:4). They appear LIKE believers, but they have the teeth of lions, that is, they imitate Christ (Lion of the house of Judah), but as Psalm 58:6 says, 'Break their teeth, O God..' These teeth are used to devour their prey (false gospels leading astray many). They have hair of women, which 1Cor11:14 indicates is a shame for men, in other words they stand in opposition to Christ, they do not recognize Christ's headship. Notice in verse 9 they have breastplates of iron. It is the high priest and believer who wears the breastplate of righteousness (Eph 6:14), but iron indicates warfare: as in chariots of iron. Further, the scorpions (false prophets) have tails that hurt men. Isaiah 9:14 says the Lord will cut off from Israel such as this 'in one day', speaking of Judgment Day. Isaiah verse 15 says further '...the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail', which we have seen applies to the tail of the scorpion (or serpent which is Satan). The king over these wicked false gospels is Abaddon, the angel of the bottomless pit, which is Satan. He was released by the “star” with the keys to the pit, which is none other than Christ Himself. It is God's plan to use Satan to prepare the world for judgment, during the final tribulation period, right before the end of the world. These woes in Revelation have to do with Satan's rise, the end of the true gospel, the deception of the people, the increase in wickedness, the acceptance of lies for truth, and the overthrow of the church. Then comes judgment day, the final 'woe'. Hope this helps alleviate the need to put modern nations into the Bible, but if not, there is an endless array of nations to insert in the manner of Hal Lindsey. By the way, the Bible is a spiritual book and concerns itself primarily with spiritual (heavenly) things like, salvation/judgment, and only uses nations, animals, plants etc., as type or figures of some spiritual truth. For instance: National Israel was a type of the Spiritual Israel composed of all the Elect, and so forth. john

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: Prestor John
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 19:30:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
First of all where did you hear this from? What is his/her basis for interpreting these verses :3: And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power., 7: And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. to mean Islamic people? Prestor John Servabo Fidem

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 20:55:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Charles Manson saw these as the Beetles. WW II theologs saw them as B-29's. I think it was Hal Linday that suggested Viet Nam era heleooooocopters. Spose they are locusts ;-)

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: Tom
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 17:47:07 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
I believe John Calvin also said they were Islamic people. Tom

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: John P.
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 18:13:59 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Jonathan Edwards wrote, 'Satan's Mahometan kingdom shall be utterly overthrown. The locusts and horsemen in the 9th of Revelation, have their appointed and limited time set them there, and the false prophet shall be taken and destroyed. And then--though Mahometanism has been so vastly propogated in the world, and is upheld by such a great empire--this smoke, which has ascended out of the bottomless pit, shall be utterly scattered before the light of that glorious day, and the Mahometan empire shall fall at the sound of the great trumpet which shall then be blown.' David Steele likewise believed this, as did M'Leod, and - as far as I can tell - Luther, too (but that is just depending on his belief that there were two parts of antichrist, (1) Islam and (2) Romanism / the papcy; but I think that makes it likely, though not certain), &c. It is a position commonly held by reformed persons throughout church history. I believe it is a correct view to hold (think about how amazing it would be if two systems so devilish and antichristian rose in the world without God having told us of them in His word, to comfort us when we feel oppressed!). Furthermore, I believe it is agreeable to the Scriptural principles of interpretting the Apocalypse. If you would like to read a part of a book which is merely offering notes on Revelation defending this position, click at the top of this post. Understand, however, that what you will be reading is not a thorough defense of Historicism; it is notes only (albeit they are well written and very helpful notes). Godspeed, John P. The Jerrold Lewis response is on its way - probably tonight or tomorrow. Notes on The Apocalypse www.covenanter.org/Steele/Notes/notesontheapocalypse.htm

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: john hampshire
To: John P.
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 21:26:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
One wonders where the imagination won't lead once unbridled from the text of Scripture. It is said, 'No character in history at the time referred to, so well agrees to the symbol of a fallen star as the monk Sergius, who is known to have been the coadjutor of Mahomet'. (Insert chuckle) How did this monk become involved in Scripture? Except perchance it was necessary to move toward a pre-conceived notion concerning symbolic scorpions, that must represent whatever most offends the interpreter (Islamic hordes no less), and Sergius was a means to an end. This is no less obnoxious than those who step outside Scripture to render the scorpions as, well, scorpions--literal ones--in their sci-fi terror as they ascend from some once hidden dark hole in the ground to assault mankind! Nothing is impossible with God (they say), not even 'War of the Worlds' with monsters and all. I find most every attempt to align symbolic imagery with historic persons/nations to be a grave error and pointless as a means of understanding Scripture, especially with Revelation in particular. All one need do under this scheme is insert dislikable personalities to fill the part of Biblically evil symbols. We find 'The object of the first woe is the nominally Christian Roman empire', and why not. Perhaps I care to make the first woe the overthrow of the Aborigines of Australia by white settlers. No, better yet the overthrow of the American Indians by white settlers, or the ruin of merry 'ol England by the, hmmm, let it be the Celts, or the Goths, the Huns, the Romans, the blah blah blab; welcome Hal Lindsey and friends. This type of interpretation does not depend upon Scripture to explain Scripture, but on certain forced historical coincidences that seem to align (if not, we can force it). It may be that 'Of all transactions recorded in history, however, that between Phocas and Boniface appears most like 'giving the saints into the hand of the little horn.'” It may be “most like”, yet it has nothing to do with the text, nothing to do with Scriptural history, nothing to do with anything. Why not allow the “most like” to be Adolph Hitler as our evil attacker of the saints? How's 'bout Stalin? Clinton anyone? All that is lacking is the effort to make it so. Why? Because the Bible knows nothing of these men, neither the popes, nor religious groups-- including Islam. A general interpretation has been resolved first, due to some apparent similarity to a historic figure/religion; then the conclusion is worked backward to make the various Biblical symbols fit, sometimes with great ingenuity, but still outside the framework of the Bible. The proper mode, as you may have guessed, I hold, is to examine God's use of the symbols and types, which is no small task, then apply them with an eye toward a spiritual fulfillment, working forward. Amazingly, it works very well, if we allow (trust) the Bible to explain and harmonize with its own use of symbols, and cease the effort to solve these puzzles with our imagination and an open history book. That's my meager input, john

Subject: Re: Rev. 9:3, 7
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 09:45:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear John - I simply must agree with you wholeheartedly. Just as God is no respector or persons....I don't think He's much of a respector of peoples, nations, religions, groups, etc...and since there is nothing new under the sun...I think all false religion and anti-christs are lumped together regardless of their place in history. So as you said...we must look at prophetic language symbolically seeking to understand the spiritual/eternal/eschatological significance as much as the material/temporal one (if there is any). blessings, laz

Subject: Spurgeon Quote On 'Free Will'
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 20:12:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Spurgeon on the Implications of Free Will According to the free will scheme, the Lord intends good, but he must wait like a lackey on his own creature to know what his intention is; God willeth good and would do it but he cannot because he has an unwilling man who will not have God's good thing carried into effect. What do ye, sirs, but drag the Eternal from his throne and lift up into it that fallen creature, man; for man, according to that theory, nods and his nod is destiny. You must have a destiny somewhere; it must either be as God wills or as man wills. If it be as God wills, then Jehovah sits as sovereign upon his throne of glory, and all hosts obey him, and the world is safe; if not God, then you put man there to say, `I will,' or `I will not; if I will it, I will enter heaven; if I will it, I will despise the grace of God; if I will it, I will conquer the Holy Spirit, for I am stronger than God and stronger than omnipotence; if I will it, I will make the blood of Christ of no effect, for I am mightier than the blood, mightier that the blood of the Son of God himself; though God make his purpose, yet will I laugh at his purpose; it shall be my purpose that shall make his purpose stand or fall.' Why, sirs, if this be not atheism, it is idolatry; it is putting man where God should be; and I shrink with solemn awe and horror from that doctrine which makes the grandest of God's works--the salvation of man--to be dependent upon the will of his creature whether it shall be accomplished or not. Glory I can and must in my text in its fullest sense. `It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy' (Romans 9:16). --Taken from Evangelical Times, April 1996 p. 11

Subject: assist me if you can
From: stan
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 22:26:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Richard Chenevix Trench: Uses the term levitical constitution. I think from what I've found on the web he was using the term to incompass the levitical commands/system. Am I way off or near the mark? Also does anyone know much about him. He was anglican in Ireland in 1800's but haven't found much else on the net but his poetry. thanks in advance for any assist. stan

