'Theology Discussion Group'

Subject: Funerals From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 21:09:04 (PDT) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: I have the honor of doing my first funeral tommorrow morning :-). How biblical do you think funeral services are? Don't recall any in the word of God. They just buried them right? Or am I making a big deal out of nothing? One thing that I won't do, is give anyone a false hope when their life was known to be...well. But then again, no one knows for sure, so should any preacher at a funeral talk about the deceased being in Heaven even if they appeared to be walking the walk and were doctrinally correct? What do ya'll think? :-) Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Funerals From: Five Sola To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 21:56:31 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bret, Wow! I don't really have an answer for you, and since I am not ordained (I don't serve in any pastorate or elder position either). But for me I would not do a funeral unless I had a certainty of the deceased salvation (as much as we are allowed to know in this life.) There just is nothing that can be said for someone we are unsure of or certain of their reprobation. I hope others will respond to you (quickly also), but I will pray for you that God will give you some wise words tommorow. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Funerals From: john hampshire To: living Date Posted: Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:58:55 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...suffer me first to go bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. Mat 8:21 The point may be that the physically dead should be the concern of the spiritually dead. The next point is: Lu 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: BUT GO THOU AND PREACH THE KINGDOM OF GOD. So the living in Christ should keep their focus on the living who are dying of spiritual famine. If someone were to speak at a funeral, I would suggest, what better time to 'preach the kingdom of God' to the living. john

Subject: The Simple Truth From: another view To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 14:20:25 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...The simple Biblical truth is that God created Adam with a free will. He could choose to do good or evil, but he chose to do evil. Every single descendant of Adam was guilty of this sin as he was our corporate head, and every single descendant of Adam was now incapable of choosing to do anything good. God knew all this was going to happen and He arranged it to display His mercy and justice. Even before time He decided to save some and not others. He displays His infinite mercy by saving His elect. They do not deserve this because they participated in the sin of Adam and committed numerous sins of their own. He displays His justice by punishing the reprobate. They do deserve this because they participated in Adam's sin and they chose to commit their own sins. God is both infinitely merciful and infinitely just. Man had free will but only before Adam sinned. Paradox solved. No need to propose some previously undisclosed age before the beginning of time. See also the Creeds that are posted on this web site. All should note that the teaching in the previous post are clearly rejected as error by the Synod of Dordt. I will post below the teaching in that article and their rejection as errors by the Cannons. 'God's selection of the Elect is not arbitrary, it is based upon His foreknowledge of those predestinated.' 'Those who chose God and not evil in that hypothetical aion are then predestined unto salvation in this aion.' Who teach: that in the election unto faith this condition is beforehand demanded, namely, that man should use the light of nature aright, be pious, humble, meek, and fit for eternal life, as if on these things election were in any way dependent. Who teach: faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions, which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur. 'It is possible for someone to meet God part of the way and then He will do the rest.' Who teach: That the unregenerate man is not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good, but that he can yet hunger and thirst after righteousness and life, and offer the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit, which is pleasing to God. For these are contrary to the express testimony of Scripture. 'Ye were dead through trespasses and sins,' Ephesians 2:1,5; and: 'Every imagination of the thought of his heart are only evil continually,' Genesis 6:5; 8:21. Who teach: That grace and free will are partial causes, which together work the beginning of conversion, and that grace, in order of working, does not precede the working of the will; that is, that God does not efficiently help the will of man unto conversion until the will of man moves and determines to do this. For the ancient Church has long ago condemned this doctrine of the Pelagians according to the words of the Apostle: 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy,' Romans 9:16. Likewise: 'For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?' I Corinthians 4:7. And: 'For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure,' Philippians 2:13. --- Copied from another forum

Subject: Re: The Simple Truth From: Pilgrim To: another view Date Posted: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 17:33:14 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I found the following statement taken from above to be rather vague: God knew all this was going to happen and He arranged it to display His mercy and justice. What is 'vague' and subject to criticism is the ORDER stated. The biblical teaching is that God FIRST 'foreordained' [arranged (but by decree)] the Fall and thus He 'knew' (foreknowledge). God's Omniscience is perfect and complete due to the fact that He foreordained all things. This is the teaching of the Canons of Dordrect, the Reformers, Puritans and all the Reformed Confessions. I just wanted to make this particular point clear! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: New URL for this Forum From: Pilgrim To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 28, 2000 at 09:26:35 (PDT) Email Address: thehighway@gospelcom.net Message: All, There has been a server upgrade and change for all The Highway forums. Currently the old URL's which you now have will be recognized for a while, but eventually they will not. Therefore I encourage you to use the new URL's and change all your bookmarks/favorites to: THEOLOGY FORUM http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=discuss OPEN FORUM http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=highway PRAYER FORUM http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=prayer If need be, the forums can always be accessed from The Highway home page which already has the new URL's entered in their respective sections. We will entertain questions concerning this change on any of the forums in order to help those who need further instructions. In His Service, Pilgrim

