'Theology Discussion Group'

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 CreedTherefore, 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 d