Subject: Re: assist me if you can
From: Pilgrim
To: stan
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 18:50:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Stan,
Neither can I shed any light on what Trench was referring to with this term 'levitical commands/system'. I have never come across this before. However, I can shed a bit more light on Archbishop Trench. In addition to what Theo has given you. He gave the first impulse to the great Oxford New English Dictionary and indeed advocated a revised translation of the New Testament. But in the realm of biblical writings, he excelled in his expositions of Scripture. Further he wrote two magnificent volumes; Notes on the Miracles of our LORD and Notes on the Parables of our LORD. My copies are published by Fleming H. Revell [Old Tappan, New Jersey] with a 1958 printing date. I would hope that they are still available through either the original publisher or perhaps some other company has reprinted them. They are well worth owning. As for myself, I have been richly blessed by this man's depth of love for Christ and his Spirit wrought insights of the Word.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: tanks!
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 20:16:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The 'levitical constitution' comment is in the Notes on Parables. I searched the usual big net places and found nothing - not in print. Amazon has out of print section I may snoop. Thanks for all the info gentlemen! stan

Subject: Richard Chenevix Trench
From: Theo
To: stan
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 07:28:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
stan, I don't really know in what context Richard Chenevix Trench was using the term 'levitical constitutions', and my books don't have much about this. If you can add a bit of context to this, I'll keep looking. I did find some information about Richard Chenevix Trench in some of my books. He was born in Dublin in 1807, educated at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge, and became a leading philologist, writing books such as The Study of Words and English Past and Present in the 1850's. He also was one of those who called for a revised translation of the New Testament; I think this later led to the Revised Version. In 1856 he became dean of Westminster, and in 1864 he was named archbishop of Dublin, where he served until his death in 1886. One source you can possibly find in a library would be (surprisingly) a 1950's edition of the Encyclopedia Brittannica, which gives a great deal of information about things pertaining to Anglicanism and Anglicans. In Christ the King, Theo

Subject: Re: Richard Chenevix Trench
From: Rod
To: Theo
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 14:46:41 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Theo, I'm not a library :>), but I have kept, over my wife's objections (she is a librarian) a set of Britannicas from the 1950's which she and her brother had. There is nothing I can find in there that would shed more light on this issue.

Subject: Re: Richard Chenevix Trench
From: Theo
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 17:42:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I guess I wasn't clear as to what I meant about the encyclopedia. :-) I didn't mean it would address the 'levitical constitutions' aspect, but that it would likely have good articles on Anglicans and Anglicanism--such as the one on Bishop Trench in my 1958 edition. That levitical constitutions question still has me puzzled! Theo

Subject: Re: here is the ....
From: stan
To: Theo
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 20:12:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
quote. This is not Trenchs quote but is similar if not a copy. I don't have Trenchs - one of the church men has the book and asked me to see if I could find anything. Seems to be the old test. priesthood and system to me. This quote came from http://www.primitivebaptist.org/hassell/interpreting/interpreting_2.htm Quote if from Sylvester Hassell Just as nature is a type or parable of grace, so is the Old Testament a type or parable of the new. The Old is the enfolding bud, of which the new is the unfolding blossom. The Old is the Evening Dispensation of shadows, while the New is the Morning Dispensation of realities. They have the same Divine Author, and are inseparably connected. It is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to seek in the New Testament the spiritual key to the Old--to see, in the persons and events and institutions and ceremonies of the Old Testament, impressive types of the spiritual glories of the salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ, set forth more plainly in the Gospel Day of the New Testament, after the rising of the Divine Sun of Righteousness. The previous long, dark Evening of four thousand years pointed, all the time to this bright and blessed Morning; as the poor sinner's spiritual conviction under the law surely prophesies his happier experience under the gospel. 'The whole Levitical constitution, with its outer court, its Holy, its Holiest of all, its High Priest, its sacrifices, and all its ordinances, is declared in the Epistle to the Hebrews' (ix. 9) to be figurative of the spiritual truths of the new Testament. And so, in 1 Cor. x. 1-15, and Gal. iv. 22-31, is the literally true history of national Israel divinely declared to be typical (the word rendered 'examples' and 'ensamples' in 1 Cor. x. 6 and 11 is, in the Greek, tupoi, types) and allegorical of the history of spiritual Israel. I sympathize far more with John Cocceius (1603-1669), who found Christ everywhere, than with Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), who found him nowhere in the Old Testament. The fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New is a moral demonstration, to every unprejudiced mind, of the divine authorship and inspiration of the Scriptures. And not only may the Old Testament be spiritually interpreted by the new, but there is a legitimate field for spiritualizing in the life, the miracles, and the parables of Christ--the parables being expressly designed to convey, in the drapery of nature, spiritual truth to the enlightened mind; 'fair in their outward form, and yet fairer within, 'apples of gold in networks of silver,' each one of them like a casket, itself of exquisite workmanship, but in which jewels yet richer than itself are laid up; or as fruit, which, however lovely to look upon, is yet in its inner sweetness more delectable still.' And so the unrivalled miracles of Christ not only demonstrate his Divinity, His lordship over nature, drink, food, winds and waves, animals, men, demons, disease, and death, but they teach us His almighty and everlasting power to heal all spiritual maladies, to give and sustain spiritual life and health and fruitfulness and peace and joy. And the wondrous life of the wonderful God-Man, His divine birth and nature and baptism, His labors and temptations and sufferings and sorrows, His perfect obedience to His Father even unto the horrible death of the cross, and His resurrection and final ascension to glory, wonderfully represent the history of the spiritual life of every child of God.

Subject: Hmmm...
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 23:13:38 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I have to wonder at the use of the word 'constitution' here. It is unclear in the context whether it refers to the written instrument of Leviticus, and the other elaborations of the Law, or the 'aggregate' makeup of the Levitical system and its practices and customs, which, of course are contained in the written Word, but which would seem to indicate a far-reaching definition of the designation 'levitical constitution.' Just on the surface of things, I tend to lean toward the latter meaning, but we have far too little to go on to make a definite pronouncement at this point. Do the PB's prohibit paragraphing? :>)

Subject: Re: Hmmm...
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 07:44:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Paragraphing - I think they prohit everything :-) I kind of wonder if constitution didn't have a bit different meaning in the 1800's.

Subject: Re: Hmmm...
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 12:48:32 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
stan, I feel reasonably certain it had the same meanings. After all, the U. S. Constitution was written and ratified prior to 1800. :>) The problem is that there are various meanings to the word, not just the meaning which refers to a governing document. My old dictionary from the 1960's lists 5 meanings, most of which aren't used or recognized by the generally ignorant populace today--do I sound cynical? Sorry, but I'm afraid it's true. If a person were to announce he intended to take his daily 'constitutional' at this time, I wonder how many would know what he meant? That was an expression which was fairly common in my youth as applied by really old people (30 years old or more!).

Subject: Re: So true! ;-) NT
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 15:02:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

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: Re: Can someone explain this reference?
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 22:21:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Could well be Jesus day related. Crossed my mind if the muslims were going to apologize for taking Jerusalem in the first place? ;-)

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: Re: 1Tim.2:11-12 and the Greek
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 16:28:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brother Brett,
I see no warrant whatsoever for anyone to make a distinction between verse 11 and verse twelve concerning the Greek word gunã 'woman' for they are both singular. In verse 12 the word Paul uses is gunaiki which is simply the dative of the noun form. Secondly, one would be hard pressed to present any evidence that the singular form of gunã means a single woman and the plural means married women. Thirdly, to then try and assert that such 'single women' can preach, teach or in any way have authority in the church over the men is absurd, since the very next chapter (3) makes clear that ONLY men are qualified for office in the church. Perhaps the individual(s) who are trying to press this 'plural vs. singular' argument on you are counting upon the fact that you admittedly are not familiar with the Greek language? But for whatever reason they have tried to foist this ridiculous assertion upon you, it is definitely unwarranted and indefensible. May I suggest you just smile? hehehe.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: 1Tim.2:11-12 and the Greek
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 20:05:10 (PDT)
Email Address: PastorBret@ccbcfl.org

Message:
Hello Brother Pilgrim: Thank you for sharing this information with me. I wrapped up that passage of Scripture in this morning's service. After studying some of the words and their meaning in the Greek, I agree with you whole heartedly :^ ). For it seems that the same greek word 'Gune'(goonay) is used for the 'women' and 'woman.' Also the same Greek word is used for 'woman' and 'wife' ecept in one instance in Rom.1:27 I believe. Of course as you mentioned, with the qualifications given for Bishop and Deacon in chapter 3, the explanation of some, that single women could teach men, would be a mute point. In addition to that, for those who think that verses 11 and 12 are just referring to the wife just being subject to her husband, there would be no reason for Paul do deal with that in the church seeting, as he has already dealt with it in the husband wife relationship. Also, if it was just the wife and husband, then accoeding to the end of verse 12, she would have to be silent/quiet around him. Interesting to say the least :^ ). Afer looking at this passage, I wonder whether it is wrong for women to lead in 'corporate' prayer or be a 'song leader?' What do you think? Hope all is well with you and Barb...Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Re: 1Tim.2:11-12 and the Greek
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 21:45:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brother Bret,
Since I hold that 'worship' is not a combination of so many parts, but one integral whole, wherein a believer under the guidance and leadership of Christ's appointed earthly head, receives God's infallible Word to him/her and in return pours forth love, adoration, gratitude and praise from the innermost recesses of the heart; I cannot accept that a woman would either lead a congregation in public prayer or be responsible for the music sung in public worship. It is to the men that Christ has poured out His Spirit to distribute gifts to those He has duly appointed to be undershepherds of His beloved flock. We are not to fall into the world's way of thinking and thus look on the 'outside' and deceive ourselves into imagining that it is the external 'abilities' that qualify a person to lead, for of a truth, many of God's chosen leaders throughout history have been outwardly weak and perceptibly ill-suited for the task required of them. But while we would choose to have an arresting orator in the pulpit, God more often than not calls those who first are filled with a spirit of awe and wonder before Him and are not necessarily mighty in elocution. It is the faithful who are most used of God and called to His service to bring honor and glory to His name.
1Cor 1:24 'But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.'
It is to men that the authority and responsibility has been given not only to rule but to be the 'head of the woman', and thus their voice before the Lord in the corporate worship. Paul instructs us that if a woman has a question, she should keep silent during the public assembly and ask her questions at home in private.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