Subject: Wouldn't want any of you .... From: stan To: All Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 19:10:03 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: to be PI. (Politically incorrect) Well maybe a little would be okay ;-) C U R R E N T N E W S S U M M A R Y by the Editors of ReligionToday September 26, 2000 Should Christians use military metaphors when they evangelize? C U R R E N T N E W S S U M M A R Y by the Editors of ReligionToday September 26, 2000 Should Christians use military metaphors when they evangelize? Representatives of 31 evangelical mission groups say no, and have signed a statement urging Christians not to use terms such as 'crusade,' the Colorado Springs Gazette reported. Such words may offend non-Christians and even endanger Christian workers, they said at a meeting at Fuller Theological Seminary last month. ...Use of the word 'crusade' to refer to an evangelistic outreach stirs centuries-old bitterness in Muslim nations, according to the signers, because it invokes the bloody wars waged by European Christians to reclaim the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th centuries. Other offensive terms include 'conquer,' 'advance,' 'enemy,' and 'beachhead,' according to the Gazette. ...Islamic leaders and government officials who oppose Christianity have used printed ministry materials containing warfare terminology against missionaries, the signers said. Although the terms have been used for decades, the materials have gained wider circulation with the advent of the Internet. 'Now everything that goes on the Web can be read by anyone in the world. So this becomes a much larger issue,' Robert Nicklaus of the Christian and Missionary Alliance said. ...Major evangelical missions groups signed the statement, including two umbrella groups, the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies and the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association. Luis Bush of the AD 2000 and Beyond Movement (see link #1 below) also signed, as did representatives of the World Evangelical Fellowship (see link #2 below), the Southern Baptist Convention (see link #3 below), and the Association of Vineyard Churches (see link #4 below).

Subject: Re: Wouldn't want any of you .... From: Tom To: stan Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 13:09:00 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Personally speaking, although if one proclaims the gospel they can not help offending people. Word like 'crusade', I wouldn't use, if it was a barrier preventing someone from hearing the gospel. I think the question should be asked, is the word 'crusade' and the like, part of the gospel message? If not, why should we use it, why not use terms that are not offensive, then let the pure unadulterated gospel do the offending? Tom

Subject: Re: Wouldn't want any of you .... From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 19:57:47 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: I don't know that it's possible to be inoffensive in evangelism, since 'the carnal mind is enmity against God' (Rom. 8:7) and non-Christians will be offended at the mention of the Lord Jesus and He Himself indicated that His followers will be persecuted even as He was. 'Hated without a cause' is a common theme of the righteous in the Bible. If evangelistic people give no offense at all, they haven't represented the Lord Jesus as revealed in the Bible. "Christ, and him crucified," Paul indicates is an offense in itself, being an attack on the sinfulness of man and the necessity of his judgment, proclaiming the righteousness of God while pointing out the lost estate of man. See 1 Cor. 1:18-25 particularly. The Jews "stumble" at it and the rest of the world scoffs at it, finding it "foolishness." Each group is offended by evangelistic truth,.

Subject: Re: Wouldn't want any of you .... From: Five Sola To: Rod Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 13:06:03 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Yeah. I guess Christ and Paul both needed to read this article. :-) Christ was very offensive to the pseudo-religious of the day. And Paul was the same. Paul calls people, enemies of the Cross, and pronounces curses on some, John calls some the anti-christ or followers of the Anti-christ. Christ called people, serpents, sons of Satan. Imagine if (or when) we stood(stand) as strong against the false religions, denominations and sects of today not to mention the pagan sinners (ie. homosexuals, etc) what would be called unloving, hateful, unChrist-like, intolerant, etc. Five Sola

Subject: Gossip and homosexuality From: Eric To: Five Sola Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 13:49:49 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Five Sola wrote: Imagine if (or when) we stood(stand) as strong against the false religions, denominations and sects of today not to mention the pagan sinners (ie. homosexuals, etc) what would be called unloving, hateful, unChrist-like, intolerant, etc. I was curious as to why you chose to emphasize homosexuality as an example of a pagan sinner whom we should speak out against. Maybe you should have chosen boastful, or disobediant, or gossips, and that way everybody would be included as it ought to be. The homosexual has been turned over to his evil ways, just as the gossip, or disobediant child. The symptoms are different, but the cause is the same. Let's also remember that it is only through God's grace that we are not homosexuals, for surely we all could have been justly allowed to wallow in our own lusts and passions, and degenerate into that lifestyle. One of the refreshing things about being a Calvinist :), is that I am able to look at the homosexual the same way I can look at a gossiper. Just some food for thought. Romans 1:28-2:13 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. [29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. [2:1] You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. [2] Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. [3] So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? [4] Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? [5] But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] God 'will give to each person according to what he has done.' [7] To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8] But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. [9] There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [10] but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [11] For God does not show favoritism. [12] All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. God bless.

Subject: Re: Gossip and homosexuality From: Five Sola To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:43:31 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I choose the evil sin of homosexuality for a particular reason. In my post I was commenting on some things that are normally considered more evil and unloving, ie someone calling a islam a fruitless religion, or a jehovah witness a non-christian (or a Roman Catholic :-) ). The same is with homosexual. If a christian were to stand up and denounce the sin of gossip or lying, then the evangelical community and/or the pagan community would most likely stand with them, but if a Christian stands up and says Homosexuals are non-christians (if they are active in their sexual sin) then you will absolutely gain oppositions and name calling from the pagan community and most likely from the evangelical community for their are even 'homosexual churchs'. That was why I particularly pick that sin. I understand that we are all sinners, and as far as making us not right before the eyes of God, a white lie or physical murder is enough but there are 'degrees' of sin and one can add to their punishment in hell. (I'm still studying this topic so I am not fully clear in this area other than I see its truth). I do understand 'but for the Grace of God go I.' and truly understand and am thankful for that. That sin was just appropriate for my point. {Also that is a 'pet peeve' sometimes for I have had many discussion with people who were fooled and called themselves a 'homosexual christian' :-( Five Sola

Subject: Re: Gossip and homosexuality From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 28, 2000 at 23:39:35 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I didn't have any trouble with your using that particular sin. Maybe that is because I have seen enough of your posts to realize that you were not using the example in an unloving manner? Though one can tend to overemphasize sin like homosexualty over a sin like heterosexual adultry. I have had the pleasure to preach the gospel to a homosexual and actually see that person repent and turn to the Lord. I do not think I would have had that opportunity if I had come into that conversation with anything but a loving spirit. I just presented the appropriate scriptures about homosexuality, and asked him if he truly believed it. Like I said before this particular case ended on a happy note. But sadly, I have found it more of an exception than the rule. Tom

Subject: Re: Gossip and homosexuality From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 21:40:42 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, I understand you point and it is well taken, but I wanted to make a comment on something 'Though one can tend to overemphasize sin like homosexualty over a sin like heterosexual adultry.' Actually Homosexuality is a greater sin then other sexual sins. The reason I say this is because homosexuality is in itself unnatural and hardening of the heart against in warnings we have against doing such heinous acts. I am not trying to dwell on this point but I think it is one that is often accepted as equal to any other sexual sin. And this is not the case. I don't think you would say child molestation is the same (or equal) to adultery? Child molestation, beastiality, homosexuality are all deviant behavioral choices that should be thought of as the evils they are and should disgust us. Of course I should be sure to add that this does not in any way make adultery more acceptable. It is still a sin and a disgrace to any who commits it. I do want to say that because of this we should make every effort to reach those involved in this sin with the Gospel. I am by no means advocating a attitude of apathy to homosexuals, but we should warn them of their sin and their need to leave this life and trust in Christ. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Gossip and homosexuality From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 00:06:45 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Agreed :) Nor was I advocating that homosexuality wasn't a worse sin than adultry. My point was that sin is sin, no matter how one slices it. If I warn someone about the dangers of this kind of behaviour, I try to point to what the scriptures say on the issue, I don't emphasize my oppinion on the issue. I try to present the facts from the word of God, then let God do the convicting. Tom

Subject: I agree... From: Eric To: Five Sola Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:04:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: wholeheartedly with what you wrote. Maybe you can come by and visit my website. www.godhatesgossipers.com (It was a joke, laz) God bless.

Subject: youz talkin' to me?? NT. From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:27:25 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Nope. nt From: Eric To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 13:19:07 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: :)

Subject: Re: Wouldn't want any of you .... From: lindell To: stan Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:39:24 (PDT) Email Address: ldunning@usa.net Message: II Timothy 2: 3 and 4.

Subject: Covenant/Federal Theology From: Five Sola To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 13:08:29 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Covenant brothers/sisters, I need some help on something that has been lingering in my mind (dangerous place I know) :-) I read 'Modern Reformation''s issue on Covenant Theology two issues ago (yes, I'm behind in my reading). I still have a question that has been pestering me since I have become of the convenant viewpoint. I understand, and accept the federal headship of the first and second Adam, in our imputation of Sin and imputation of Righteousness, respectively. My confussion is in that in the 1st adam (Adam) all mankind was imputated with sin, and yet in the second adam (Christ) only the elect was imputated with righteousness.???? so if the conection of the two is equal in a sense then how is the imputation all and some? Is it that all were imputated with sin and all were imputated with righteousness EXCEPT those who rejected the imputation of righteouness? Could someone direct me to some good resources, scriptures, etc. on this? Pilgrim, Laz and others I am awaiting your prompt reply. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Covenant/Federal Theology From: another view To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 15:06:58 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Maybe there is something here that will be helpful. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5