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: Re: Presby Church & Leavened Bread
From: Marty
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 12:12:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John, however, the leaven in normal bread is symbolic of sin. That is why they ate unleavened bread and why it is eaten as Christs body. The sinless body. 'Do this in rememberance of me', I remember Him sinless. Marty

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: Endless time or timelessness?
From: Jimmy
To: kevin
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 09:32:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

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
---
_____________________________________________________ Hi Kevin, The modern day religious view of 'eternity' seems to be of some timeless other dimension. The Greek 'aion' on the other hand means 'age lasting.' Here's a few references: In Dr. Morgan's, God's Methods with Men, he says (pp. 185-186), 'Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word 'eternity.' We have fallen into great error in our constant usage of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our 'eternal,' which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end.' The definition given in The Vocabulary Of The Greek Testament (Moulton and Milligan) is the best that I have found. Concerning aiõnios they have, 'In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view . . .' (p.16). Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon: Aion: A period of existence; one's lifetime; life; an age; a generation; a long space of time; an age. A space of time clearly defined and marked out; an era, epoch, age, period or dispensation. Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, by Abbott-Smith: Aion: A space of time, as a lifetime, generation, period of history, an indefinitely long period-an age, eternity. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (vol. IV, p. 643): Time: The O.T. and the N.T are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for 'eternity.' The word aion originally meant 'vital force,' 'life;' then 'age,' 'lifetime.' It is, however, also used generally of a (limited or unlimited) long space of time. The use of the word aion is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means 'long distant uninterrupted time' in the past (Luke 1:10), as well as in the future (John 4:14). The notion that 'eternity' is some other dimension where time does not exist is simply not Scriptural, nor is the idea that 'aion' means unending. We should never warp the words of God as given in His Word to make them fit our theology. Jimmy

Subject: Re: Endless time or timelessness?
From: john hampshire
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 22:00:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Jimmy, >>>It is, however, also used generally of a (limited or unlimited) long space of time. Unlimited huh? And what English word conveys the idea of an unlimited, indefinitely long amount of time: forever and ever, eternal? If it is not, as you say, unending (aion ends), then what does unlimited, indefinite, long-distant mean, I find the implication to be an endless age. The Greek Lexicon described the word aion as being derived from a word meaning 'continued duration', and gives the definition of 'perpetual, incessant'. From this root the KJV defines it as 'always' and 'ever'. Again, there is no hint of a fixed ending of the aion period. Back to aion, should we understand Rev 1:18 'I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.' -- that Christ will be alive for an unspecified period of finite time? What comes after? Will Christ yet again die? Is not the natural sense, that Christ will be alive 'for ever' or 'perpetually' or 'incessantly'? Does this carry more meaning than Young's 'I am living to the ages of the ages', whatever that means. Concerning the idea of eternal in the OT, we have, for instance, Daniel 12:2 ' And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.' The OT word 'owlam' is defined as 'long duration', 'everlasting', 'perpetual', 'old', 'ancient', 'indefinite', or 'unending'. I suppose we can argue Brown's Lexicon is wrong, and our other favorite lexicon is right. But in the least we can say that most Bible translators, and some lexicons, have felt enough cause to translate the OT word owlam as 'continuous, perpetual, everlasting, indefinite, unending, eternal, existence' (but perhaps they are all in error and you are correct!). So, from what I can see, the Bible knows quite well the idea of long, unending periods of time. I would not argue that the Bible knows of 'timeless periods'; it is enough to show unending time. Using the definition of aion as endless age(s), or everlasting periods, seems to me to bring out the true meaning. If you like 'unto ages of the ages' you may have it, it carries no meaning with me. I certainly see no reason to try and make aion have a limited application of future (or past) time, unless one wants to limit the suffering in the lake of fire (to a limited age), which, I fear, is the true motivation for raping this word. john

Subject: Ex. 3:13-14 & John 8:58
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 07:25:17 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Reflection on these Scriptures, which reveal much about the nature of our God, would seem to be in order. As john's post indicates, 'time' is, by its very nature a limiting factor. 'Eternity' (and an eternal God Who always is and never changes) is boundless and unlimited.