Subject: Re: there's always .... From: stan To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 15:01:57 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: the position that Christ did what you see in the passage and that all who reject Christ sentance themselves to hell due to their refusal to accept Him. In short He did all there is to be done to save all mankind - the work is done - monkey is on individuals back to accept it. Just something to chew on. stan (adequately hiding under his desk)

Subject: Re: there's always .... From: Five Sola To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 10:16:30 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Stan, I'm sorry but I don't agree with this statement 'In short He did all there is to be done to save all mankind - the work is done - monkey is on individuals back to accept it.' If Christ did do ALL that is to be done to save (and I believe He did, not 'all' but for the elect) then all are saved. If one things is left to be completed, or Christ did 99.9999% and we add the .0001% in our acceptance then NO ONE is saved. So Christ did 100% and all those He did that work for ARE/will be saved. I won't comment on the next statement ('He did all there is to be done to SAVE ALL MANKIND') because I don't see any scriptural support for it. Sorry. Five Sola

Subject: stan, I'm somewhat mystified... From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 06:48:09 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: When you say, 'there's always .... the position that Christ did what you see in the passage and that all who reject Christ sentance themselves to hell,' is it your contention that that is your belief? It seems so, but I'd like a more definitive answer before commenting. Thanks.

Subject: Re: stan, I'm somewhat mystified... From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 14:46:28 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: A generalization - poor choice of words - God gives with the sentance.

Subject: Re: there's always .... From: another view To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 15:12:33 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You said: >>>all who reject Christ sentance themselves to hell due to their refusal to accept Him. In short He did all there is to be done to save all mankind - the work is done - monkey is on individuals back to accept it.<<< Sorry, that sounds just like what the Arminians teach to me.

Subject: Re: not so sure.... From: stan To: another view Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 20:50:39 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Will discussing Federal headship: 'It is thus manifest that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, even if a truth of the Scriptures, could neither support nor vindicate a purely gratuitous imputation of Adam's sin to the race as the judicial ground of depravity and death. There is, in truth, no such imputation of the righteousness of Christ as theis theory maintains, and hence the argument attempted upon its assumption is utterly groundless.' Vol 1, p 500 Miley's Systematic Theology. I'm not well read in the Armenian realm, do you have quotes to indicate your comment? stan

Subject: Hey stan... From: Eric To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:54:10 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I too struggled with the imputation of Adam's sin, but not with the imputed righteousness of Christ. In fact, I had several conversations with the members of this board about it, I thrashed them with my debating prowess and unusual intellect, :) but in the end, they were right, and I was wrong. I have never talked to you before, so I don't know whether you are open to changing your mind or not. I can point you to a sermon that really opened my eyes to see the truth of this position--I don't understand the equity of it, but I do affirm that it is true. Let me know if you want me to post a link to the sermon. God bless.

Subject: Re: Hey stan... From: stan To: Eric Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 14:53:11 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No problem with either of the points - just making conversation when I posted it - seems I stirred the pot instead ;-) As to changing my mind - NEVER - I am always right! ;-) stan

Subject: Re: not so sure.... From: laz To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 21:35:41 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Stan - what on earth are you selling with this last post? Did I misunderstand you or are you just being facetious? Is this person you quoted really denying alien imputation? If so, what takes its place? Inquiring minds wanna know.... thanks, laz p.s. I agree with 'one of the others'...being 'in Christ' is the key as this is in accordance with God's eternal and determined holy will. All 'IN' Christ, shall be saved.

Subject: Re: not so sure.... From: stan To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 14:15:32 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Seems in rejecting federal headship Miley opts for natural headship (my term) and states that Adam would naturally pass on his own nature to his children. Had he not sinned he would have passed on his unsinning nature, though children would have the same option to sin as he. Since he did sin then he passed on his fallen nature to his children. stan

Subject: Re: not so sure.... From: stan To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 14:03:41 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Miley is an armen/wesleyan. Just quoting as I sees it ;-) Didn't read fer enough to find out what he holds to - might get to that a little later. stan

Subject: Re: not so sure.... From: Pilgrim To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 15:41:14 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Stan, Just in case you haven't done so at this point in your life, I heartly recommend to you Dr. John Murray's definitive work, 'The Imputation of Adam's Sin'! It's a small work but full of wisdom and biblical truth. Enjoy! Pilgrim

Subject: Re: From: stan To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 19:15:45 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Not so sure' was in reference to the comment that I sounded like an Armenian, not federal headship. Will see if I can round up a copy of Murray's book. Living in the usa you have to accept federal headship don't you? The federal government imputes its evil into your life! ;-) stan

Subject: Re: Never believe where I .... From: stan To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 20:21:11 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: found the book - amazon.de the german arm of amazon.com - .com didn't have it ;-) Ran across the following store: http://www.trinitybookservice.org/ Postage was more than the book - love this country and its rip off sublevels ;-) stan

Subject: Re: Never believe where I .... From: Pilgrim To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 22:19:20 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Stan, Order it direct from the publisher.... might be cheaper? And stop whining... I live in Canada, and besides the 150% exchange rate, I have to pay duty, 7% PST and 7% GST to boot when I have books shipped here from the U.S. :-) Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Ouch! ;-) NT From: stan To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 14:13:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Covenant/Federal Theology From: one of the others To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 13:56:07 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Five S, For me the issue seems very simple--probably because I have a simple mind. The key word in the Scripture on this issue seems to be 'in.' 'For as in Adam, all die,' begins 1 Cor.15:21. Adam was Adam and all other people born have been born of him and actually were in him, as they were 'in his loins' (cp. Heb. 7:10). Rom. 5:12 makes it clear that we all have sin's penalty upon us for what Adam did and because we all sinned with him, in him, as you point out, because he is the federal head. Then the second half of 1 Cor. 15:21 says, 'even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' Now we know that not every person is 'in' Christ. They are placed in Him by the action of grace from God the Father. So He is the 'second man' and 'last Adam' (see 1 Cor. 15:45-47). He is the Federal Head also, but only of those whom He represents in redemption. That is the reason Paul makes these statements: 'Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new And all things are of God who hath reconciled us [believers] to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation' (2 Cor. 5:17-19). It is evident that the lost do have their sins imputed to them, so the 'world' is not all in Christ in representation on the cross as the sin bearer--'I lay down my life for the sheep' (John 10:15; cp.11). The Lord Jesus is representing only those in sin payment and making it possible for them to receive His righteousness in justification whom He has predestinated to salvation, as is borne out by Paul's additional statement: 'I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me' (Gal. 2:20). The Lord Jesus emphasized that basic truth when He prayed the High Priestly prayer to the Father just prior to His being betrayed: 'Neither pray I for these [the Apostles] alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one' (John 17:20-22). All mankind is in Adam by birth, but not all mankind is chosen by God to be born again and placed thereby in the Lord Jesus. It is then dependent on having 'Christ in you, the hope of glory.' His representation is for those who are predestinated and elect and born again (regenerated). It is an exclusive group, not a universal one. P.S. You asked for 'Covenant brothers/sisters' to answer this, but the acceptance of the federal headship isn't exclusive to that group, so I have taken the liberty to give this view.

Subject: Re: Covenant/Federal Theology From: Five Sola To: one of the others Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 10:25:22 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: One of the Others (and I suspect a dispie-lite brother) :-) 'P.S. You asked for 'Covenant brothers/sisters' to answer this, but the acceptance of the federal headship isn't exclusive to that group, so I have taken the liberty to give this view.' Yes I understand federal headship is accepted by all you dispie's :-) I had just studied the topic in MR and it was under the topic of Covenantalism (Federal Theology) so I used the same dual topic. Sorry not trying to exclude you guys. :-) --- - Ok let me see if I understand you right. [my slow brain nowadays :-) ] Adam was a universal head for all mankind. And Christ is the second adam, and a federal head but not universally. So He is a second adam but not in the fullness of scope as Adam was? He was only a federal head for the elect (those He died for). I can get that but my brain pops up with a counter-point that I know others will bring against me [I know it's wierd but this is how I think through these things..think as if I were on the opposing view and see if I can find holes in my statements or thinking] 'If Christ was not a federal head for ALL (universally) how can we say Adam is a federal head for ALL?' Is it just a case were this comparision is not a 1 to 1 analogy? Thanks for the help. Five Sola ps. Where are all the others? Pilgrim, Laz, etc. :-)

Subject: Re: Covenant/Federal Theology From: laz To: Five Sola Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:33:22 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: FS - As I say...I'm no theologian (but I like to pretend)...but I again agree with 'still not laz or Pilgrim'. I suspect I know who this person is. And I really like him/her! ;-) Are you trying to think too universally....like Arminians? hehe I think context is important in the analogy Paul is making, otherwise we miss the point. Our ultimate headship has always and forever been IN CHRIST, the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. We have always been identified with and in Him from God's perspective. I suppose we have a secondary/temporal/physical federal head in Adam as condemned sinners under the Law, but we eventually become justified in time by grace thru faith to make our calling and election sure....which has ALWAYS been God's determinate will for His people. laz

Subject: To laz: From: Wes Taxes To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 15:31:14 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Him/her really likes you too!

Subject: Re: Covenant/Federal Theology From: still not Pilgrim or laz To: Five Sola Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 14:38:14 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Hate to keep butting in when you want Pilgrim and laz :>), but will give a brief answer to your query: ''If Christ was not a federal head for ALL (universally) how can we say Adam is a federal head for ALL?' Is it just a case were this comparision is not a 1 to 1 analogy?' It seems to me that there is no problem with this 'all' situation if we view it this way: Adam is the representative (and originator) of all mankind, as all are sinners. Luke's genealogy identifies him as the created 'son of God.' Conversely, the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, is not associated with sin, but is the Federal Head of men made righteous by His action, not all mankind. Rom. 5:1-11 is very specific about that: 'But God commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (verse 8). Since we know that the 'us' are the 'sheep' of the Lord Jesus given Him by the Father (John 10), He is 'the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29) and the representative of those alone, having released them from the penalty of sin and imputed to them His righteousness in justification. If He were indetified in the same way with all men, all men would be saved and receive His righteousness. God imputes Adam's sin to all mankind. The predesintated and elect have their sin imputed to their new Head, the Lord Jesus, and, in turn, have His righteousness imputed to them.