Subject: Re: Endless time or timelessness?
From: Jimmy
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 07:20:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi John, OLAM is the principal word translated 'for ever', 'everlasting', 'for ever and ever', 'perpetual', 'for evermore', 'of old', 'old or ancient', 'always', 'ever', 'any more'. OLAM is derived from ALAM (to hide), and means the HIDDEN TIME OR AGE. OLAM is generally translated in the Septuagint by AION, or its adjective AIONIOS. In Ezra 4, and Dan.2-7, the Chaldee form ALAM is used. There are 448 passages where the word occurs. It is doubled, 'from OLAM to OLAM', in 11 places. It is used in the plural 11 times. The meaning that the Greeks put on a word should not concern us if we have a Hebrew word from the Old Testament that the Greek word is used to translate. We must use the definition of the language of the Old Testament. AION and AIONIOS are Greek words used to translate the Hebrew word OLAM, we must take the Hebrew definition of that word over the Greek definitions. Before the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek (200-300 B. C., according to Prideaux, or during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 384-347 B.C., say other authorities) this word was in common use by the Greeks. Homer, Hesiod, AEschylus, Pindar, Sophocles, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Empedocles, Euripedes, Philoctetes, and Plato, all use the word, but never once does one of them give it the sense of 'eternity'. Homer says' (Priam to Hector) 'Thyself shall be deprived of pleasant aionios,' (life). Andromache over dead Hector, 'Husband, thou hast perished from aionos,' (life or time). Hesiod: 'To him (the married man) during aionos (life) evil is constantly striving, etc.' Aeschylus: 'This life, (aion) seems long, etc.' Pindar: 'A long life produces the four virtues.' (Ela de kai tessares aretas ho makros aion.) Sophocles: 'Endeavor to remain the same in mind as long as you live.' The adjective is never found until Plato. He uses aion eight times, aionios five, diaionios once, and makraion twice. If he regarded aion as meaning eternity, he would not prefix the word meaning long to add duration to it and he did just that. Plato uses the adjective to denote indefinite duration. Referring to certain souls in Hades, he describes them as in aionion intoxication. It is evident from the Phaedon, where he says, 'it is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting this world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that, to live in this world,' that he does not use the word in the sense of endless. After the aionion intoxication is over, they return to earth, which shows that the word was not used by him as meaning endless. Again, he speaks of that which is indestructible, (anolethron) and not aionion. He places the two words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use aionion as meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and aionion. Aristotle uses the word in the same sense. He says of the earth, 'All these things seem to be done for her good, in order to maintain safety during her aionos,' duration, or life. Ezra S. Goodwin, in the Christian Examiner, sums up an exhaustive examnation of the word in the Greek classics, thus: 'Those lexicographers who assign eternity as one of the meanings of aion, uniformly appeal for proofs to either theological, Hebrew or Rabbinical Greek, or some species of Greek subsequent to the age of the Seventy, if not subsequent to the age of the apostles, so far as I can ascertain. I do not know of an instance in which any lexicographer has produced the usage of ancient classical Greek, in evidence that aion means eternity. Ancient classical Greek rejects it altogether. So when the Seventy translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and rendered the Hebrew olam, (or gnolam) into aion and its reduplications, they must have understood that aion meant indefinite duration, for that was its uniform usage in the Greek at that time. When Jesus quoted from the Old Testament he quoted from the Septuagint, and when he used the word aionion, he used it with the exact meaning it had in Greek literature, to denote indefinite duration. The people of the first century place the Old Testament usage on the words aion, and aionion. There was no idea of 'eternal' given to either word. LEXICOGRAPHY. Indefinite duration is the real meaning of the word. The oldest lexicographer is Hesychius, (A. D. 400) and he defines it thus: 'The life of man, the time of life.' Theodoret, at the same time gives this definition; 'Aion is not an existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes to the life of man.' John of Damascus (S. D. 750) says, '1, The life of every man is called aion....3, The whole duration or life of this world is called aion. 4. The life after the resurrection is called 'the aion to come.'' Phavorinus (sixteenth century) shows that theologians had corrupted the word. He says: 'Aion, time, also life, also habit, or way of life. Aion is also the eternal and endless as it seems to the Theologian.' Theologians had succeeded in using the word in the sense of endless, and Phavorinus was forced to recognize their usage of it and his phraseology shows conclusively enough that he attributed to theologians the authorship of that use of the word. Schleusner: 'Any space of time whether longer or shorter, past, present or future, to be determined by the persons or things spoken of, and the scope of the subjects; the life or age of man. Aionios, a definite and a long period of time, that is, a long enduring, but still definite period of time.' Grove: Aion 'Eternity; an age, life, duration, continuance of time; a revolution of ages; a dispensation of Providence, this world or life, the world or life to come; aionios, eternity, immortal, perpetual, forever, past, ancient.' Macknight: (Scotch Presbyterian) 'These words being ambiguous, are always to be understood according to the nature and circumstances to which they are applied. They who understand these words in a limited sense, when applied to punishment, put no forced interpretation upon them.' Alex. Campbell: 'Its radical idea is indefinite duration.' T. Southwood Smith: 'Sometimes it signifies the term of human life; at other times an age, or dispensation of Providence. Its most common signification is that of age or dispensation.' Scarlett: 'That aionion does not mean endless or eternal, may appear from considering that no adjective can have a greater force than the noun from which it is derived. If aion means age (which none either will or can deny) then aionion must mean age-lasting, or duration through the age or ages to which the thing spoken of relates.' Donnegan: 'Time, space of time, life-time and life, the ordinary period of man's life; the age of man; man's estate; a long period; eternity; the spinal marrow. Aionios, of long duration, lasting, eternal, permanent.' Dr. Taylor, who wrote the Hebrew Bible three times with his own hand, said of Olam, (Greek Aion) it signifies a duration which is concealed, as being of an unknown or great length. 'It signifies eternity, not from the proper force of the word, but when the sense of the place or the nature of the subject requires it, as God and his attributes.' The definitions of other lexicographers and critics are to the same purport: Schrevelius, Schweighauser, Valpey, Haley, Lutz, Wright, Benson, Gilpin, Clarke, Wakefield, Boothroyd, Simpson, Lindsey, Mardon, Acton, Locke, Hammond, Rost, Pickering, Hincks, Ewing, Pearce, Whitby, Le Clerc, Beausobre, Doddridge, Paulus, Kenrick, Lenfant, Olshausen, etc. Dr. Edward Beecher remarks, 'It commonly means merely continuity of action...all attempts to set forth eternity as the original and primary sense of aion are at war with the facts of the Greek language for five centuries, in which it denoted life and its derivative senses, and the sense eternity was unknown.' 'Pertaining to the world to come,' is the sense given to 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment,' by Prof Tayler Lewis, who adds: 'The preacher in contending with the Universalist and the Restorationist, would commit an error, and it may be suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words aion, aionios and attempt to prove that of themselves they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration. 'These shall go away into the restraint, imprisonment of the world to come,' is all we can etymologically or exegetically make of the word in this passage.' Schleusner gives the definitions as: 'Duration determined by the subject to which it is applied.' Thus it only expresses the idea of endlessness when connected with what is endless, i.e. God. The word great is an illustrative word. Great applied to a tree, or mountain, or man, denotes different degrees, all finite, but when referring to God, it has the sense of infinite. Infinity does not reside in the word great, but it has that meaning when applied to God. It does not impart it to God, it derives it from him. So of aionion; applied to Jonah's residence in the fish, it means seventy hours; to the punishments of a merciful God, as long as is necessary to vindicate his law and reform his children; to God himself, eternity.' What great is to size, aionios is to duration. Dr. Beecher well observes: 'The word olam, as affirmed by Taylor and Fuerst in their Hebrew Concordance means an indefinite period, age past or future and not an absolute eternity. When applied to God, the idea of eternity is derived from him, and not from the word.' Some more 'word studies' from scholars: The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. R. F. Weymouth: Eternal: Greek: 'aeonion,' i.e., 'of the ages.' Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed, does not signify 'during,' but 'belonging to' the aeons or ages. Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Matt. 25:46): Everlasting punishment-life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word, aionios-it must be admitted (1) that the Greek word which is rendered 'eternal' does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom. 16:25), where the Greek is 'from aeonian times;' our version giving 'since the world began.' (Comp. 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:3) -strictly speaking, therefore, the word, as such, apart from its association with any qualifying substantive, implies a vast undefined duration, rather than one in the full sense of the word 'infinite.' Triglot Dictionary of Representative Words in Hebrew, Greek and English [this dictionary lists the words in this order: English, Greek, Hebrew] (p. 122): Eternal (see age-lasting). (p. 6): English: age-lasting; Greek, aionios; Hebrew, le-olam. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and Gingrich: (1) Aion: time; age; very long time; eternity. (2) A segment of time; age. (3) The world. (4) The aion as a person: aionios, eternal. 1. Without beginning. 2. Without beginning or end. 3. Without end. You wrote: 'I certainly see no reason to try and make aion have a limited application of future (or past) time, unless one wants to limit the suffering in the lake of fire (to a limited age), which, I fear, is the true motivation for raping this word.' I certainly have no interest at all in 'raping' (as you say) the word aion at all, I have no need to warp God's word in anyway to fit some preconceived theology. If you feel that the word is being 'raped' then you must have a very low opinion of some very scholarly Christians. If you want to discuss some of the verses that use the word aion, we can, but the question of this thread was simply one of definition and according to many scholars aion does not carry the modern day meaning that is associated with 'eternity.' You seem to be very defensive, but of course, you are just acting out your part in God's great play :o) Jimmy

Subject: Jimmy's part?
From: Rod
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 07:31:04 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Jimmy, 'You seem to be very defensive, but of course, you are just acting out your part in God's great play :o)' Is sarcasm your portion in the 'eternal scheme of things?'

Subject: Re: Jimmy's part?
From: Jimmy
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 08:04:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Jimmy, 'You seem to be very defensive, but of course, you are just acting out your part in God's great play :o)' Is sarcasm your portion in the 'eternal scheme of things?'
---
Hi Rod, Very good, you made me laugh out loud. Glad to see that a sense of humor is allowed on this board. Jimmy

Subject: Re: Jimmy's part?
From: a monitor
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 09:52:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
humor, yes...heresy, no! hahaha! Was the early Church universalistic based on their writings and rendering of the biblical text? a monitor

Subject: Glad your day was brightened. NT
From: Rod
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Thurs, Jul 06, 2000 at 08:40:35 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:

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.

Subject: I said I was through, but one thing.
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 19:37:53 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
This is going nowhere. I'm very glad to hear you finally declare your position on eternality. I also call on you to denounce as heresy the notion that 'eternal' is not a length of time, but a 'quality,' not a 'quantity.' Here is what Custance says, 'It may well be that the quality of the punishment is, in any event, much more significant than the quantity of it. Indeed the word eternal may have little if anything to do with quantity at all.' I added the italics. My contention about that is this: The quality of the punishment or reward is determined in large measure by the length of it, its 'quantity.' There is an old, obscene joke I remember from my pre-slavation days about a 'coffee break' in hell. But hell is unrelenting, everlasting, eternal in its awful fullness. That's a large part of why its so hellish. Here is another statement made in Custance's assertions: 'So we have to rethink what the word eternal really means in any given context in Scripture. Dean Farrar held that punishment is everlasting in effect, but limited in duration. He might perhaps have suggested with equal force that punishment is everlasting in experience also psychologically that is, but limited in reality. Punishment there surely must be, even if it is a form of remorse and self-inflicted. A moral universe without sanctions when its laws are disobeyed would be a moral chaos, not a moral cosmos.' Though there are degrees of punishment based on the grievousness of the sins committed, the fact, the over-riding fact, is that hell is unrelenting and constant in its scope. '...to go into hell, into the fire [of judgment] that shall never be quenched [speaking of both quality and quantity], where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched...to be cast into hell fire, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched' (Mark 9:43-48). Custance is equally wrong about this: 'but the issue has to be squarely faced anew in every generation, until some kind of understanding is achieved which will enable us to answer those who accuse God of injustice, and to do this without compromising the plan of salvation.' Every Christian knowing the basics of the faith knows that God can't be accused of injustice. That is, the charge won't stick and has no basis in fact. But one doesn't have to be a Christian long before he realizes that lost men will not, indeed, cannot be answered because, 'The carnal mind is enmity against God' (Rom. 8:7). No amount of proof or persuasion will move them. Only God can move them and that only by His merciful regneration, His grace. 'For it [the carnal mind] is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be." 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor. 2:14). Those facts are why we put forth the truth about God from His Word before men. Because it is through the presentation of that holy truth that God chooses to work in regeneration and salvation, not because we seek to justify God. 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. 10:17). In seemingly missing that point, Custance greatly errs. He errs again and again because his foundational concepts are wrong. We aren't to try to "justify God," but we are to present His truth faithfully and to His glory, allowing Him to work in men's hearts and minds as He sees fit. Are we in agreement here, Eric? I certainly hope so. I'm stopping, not because I've run out of things to say about this, but because it seems useless to discuss such a ridiculous position as Custance holds.

Subject: Re: I said I was through, but one thing.
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 05:40:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes we are in agreement Rod, we always have been. I do think that it is a possibility that our concept of time will be radically changed after this life, but that is mere speculation. I think Jesus' words about hell make it quite clear to even a child that hell is a very very bad place that one should avoid, even if it costs a person an eye or a hand in the process. Also, Custance apologetic approach, as you preseted it, is unsound. IMHO, it is appropriate to present a logical, philosphically defensible Christian worldview, to an unbeliever, but that presentation will never change the heart. This discussion has been weighing on my mind last night, I am glad it is over. Take care Rod.

Subject: Good! Glad to hear it! :>) n/t
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 13:55:42 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: Baptism question
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:03:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am involved in a discussion with a Baptist, and he raised an interesting point. His comment was that the Reformed really are not consistent with their paedobaptism beliefs. He states that the Reformed use the accounts of household baptism to partly justify the baptising of infants, but don't consistently hold to the text. If they did, they would practice household baptism. Whereby if a man was converted to Christ, they would baptise his entire household. Does this happen in modern practice? If not, why not? I remember reading missionary accounts of this happening, but I can't place the sources. But I have not heard it happening recently. God bless.

Subject: Re: Baptism question
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 15:50:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,
I think I would disregard your 'Baptist' friend's argument as spurious and fabricated; a strawman at best for never have I heard (although it is surely possible for anything to be believed by some) of any Paedobaptist in history who baptized entire households regardless of who they were, nor have I ever read anything that would even suggest such a thing. The 'household baptisms' referred to consisted of baptizing all adults who professed faith and their children. No unbelieving adults are to be baptized. So tell your desperate Baptist crusader to 'try again'! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Baptism question
From: Prestor John
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:45:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know, I should stay out of this, really I should, but I get so tired of the Baptism issue. I also get tired of the concept that to be Reformed in your theology means that you must be a paedobaptist. After all the Baptists that signed the London Confession of 1689 were 'Reformed' in their theology. In fact Calvin that reformer said this:
Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. Institutes Book IV 15:19
Here it is each church should baptize by the means that they see as fit and it should be left at that. Tell you Baptist friend that a Reformed Baptist (who immerses) says that he should leave the paedobaptists alone and concentrate on the essentials. Prestor John Servabo Fidem

Subject: AMEN!!! (nt)
From: mebaser
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 10:39:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Subject: Re: Baptism question
From: john hampshire
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:30:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I can hardly find a pastor who understands baptism by sprinkling as a valid mode, let alone a pastor who would be willing to baptize by sprinkling an entire family. Of course it is more difficult to baptize slaves today, but if you've got some, then by all means do so.(hehe) Immersion and Arminianism is the norm today. Don't know if 200 years ago families might have been baptized together, but I'm sure someone here knows. john

Subject: Re: Baptism question
From: Grace2Me
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 20:56:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Comparing Immersion with Arminianism, is like comparing apples and oranges :^ )

Subject: Re: Baptism question
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 22:10:35 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
As a sort of related item, several years ago I delivered a message on Sunday morning on 'Baptism.' Following that, a family of four presented themselves to the elders of the assembly for baptism, having been individually either a) not baptized yet (the children) or b) baptized by an RCC priest (the father, not sure about the mother). They were baptized soon thereafter as a family. (But this was not a 'reformed' assembly, though the preacher that day was a sovereign grace proponent.)

Subject: Phil. 2:5-11
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 23:40:00 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Hi I want to pick the brain of some of you scholars. Recently I read (and I quote) 'Phillipians 2:5-11 is a fragment of an ancient hymm of the Christian church...' Since I have never heard this before(that Paul was quoting from an ancient hymn)I thought I would check to see if it is true. Since my commentary doesn't have any information to confirm this. I thought who better than those on this board to do so? Also if these verses are a quote from an ancient hymn, where is that hymn located? I thought that if this portion of scripture, is a quote from an ancient hymn of the Christian church and that hymn was not from the Psalms. Then it could possibly put some closure to the arguement for exclusive Psalmody. At least as far as I am concerned. Tom

Subject: Re: Phil. 2:5-11
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:55:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>'Philippians 2:5-11 is a fragment of an ancient hymn of the Christian church... If Paul wrote Philippians in AD63 and Jesus died in AD33, the ancient hymn would be about 30 years old? Unless we expect it to be penned prior to Christ's arrival, in which case it would indeed be an amazing revelation and prophecy (hehe). Rather than being an ancient hymn it is well in keeping with Paul's writing style of digression and return. john

Subject: Re: Phil. 2:5-11
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 14:21:08 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John I am not sure your reasoning for the hymn being 30 years old isn't sound. All that is required is that it be known to Paul's audience before he wrote the letter. I recieved the following applicable information from Dr. White about this matter: I'm sorry, I really don't have time to pursue this further with you. Basically, you need to do some homework if you find the issue that important. It is pretty much common knowledge and easily obtainable to anyone who puts forth minimal effort to do so. The 'hymn' does not exist outside of Phil. 2. You won't find it anywhere else. There is no ancient hymnal that we can expect to unearth. It's simply a recognition of the form of the text as being poetic. Nothing more. Personally, I am a little disapointed with Dr. White's answer. I can not understand why someone would say something as though it were fact, not just theory. Kind of reminds me of what evolutionists do. Though if it is proven that Philippians 2:5-11 isn't an quote from an ancient hymn of the Christian church. It doesn't destroy his whole synopsis. But it would certainly take away from what he is saying. Why would he want to do that? Tom

Subject: Re: Phil. 2:5-11
From: Diacone
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 00:10:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Diaconeo@ccnmail.com

Message:
Tom, I think that what John was saying is that it couldn't have been an ancient hymn if it was only 30 years old at most. Of coures, for us today it would be an ancient. I don't know where Dr. White came up with this, perhaps it was his own thinking. I do agree with John in that this pssible hymn is very much Pauline. If it was a hymn that he used in his letter, he tied it in very well with the rest of chapter two, which is a possiblility. I don't believe that though, I believe this passage to be strictly pauline doctrine. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Phil. 2:5-11
From: Tom
To: Diacone
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 15:11:08 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Matthew In case you are interested, so far the only information I have come up with from a commentary is: 'Philpians 2:5-11 expresses this great truth in a beautiful passage that many believe is an early Christian hymn, either quoted by Paul or original with him.' To me saying this, is a lot different than what Dr. White has said. Tom

Subject: Re: Phil. 2:5-11
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 17:54:54 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, I've not gotten into this until now for this reason: Though I've heard this claim made before, it isn't universally accepted, it appears. It is, so far as I can tell, a matter for the 'textural critics,' a highly developed capacity for the skill and exhaustive research. I don't think this is something for the casual reader or one who has not really applied himself to textural criticism for many years to determine. Two or three posters have pointed out how 'Pauline' the passage is and how uniquely it flows from one chapter into another without seeming to lose continuity. Of course, the Spirit of God could have made that happen. Hebrews sounds very 'Pauline' in many places to me, but his authorship of that Epistle is very much disputed. Peter, and particularly John, are very 'Pauline' in many cases due to their heavy emphasis on sovereign grace and its facets. Is it a old hymn or not? I don't know. I haven't seen any really conclusive evidence. If you find some, please alert us, but I'm afraid you may never know for certain..