Subject: Re: Covenant/Federal Theology From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 12:17:53 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Five I know there are others out there who thought of that same question. But felt a little too foolish to ask it. As my grandmother used to say 'The only stupid question, is the one that is not asked.' As you are probably awear by now, I have asked many a question on this board that some couldn't believe I asked. But I don't think I would be where I am today, if I didn't risk looking foolish in the asking. I think everyone should try to remember that when they see a post like that. The question needs to be asked, when one sees what seems to be a foolish post. Is this person's question sincere? Sorry for my little rant. Tom

Subject: Alpha Course From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 21:30:15 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I was wondering what if anything you can tell me about the 'Alpha Course'. What I do know about it is that it has been going through a lot of denominations and is designed so that both believers and the curious can ask those questions concerning scripture that they may not be comfortable asking in a regular church setting. It is designed for small home group studies. What I don't know about it is, what kind of theology does it espouse? Or since many different denominations seem to be tuned into it, is it designed to be adjusted to different theologies? The people I have talked to, that have taken this course, seem very pumped about it. But over the last few years I am quite cautious about things like this. Tom

Subject: Re: Alpha Course From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 21:48:00 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: from their official website What is Alpha Course? laz p.s. good luck finding ANYTHING that resembles a doctrinal statement. I've given up!! haha! The founding church, HTB (http://www.htb.org.uk/index.htm) reminds me of Willow Creek. ah, but I noticed that the Vineyard Churches, the Church of England and Romanists have found common ground....hmmmmmmm, call me a skeptic.