Subject: Re: Phil. 2:5-11
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 22:09:38 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Rod Thanks for the information, I really am beginning to agree with you about this matter. I may never know the truth about this matter. I just recieved this information from someone. 'Like you, I have not found any evidence to support the claims of this Mr. White. John MacArthur says that this particular passage was 'sung' as a hymn by the church, but that is quite different than saying it came from an ancient hymn. All I know is that it is in the Bible, and it is inspired.' This of course adds something else to my research. Mainly, when was this passage first sung as a hymn by the church? If indeed it is true what John MacArthur says. Oh boy this gets better by the minute. (Notice the sarcasm). Anyway, I will let you know what I find out. Tom

Subject: Re: Phil. 2:5-11
From: Tom
To: all
Date Posted: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 23:56:29 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
By the way, I forgot to tell where I got the quote. It was by James R.White in an article called 'Beyond the Veil of Eternity: The Importance Of Phillipians 2:5-11 in Theology and Apologetics' In case you didn't know, James R.White is Reformed in theology. Not that it makes him right in this case. Tom

Subject: Two Points
From: John P.
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 13:57:32 (PDT)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings Tom and All: Two very brief points: (1) Yes, if that passage is a part of an ancient hymn (or the others that some people use), then that puts a closure to the exclusive Psalmody debate (at least probably). The problem is this: It is a purely arbitrary claim having no evidence, or copy of the rest of the hymn, to say that it is a hymn. In fact, come to think of it, even if it was a hymn, they would have to prove it to be used in public worship. But, I think that if Paul would have quoted a hymn like that in a letter to the churches, it would almost have to be evidence that exclusive Psalmody is false. But, there is no evidence that it is a hymn (unless of course, Paul isn't permitted to write with a lofty and sublime style when writing about the humiliation and exaltation of our Lord Jesus Christ). In other words, there is no evidence. (2) This is for all of you waiting for the Jerrold L. versus John P. debate. I am writing a response to his two posts, but time is precious. I have a good portion completed, but I don't know when I will finish the rest, so please be patient. When the time comes when I post it, I will also email Mr. Lewis so that he knows that I have posted it. Love, John P.

Subject: M'Cheyne's 'Bible Reading Calendar'
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:50:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All,
Now on The Highway is Robert Murray M'Cheyne's 'Daily Bible Reading Calendar'. If you are not familiar with this gem, it's a scheduled arrangement of readings of the Scriptures that takes one and family through the entire Bible and the Psalms and New Testament twice. You can view it here: Daily Bible Reading Calendar And, a side note about using the SEARCH feature now on the home page; the use of 'quotes' for phrases will greatly enhance your results. Using the quotation marks on ANY Search Engine forces it to look for that exact phrase and not the individual words that make up the phrase. Thus, if you are getting results from a search that returns 300+ references and the majority of them are irrelevant to your original intent, then narrowing your search by being MORE specific and using the quotes can be of great help. BTW, this particular Search Engine is programmed to look for 'similar' words, ie., if you mispell a word, it will try and find it anyway. And lastly, be aware of variant spellings of words, eg., 'judgment and judgement'. You will get different results using these two words, :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Civil Disobedience
From: Joel H
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 13:14:58 (PDT)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu

Message:
The Supreme Court ruled to make 'student led' prayer at public high school football games un-Constitutional (illegal) today. As Christians, how do we balance the desire to live a quiet and peaceable life (1 Tim 2:2) with laws that infringe on a Christian's convictions? More specifically, would it be a sin for a speaker, who is a Christian, to engage in civil disobedience and offer a prayer before a game? Would the Holy Spirit even urge a Christian to do something like that? When is civil disobedience a valid tool for a Christian? The apostles certainly broke government laws. What principles govern Christians in this matter? I would just like some help jump starting my thinking in this area. BTW, thanks for all comments on gambling. They were of great help to me! Joel H

Subject: Matt 6:5-6
From: Anne
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:22:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Someone just pointed this out on another board: 'And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.' He was right . . . . Christ did address this very issue, and told us not to pray, ostentatiously, in public. As usual, though, we humans default to a 'Well, sure, but I didn't think He meant me!'POV. That should be inscribed on all our tombstones. Anne

Subject: Re: Matt 6:5-6
From: Bro. Charles
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 06:37:35 (PDT)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com

Message:
I believe that in the 'CONTEXT' of the passage Jesus was speaking about how the Pharisees where 'praying standing in the synagogues and on the street corners TO BE SEEN OF MEN.' What He was saying is that don't do it to be boastful of your salvation. But, that is a very good point. We as Christens need to remember the 1st amendment to the constitution. :-) With Love in Christ Jesus, - Bro. Charles

Subject: Re: Matt 6:5-6
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 12:23:51 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, The Pharisees almost never (probably never, as far as I can recall) come off looking good in the Lord Jesus' pronouncements. Hypocrisy is never acceptable, either in private or in public. Also, I think it's dangerous to assume that this addresses all forms of public prayer. If so, it would mean that prayer could only be offered by one individual in a 'closed room.' I don't think we should carry this pronouncement to extremes and eliminate all corproate prayer. There are prayers, the vast majority, I think, which should be offered in private. Rightly or wrongly, I'm almost always 'turned off' when someone suddenly offers a 'prayer' in a post on a bulletin board, for example. Maybe that's my personality and a flaw, but it just 'hits me wrong.'

Subject: Re: Matt 6:5-6
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:47:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't believe the Lord's intent was to slam all corporate worship, particularly in light of ' . . . where two or three are gathered in My name, etc.' So groups of believers may certainly pray together. But an open mike at a football game of a couple of public high schools can hardly be construed as a gathering of the elect, I fear. There are two completely separate issues at hand: 1) secular, constitutional law 2) God's laws Now as to the first, one can make a legitimate case that so long as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. all get their turn at that open mike, the First Amendment is upheld. As to the second, ISTM that the issue is whether or not God is willing to hear the prayers of nonbelievers. If He has an expansive, 'come one, come all' attitude about prayers from non-Christian sources, then by all means, we can grouse, grumble, and gripe about the Supreme Court decision. If, however, we believe that God wasn't pleased by those pagan religions' prayers in the past, and that hasn't changed His mind about it to date, then I can't think why Christians would support public prayer by pagan religions in public places. If the Almighty isn't pleased about it, why on earth are we trying to encourage it? Very strange. Anne

Subject: Re: Matt 6:5-6
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 08:25:37 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, I'm not discussing football games, per se, but the right of worship as one sees fit without the interference of a government which clearly has no Constitutional warrant to regulate such things. Please note that the Lord didn't forbid this Pharisee to do what he did. Or apparently even address him on the issue. He forbade His disciples the emulation of the hypocritical way in which he did it. There is a vast difference. The man had a right to pray as he desired, but the Lord granted him no efficacy in it. I'm not discussing prayer by unbelievers, but by believers solely, along with government interference where it has no authority. If anyone should regulate the games prayers, it is the state and local government and I'm certain their constitutions and charters give them no right to do so either. I'd ask that you also please take a look at my response to john h..

Subject: Re: Matt 6:5-6
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 03:23:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>Rightly or wrongly, I'm almost always 'turned off' when someone suddenly offers a 'prayer' in a post on a bulletin board, for example. Likewise, I'm usually turned-off by someone offering a prayer in public, at church, on TV, or anywhere. I think God intended prayer to be personal-- not for public consumption. I wonder if history has recorded when and who began the modern open prayer church movement (if it is a movement)? Have the churches always allowed public prayer (and prayer meetings), anyone know? john

Subject: Re: Matt 6:5-6
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 05:43:30 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Basically the only 'church history' I know is from the Bible. Confining myself to the NT, I find the Lord Jesus praying apart from a private manner on more than one occasion: Matt. 19:13-15 (strongly implied prayer; cp. Mark 10:16, where He 'blessed them'); John 11:41-42; John 17, a chapter of prayer among His Apostles to name a few instances. Now, we aren't the Lord Jesus and can't pray as He did, but we do have the example of corporate and public prayer from Him. 1 Cor. 11, particularly verses 4 and 11 seem to be very strong indications that prayer was a part of the worship service of that early church, especially since 'praying and prophesying' are mentioned by Paul in the same breath. 1 Tim. 2:8 also seems to be speaking of prayer within the context of a worship meeting. James 5:14 indicates corporate prayer, though not strictly 'public.' Verse 16 seems once again to indicate prayer in a meeting or gathering of the saints. Acts 1:14 indicates a strong presence of corporate prayer among the earliest believers, as well as assuredly individual prayers; cp. 2:42. Acts 12:5 has the 'church' offering 'prayer without ceasing' for Peter's deliverance; cp. verse 12 of that chapter and Acts 16:11. It seems to me, therefore, that public and corporate prayer are allowed and approved in Scripture, if not offered hypocritically. There are other passages where I think these forms of prayer are indicated, but it is difficult to prove precisely. May God preserve me and every other preacher/teacher of His Word from ever engaging in speaking to the saints and visitors without first offering a sincere prayer for the speaking and the hearing which will immediately follow. Just as the hypocritical Pharisee praying for the praise of men, so may those in public or corporate speaking, or singing, or praying, fall into sin similarly. It seems especially hard for performers of 'special music' not to get swelled heads, from the flattery of being chosen to perform and from the praise they receive. This doesn't honor the Lord or benefit the performer. It severely detracts from the worship of the saints. All that said, it is undeniable that the vast majority of prayer mentioned in the NT is of an individual and mostly private and semi-private nature. The Lord Jesus went off alone often to pray to His Father, and the admonition of the 'closed room' is designed to protect one praying from the sin of pride and public notice. It also seems undeniable to me that public and corporate prayer can be offered in a way which honors God and beneifts the hearers, instructing them how to pray by one gifted with the ability by the Spirit and directing their attention to the things of general concern and focus. I'm convinced that the Bible both allows and encourages that sort of prayer.

Subject: Re: Matt 6:5-6
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 18:12:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You might be correct, Jesus may have prayed in a public setting. However, I am not so sure it must be so, though I appreciate your work (and am always slightly amazed by the depth of research). 1. Matt 19:13-15, perhaps Jesus prayed aloud, or perhaps He prayed silently and then picked up the child and blessed them. He was asked to pray, for what purpose the people brought the children is not clear. He actually “laid his hands on them, and departed thence”, no mention of public prayer. Mark 10:17 says Jesus “blessed them”, which could be prayer but not necessarily. 2. John 11:41-42 “And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.” I don’t think it was a prayer that Jesus said, though perhaps a public acknowledgment of the Father. He thanked the Father for hearing Him. Perhaps concerning His statement to Martha “if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” or earlier when he “groaned within Himself” (the actual prayer to the Father?). 3. John 17 is certainly a prayer to the Father and certainly meant for the disciples to hear and understand. It can also be said that this prayer was done apart from the world, for His chosen ones only, and as a conclusion and summation of His earthly ministry. This is the exception that doesn’t prove the rule. 4. 1 Cor 11 concerns head coverings while praying. Certainly prayer is a part of church worship, the question is should it be done aloud. In my way of thinking, the woman cannot pray to God while engaged in sin (disobedience to God’s rule). Prophesying (declaring God’s Word) is hypocritical when she rejects Gods order. So, she cannot be a witness to men or to God, she is disgraced in both directions. 5. 1 Tim 2:8 speaks to prayer “I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men”. We can do all than as individuals to God without speaking aloud. 6. James 5:14 says: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him…”. It could be a public prayer by the elders, but the emphasis I see here is different. It is a prayer for salvation of the physically sick which will be forgiven their sins and saved. To this end Vs 16 says, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much”. It isn’t much physical healing that is accomplished. It is that many will be spiritually healed (Vs 19-20 equates prayer resulting in “fruit” and turning “a sinner from the error of his way” which will “save his soul from death”, which we know as the second death). 7. Acts 1:14 (or 2:42) may indicate public prayer “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” However, I doubt it. Would the women and Mary have been praying aloud before the disciples (men)? Certainly they were all praying with the same mind: That the Spirit would soon be poured out and God’s salvation plan should begin and that the Jews should be saved. 8. Acts 12:5 is interesting because Peter seems to have been rescued because “prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God.” When Peter came to John’s mother’s house they were gathered and praying. I imagine a rather grim (due to the expectation that Peter would be executed) and silent vigil with meditation to the Lord. When Peter appeared at the door, the group would not believe he was free, “you are out of your mind!” was the response to the servant girl. I don’t see a group of super-charged Pentecostals praying out loud. Rather, they were likely very humbly entreating God for Peter’s safety each with no small amount of fear (they could be next). Thus, Peter’s escape was a great encouragement. 9. To quote one of the Christian luminaries: “It seems especially hard for performers of 'special music' not to get swelled heads”, to which I agree. It is even more difficult for performers of prayer heard by others not to be perplexed by those watching. I have witnessed the fear that comes with public prayer (like public speaking). It is a natural fear of looking foolish (which still doesn’t stop most people). When I am asked to pray publicly or join a prayer group, I politely decline (and often am badgered to give it a go, thinking I am shy). In my inner-man I can see and relate to the affirmation that a well-done prayer gets by the congregation—I just don’t like to see it or its affect on the prayee. It is ego. 10. So, in conclusion, I think it is not a policy of Jesus to have prayed aloud (except in a special circumstance). That prayer privately was the mode. That we should not pray openly (no matter how sincere the motivation); and that we should pray all the time (but please, not aloud). I can relate to one Reformed church I attended where the pastor let everyone pray silently for about ten minutes before he broke in with his own spoken prayer. It was really very comfortable to be in a room with some other Christians and pray together (silently), at least until the pastor broke the silence with his manufactured prayer (very irritating). 11. Lastly, I have seen too many unbiblical prayers and too many people trying to pray for maximum effect. It detracts from worship in a big way. Just like people who talk during a movie, it bugs me. I don’t want to hear someone else’s prayer. If the pastor wants to pray before the sermon or Bible study: Please pray silently with the congregation for a moment. Prayers broadcast in church and unbiblical church music are plagues on the church which I, for one, could do without. That’s just my opinion, of course. If you think I'm wrong, please pray for me, just don't do it out loud (hehe). john

Subject: Praying within myself! :>) (n/t)
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jun 22, 2000 at 19:11:33 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Pilgrim
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 22:42:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Joel,
Personally, I couldn't care less what the Supreme Court of the U.S., or Canada rules concerning public prayer, etc. in state/government owned institutions. The government has the right to pass laws as they see fit concerning what and how things are to be conducted in THEIR facilities. There is no THEOCRACY on earth, and as far as I can tell, there never will be one before Christ returns nor afterwards [sorry all you Posties and Premillers out there, :-)]. Next stop: the New Heaven and New Earth where only righteousness dwells. Therefore, Ps 74:4 'Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy congregations; they set up their ensigns for signs.' In the days of Daniel, such 'laws' were also enacted to prevent prayer to the one true God. And Daniel complied as far as praying to God openly in public. But no government has the authority or power to forbid secret prayer and so Daniel prayed freely in his own home. And he stood against the rules of that day when they tried to forbid prayer altogether, except to the pagan gods. In the New Testament, we have another good example of the civil authorities forbidding any preaching in or of the name of Jesus Christ. This prohibition was again a universal one, which allowed no exceptions whatsoever. To such 'laws' the disciples refused to obey and replied,
Acts 4:18 'And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.'
The 'rule' I follow is this: I will comply with any and all laws passed by the government under which I am living at any particular time with the exception of any and all laws which transgress the LAW OF GOD. Thus I support 'civil disobedience' in principle and in practice. :-) Don't think it is always a 'black or white' decision either, for it surely isn't. There are situations where 'gray areas' exist and one must tread carefully, slowly and prayerfully before deciding to disobey a law of the land.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Rod
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 16:15:58 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I've read that prior to the U.S. Civil War (and possibly for sometime after) many people had the U.S. and their individual state's Constitutions memorized. Can we weak brained, but, Oh, so enlightened! men and women of today make any such claim? To our shame, not one in a hundred thousand could, I'd wager, if I were a betting man. I certainly couldn't, though I've read and studied the U.S. and Texas Constitutions somewhat. I'd even bet that most have not read the Constitution through and through even once, either federal or state. The First Amendment, the first of the so-called Bill of Rights states this: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' Ask almost anyone what the First Amendment is about, he'll answer, 'Freedom of the press,' if he's a modern U.S. citizen! Woeful ignorance. There is nothing in there about the 'separation of Church and State' which we hear so much about. That expression came from a much later letter from Thomas Jeffereson in which he advocated a 'wall of separation' between Church and State because he feared the power of certain Baptists (supposedly, and probably, from the context). There is certainly nothing in that Amendment which says anything about public prayer. 'Religion' in those days was not used in the same sense as it is today, referring, properly, to different actual religions, but then it was universally used to designate differing Christian beliefs, such as Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholics, etc.. It didn't include such things as Hinduism, etc.. That was unheard of and unthinkable. Just a little perspective for you to consider.

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 17:57:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. You are quite right that at the time this was penned, the founding fathers probably had no notion of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Heck, to them, Judaism was exotic. But just as we can't read into Scripture what we're sure the writers wish they'd said -- not that I am equating the Constitution with Holy Writ, of course! -- we also must stick to the words that were actually written down. And the word used was 'religion.' the fact that to them, that was defined as Christianity doesn't matter. They didn't say so explicitly. So all religions have been protected, historically. And case law is one of the foundations of American civil law. Prior judicial decisions carry immense weight with the Supreme Court, so the odds of them reversing an existing decision is virtually nonexistant. My point is that this is the hand we've been dealt, and we must now make the best of it, is all. Fortunately, since God is sovereign, we can be assured that somehow this is all part of His plan. A most comforting reflection! Ciao! Anne

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 22:56:25 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Actually, Anne, there's no argument from me on this. I'm 57 years old and when I was a boy and young man, a Christian person who was devoted to the Lord was 'real religious.' It was the wrong word then and the wrong word when the Constitution was written. However, that doesn't negate the fact that there is absolutely no mention of 'separation of Chruch and State' in the document, just the regulatory statement that Congress can't establish an official, national 'church.' The regulation was on government, not on worship. Today, the government regulates worship and religious activities and symbols, for good or for bad. It does seem to be contrary to the spirit of and the letter of the Constitution and promotes a goverenment of men, not law.