Subject: The basis of all falsehood From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 17:47:21 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Oftentimes we feel that we have to 'soften the blow' when delivering the truth to someone. While there is no need to be cruel, frank and open honesty, delivered without malice or intent to injure, is not wrong. What am I referring to is that more that one person has felt it necessary to point out to Catherine that 'Protestants' are guilty of error and false worship, as if that makes a difference as to whether people who believe as the RCC does are saved. It doesn't. The fundamental truth is that error is error, whoever makes it. Falsehood concerning salvation, its means, its source, and its attainment has no boundary. It is false, whether it originates in the RCC or in some non-Catholic group. And all falsehood is based on the nullification of grace. The Catholics nullify grace in the dogma of their church, and many others nullify it also, not understanding that they are doing so in either case. The Apostle Paul states twice directly (Eph. 2:5, 8) and numerous times by inference and indirectly that salvation is 'by grace.' Moreover, one of the hallmarks of his epistles is that faith is the outgrowth of grace and the means of justification. Ask non-Catholics what it is that saves and most will reply, 'Faith.' And that is not so: 'For by grace are ye saved,' declares Paul. If one must have faith to obtain grace, then the faith must come from a dead man. It must first come from within one who has no spiritual life so that he may get grace because then God owes it to him on account of his new faith. He has, therefore, 'merited' grace, or earned it. Romans chapters 3 & 4 are the primer for both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. There we find what it is which saves and why. And the progression which the Apostle lays out through the Spirit's direction is so clear and plain as to leave no doubt. It is laid out in steps and is detailed and no mystery. It is so simple that even a child can grasp it. Just as Paul states that first step in salvation is grace in Eph. 2, he states the same thing in Romans 3. God is at the heart of the process and God initiates the steps and brings them to fruition. In verses 21-25, we find that the righteousness of God is demanded of men and that without it, there is no salvation among men. But Paul has just spent much time offering elaborate proof in the previous verses that men are lost and dead in trespasses and sins (the same thing he says in Eph. 2) apart from God's grace and while in their natural state. See especially 3:1-20, which concludes, in effect, with the statement in verse 20 that there is no work which man can do which will result in his salvation. Man can't justify himself before God, having no inherent righteousness, so he must have it given, granted, reckoned, or imputed to him by God. And not just any righteousness will do. It must be perfection, the very righteousness of God Himself. The righteousness which resides in God can't reside in man by any means except by a gift of God. We call that gifting of what we don't and can't deserve, 'grace.' All that is summed up in the twenty-fourth verse of Romans 3, where Paul says that saved people are, 'justified freely by his [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.' Without the payment of the penalty for the sins of saved men, there is no basis for God to regard them as 'justified,' or made righteous. They must have the sin judged or it resides forever with them in spiritual death. Only one who is freed from the penalty of sin can receive the righteousness of God; one under the penalty of death and one who possesses the righteousness of the holy God cannot exist simultaneously. The person for whom the Lord Jesus died may be justified on the basis of what God did for him when he did not and could not deserve it, i. e., in grace. Grace grants the saved person new life so that he has the desire and ability to turn to God in Christ 'through faith.' Until then he is spiritually dead and God's enemy (Rom. 8:7). When that desire for Christ and the ability to hear God's promises with faith (Rom. 10:17) is given by God, the person then gets his new heart's desire to turn to God in Christ in salvation through faith and is justified. That process is described in Rom. 3:26-31. Now, if a person has to find faith first, preceding any of this, it is his own movement, initiative, and desire which is to be praised, not God's grace. Man is thus exalted, not God, not the Savior, but the dead man who came to faith in God, resulting in his salvation. That is nothing short of works salvation and it is a common conception of salvation among multitudes of professing Christians. The same falsehood is the basis for the Catholic error. The initiation of the procedure is with man, rather than with God. This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the 'necessity' of the sacramental system: 'Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony.' It immediately becomes obvious that the grace God gives is a responsive grace, not an initiating one. It is 'in answer' to what men do. Once again, salvation is merited or earned, not 'freely' given on the part of a merciful God. This, just as with the other falsehood of faith's 'merit,' puts salvation under the realm of man's control, rather than God's. Further evidence of this is given in this statement under the same heading in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have quoted below the statement of the Council of Trent: ''Against all innovators the Council of Trent declared: 'If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema' (Sess. viii, can.vi). 'If anyone say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God's promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema.''' It is clear from the words that the sacraments 'contain the grace' what they meant, but the RCC has become uncomfortable with the fire they have received for that, so they write: 'The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle to grace on the part of the recipients, who must receive them rite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it a calumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4). Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from the sacramentals, which may cause grace ex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of the prayers of the Church or the good, pious sentiments of those who use them.' Still, it is plain that the person receiving the grace doesn't do so purely 'according to the good pleasure of [God's] will,' as Ephesians 1:5 and verse 9 proclaim, but because he has first somehow been made good enough by his and the church's actions to receive it. It is the same old glorification of man wrapped up in a different guise. That there is no saving merit in receiving a sacrament or sign and that grace precedes any action of man is proved in Romans 4. Remembering how faith is obtained (as the gift of God's grace), and remembering that it is 'by grace through faith' that one is justified, we have to look at the supreme example of faith in the Bible, cited by Paul. 'For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. [It wasn't righteousness, but it was 'imputed' to him because God decreed that it would be so in grace.] How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his righteousness [already possessed] of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them [uncircumcised Gentiles] also; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the cimcumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father, Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised' (verses 9-12). Now just following that is a very significant verse. number 16: 'Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed [of Abraham]...who is the father of us all.' 'AHA!' someone says, 'it is by faith first.' Far from it. The Bible doesn't say, 'by faith,' either here, or in Ephesians 2. It is 'of faith' and 'through faith,' but in each case, it is 'by grace.' God's grace determines salvation and gifts His recipient with faith, precluding all works and efforts by man. By means of His grace and His gift of it, God has determined that certain men in His will be given faith and, therefore, justified in His sight, saved, and to be glorified with His Son. This same Paul, who thoroughly understood what the Spirit was leading him to write, also wrote, under inspiration of the same Spirit of God, 'So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy' (Rom. 9:16). The precepts of God which he had been writing about for the eight and one half preceding chapters could lead him to no other conclusion. It must be our own conclusion also.

Subject: true love. From: Five Sola To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 13:00:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, This is a little off-topic and maybe I should post it in another thread (don't ask me why I didn't :-) ), But I came to me when I read the beginning of your post. 'Oftentimes we feel that we have to 'soften the blow' when delivering the truth to someone. While there is no need to be cruel, frank and open honesty, delivered without malice or intent to injure, is not wrong.' It seems in today's society of pseudo-tolerance, and pseudo-ecumenism (ie, Promise Keepers, Evangelicals-Catholics Together, Lutheran-Catholic Accord, etc) that the thought of pointing out the unbiblicalness of someones belief or doctrines is wrong, hateful and counterproductive to evangelism. Nothing could be further from the truth, one must only look at the evangelism of Jesus, Paul, Peter, Stephen, etc to see the opposite. In actuality to keep quite on the damnable errors of Roman Catholics (for example) is to show the purest of hatred to them. If we truly want to obey Christ Great Commission we must speak to those of the Roman Catholic Religion and show them the truth of Scriptures. What the true Gospel is. To show them their errors IN LOVE is the what we are called to do, and to do that shows our love for them as creatures made in the image of God. To do otherwise is actually the hatred we are so often falsely accused of. Five Sola

Subject: Re: true love. From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 14:22:18 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Good post! That is another reason why I brought up the Alpha Course, in my post above. That and the fact that many of my friends will be taking this course soon. Though I am not sure how to approach the situation, should I find out the theology of the course is wrong. I do however like the concept of what the course is trying to do. It could very well be an excellent forum in which the curious could learn about the truth and Christians could grow deeper in Christ. Provided of course that the gospel is not compromised in any way. Tom

Subject: Re: true love. From: Rod To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 14:12:11 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Five S, That's it 100%! Thank you for stating it so well.