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 05:28:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now, you know, when I was in college a professor pointed out that the FF's were assuming that each state would have its own official 'religion' . . . . Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania was Quaker, etc. etc. When people came from England, they headed for the region dominated by their preferred denomination. Them having known nothing but state-sanctioned religion in England, he argued that it was their intent to forbid the federal government from establishing an official religion, instead leaving that responsibility to the individual states. Reading the constitution, I'm not sure but what he might be right. To late now, though. Done's done. Pity. Anne

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:50:40 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, I'd heard that state religion thing before too, but, though it may be true, I personally have not researched it, but I've never run across any incidental documentation that anyone among the writings of any of the early 'Fathers' to substantiate it. It may be all over the place, but I just haven't personally seen it. The thing which seems to lend credence to it is that there was a concept of 'sovereign states' which people today cannot fathom. Under the previous Articles of Confederation, the individual states were supreme in power; the central govt. weak and ineffective. The ideas about the exact role of the various states and the authority of the central govt. (federal government) were not completely thrashed out until the Civil War. Lincoln didn't send troops to put down the 'rebellion' because of slavery, but because he said he had taken 'a most solemn oath' to preserve the Union. Secession was the decisive issue, though slavery was a hot and emotional issue and a real fuse to ignite and fire the passions. This places the issue squarely in the realm of 'states' rights,' the right of an individual state to nullify a law of the U.S govt. and to withdraw from the Union if it disagreed with the actions of the federal government strongly enough and felt 'threatened' in its sovereign existence. It was a case of 'might makes right.' If the South had been able to gain a military victory, states' rights would have been extablished as supreme. Since the North won and through God's Providence the Union was preserved and the evil of slavery ended, states' rights is a virtually a dead issue. I may well be malinformed (I haven't studied any state government in detail, except Texas), but I know of no state whose constitution ever established a state religion as an 'official' thing. In fact, most, and I actually believe all, of the states had bills of rights very similar to the U.S. Amendments which guaranteed individual freedoms. There has been at least one de facto governing by a 'church,' however. The Mormon leadership ran and governed Utah according to their own dictates for decades. There were 'bumps' of federal resistance, but, for all practical purposes, it was a 'Church' dominated government. I'm not sure how deep the control still runs, but it is, at the very least, significant.

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:30:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne,
Don't you see the hypocrisy of it all though? at least in the U.S. and Canada. But specifically in the U.S., there is permanently printed and minted on the currency the phrase, 'In God we Trust', which I believe was first used back in the very early part of the 19th century (1803?). The 'laws' enacted to protect the citizenry from those who would do IMMORAL and UNETHICAL acts against them were based upon biblical law, e.g., 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not kill,' etc. Yet, the courts unanimously scream that they don't adjudicate nor allow 'morals' to enter into the system. 'It's about LAW, not MORALS!' Yet, this is so totally ignorant a statement, for to break a law, one is subject to 'punishment' and punishment is only rightly administered when it is administered upon one who has done WRONG! They have borrowed the morality (at least in the beginning and for a time thereafter) from the Christian system and yet deny the very essence of it. This anomaly shouldn't be too surprising, for those who are in the position to write, enact, administer and practice these laws are godless, unregenerate individuals who's main motivation is to defame and obliterate the name of God from the earth. Perhaps it should go unsaid, but I am of the opinion, that there are, with perhaps a half-dozen exceptions, no true Christians in the national government. There are to be sure, many who make a profession of faith (a la Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Bush, Preston Manning, etc.) but there is far too much evidence to show that this profession is without substance, and their 'faith' is to be seen as spurious and they are self-deceived. Okay... enough!
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:08:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Perhaps it should go unsaid, but I am of the opinion, that there are, with perhaps a half-dozen exceptions, no true Christians in the national government. Isn't that odd, I've been having a e-mail list discussion with someone about this very thing. Well, sort of. It is my contention that political office, particularly at the federal level, is no place for Christians. There is too much pressure to compromise one's principles in order to get elected in the first place, for starters. Then the 'system' requires a 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' modis operandi . . . . . that's hardly Scriptural, now is it? Political office teaches one that the end justifies the means, which mentality Paul denounced in no uncertain terms, though I'm darned if I can lay my hands on that verse now. Actually, to run for office at all requires a more-than-healthy ego, not to mention the hide of a rhinoceros when it comes to criticism. Quickly all criticism is discounted as being politically motivated, so that one becomes resistant to any rebuke, for any reason. This is not a Christian mindset. As you say, there are undoubtedly exceptions, but then there are also people who make their living hurling themselves out of cannons and off the top of five story buildings . . . . . just because a few can do it, doesn't mean it's sensible. ;-> And as to the objection that is trembling on everyone's fingertips, about 'If only non-Christians are in office, etc. etc.' I would point out that Almighty God finds it just as easy to make use of unrighteous tools (such as the Assyrians, and Jacob's brothers) as He does righteous ones. It's the individuals we need to work on, since they are the ones who elect the office holders. The politiciams pay attention to the voters, and will approve whatever agenda they desire. Which means . . . . evangelization, evangelization, and MORE evangelization! Trying to push God's agenda through the legislature when most of the populace is not Christian, is a fool's game. What strikes me is that if I have understood correctly, it took the apostles simply ages to reluctantly grasp that Christ was not planning upon marching onto Rome, banners waving and trumpets sounding, to Take Over The Corrupt Government. Today's American Christians seem to have the precise same expectation, except that we're the ones hoping to be waving those banners and blowing those trumpets, as we Take Over The Corrupt Government. Two thousand years later, and we still don't get it, do we? Anne

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Anne
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 13:46:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Trouble is, all religious persuasions would have to be accommodated. Can you imagine the wall-eyed fit some Christians would pitch if there was a Wiccan student offering whatever type of prayer it is they say? To the Goddess, or some such foolishness? And the Catholics could lead everyone in the Hail Mary! The Muslim population is growing by leaps and bounds . . . . . mustn't forget them, and the prayers they would offer to Allah. So I think the Supreme Court did the right thing, considering the incredible religious diversity that prevails in America. I pray all the time, anyway. Don't need no student prayin' fer me at an open mike! Godspeed! Anne

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 15:50:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
There is the argument that all religions have to be given equal access. All religious-type public announcements (not just prayer) are therefore unconstitutional (or will be shortly) if everyone cannot be accommodated. Of course the argument is based on the idea that we must give all religions equal access. But why? The other argument would say, this nation was founded on Christianity, and in particular Puritan Calvinism. So, in keeping with the founding fathers desire for freedom of religion, and that religion being Christianity (Calvinism), we should allow free expression of Christian religion. If we go to Jerusalem, we dare not express Christianity. If we go to Iraq we dare not express Christianity. If we go to Canada, we are talking to moose and squirrel, so its not a problem. And now, if we go to the USA we dare not express Christianity. This decision has, or will, limit all religious expression in a public forum. While I'm not for public prayer anyway, I am for religious freedom, as long as it is loosely defined as Christian. Why is it unconstitutional to have a nativity scene at Christmas, to have a valentine card in 3rd grade class that says 'I love Jesus', to bring a Bible to school, or to have a Bible study after school (unless it is a Satanist class-- that's OK)? Who are these sensitive people who are so easily offended? Trial lawyers? ACLU lawyers? Secular Humanists? Liberals? Why are the folks most concerned with individual liberty the same ones so willing to force their viewpoint into law so as to remove freedom? Why does the mush-brained minority overrule the majority (who are not offended by Christian expression)? john

Subject: Re: Civil Disobedience
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 23:47:32 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John I guess Pilgrim and I are either moose or squirrels,lol. Your comments about liberalism were very interesting. In my oppinion(for what its worth) it is the liberals who are the intolerant ones. Like Anne says, it is a good thing God is in control. Liberals argue that it is intolerant and inconsistant with the principles of a free and open society for Christians(and others)to claim that their moral and religious perspectives are correct and ought to be embraced by all citizens. However liberals are the ones who are being intolerant, for their perspective has it's own set of dogmas. It assumes for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as the one mentioned in this thread and other subjects like abortion, homosexuality, etc... Leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues, ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. They say that there is only one correct view on these issues and if one does not comply with it, one should face public ridicule and legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is neither liberal or tolerant. Sorry for my little rant, I got a little off topic, lol. Tom

Subject: 1 Tim. 4:10
From: John 43
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:24:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
How do the calvinists handle that verse?

Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 4:10
From: Pilgrim
To: John 43
Date Posted: Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 08:51:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John 43,
You asked, 'How do the calvinists handle that verse?' [referring to 1Timothy 4:10]. ANS: Biblically and rightly!   Rod's advice to you was correct as the use of the 'Search' feature on The Highway's home page would have given you this result and by clicking here: An Exegetical Study of 1Tim. 4:10 you can read it.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 4:10
From: Rod
To: John 43
Date Posted: Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 10:55:47 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
This has been jdealt with here many times. What do you want to know specifically? Do you want to argue about it as an Arminain (the way it appears from your cryptic post)? Or are you a 'Calvinist' who is curious? Please give us more to go on. Click on the Highway logo at the top of the forum page and use the search engine to find out about resources here on 1 Tim. 4:10--probably will answer all your questions.


Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements
All Rights Reserved