Subject: Hobad in Numbers 10 From: cousin earl To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 10:21:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Would like a little discussion about Moses asking Hobad to stay with the children of Israel and be their eyes. What is this passage relate about Gods will? Thanks

Subject: Re: Hobad in Numbers 10 From: Rod To: cousin earl Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 14:36:17 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Earl, Could you please elaborate on this question a little? 'What is this passage relate about Gods will? Thanks.' I've been waiting for someone else to answer this, but since none has, if I am certain what you're asking, I'd give it a shot.

Subject: Salvation: the true test From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 16:39:26 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: We've all written a lot about salvation, what it is, and how to know if one has it, but the fact is we've not yet identified in this latest round of discussion what the Bible identifies as the real and only way to be saved and to have assurance of it in succinct terms. What does God say about that? John 20:31 'But these [things] are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.' Once again we are back to saving faith, given by grace, not mere knowledge and acknowledgement: 'Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well. The demons also believe and tremble' (James 2:19). John also gives us the means of our assurance of salvation in his first epistle: 'By this know we that we dwell in him, and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit' (4:14); 'And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life' (5:20). Paul states this same theme in Romans: 'For as many as are led by the Spirit of God [indwelling them in new, spiritual life], they are the sons of God. For ye [who are saved] have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs--heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ--if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together' (8:14-17). This is in perfect keeping with the declaration of 8:9: 'But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.' And the text demands that the converse is true: If a man has the Spirit of Christ, he does belong to Him! Paul restates the same thing, the evidence of true salvation and the basis of full assurance in Col. 1:26-27: '...Even the mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints [sanctified ones], 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.' It is necessary and most significant to know that the word translated 'hope' here is synonymous with 'assurance.' That is the reason the Lord Jesus gives us the assurance of salvation in John 10: 'My sheep hear my voice [because of the life within from the Spirit of God], and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them to me [past tense], is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand' (verses 27-29). The internal life from the Spirit of God is the evidence and the assurance of salvation. That, by the direct and repeated testimony of the Bible, the Word of God, the one test and one basis of assurance of salvation. To whom God gives life in the Son, that person is saved. There is nothing to add to it and nothing can make him 'more saved.' It is so; and it is final. That is why Paul said, 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto good works [not because of them], which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10).

Subject: Re: Salvation: the true test From: Eric To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 07:19:44 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: As you have correctly pointed out, the true assurance of salvation is the inward testimony of the Spirit, and therefore cannot be infallibly judged by men. It is because of this that we should be very wary in making judgements of the final state of someone elses soul if they profess that they trust Christ alone for salvation, and bear the normal marks associated with regeneration. God bless.

Subject: Re: Salvation: the true test From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 10:15:07 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Eric, The words of the last clause of this sentence are particularly important: 'It is because of this that we should be very wary in making judgements of the final state of someone elses soul if they profess that they trust Christ alone for salvation, and bear the normal marks associated with regeneration.' It is for that reason that the Lord Jesus concluded Matt. 12:33 with these words: 'for the tree is known by its fruit.' It goes right back to Tom's point of a few days ago about Rom. 8:4, a saved person must and will reflect his new life and 'walk after the Spirit.' It is part and portion of being 'conformed to the image of the Son' as identified by verse 29, the work of God in the life of His redeemed.

Subject: so true From: Five Sola To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:49:51 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Good point. I think that is the problem that many of Eric's point of view misunderstand (or I assume it is a misunderstanding). By this discussion of the salvation of Roman Catholics (and recently Arminians) it is assumed that we are examining their hearts. This is not so. We are examining their theology. If their theology is non-biblical and if they truly hold to that within their heart then they are unsaved. Scripture gives us permission to judge the fruits of one's souls, not the souls themselves. So like Pilgrim brought out, if a Roman Catholic is a Roman Catholic in their heart their are unsaved. If a Arminian is an Arminian in their heart they are unsaved. But thankfully through God's grace and mercy there are many Arminians that are inconsistent in their theology and/or Arminians only in their rhetoric (sp?). Five Sola

Subject: Re: so true From: Eric To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 14:33:18 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: That has been my point all along. I was arguing against judging the soul of another as opposed to their doctrine. As I pointed out initially, the majority of professing Christians (Catholics and Protestants alike) have no real understanding of biblical doctrine, or even what their own particular church teaches. The issue was whether one can be inconsistent in what they believe in their hearts, and what they understand in their heads, and be saved. So, I have said that it is possible for a Catholic to trust in Christ alone for their salvation and thus be saved. It is not belief in certain thoughts about Christ that saves, but rather Christ himself. I have no doubt that many people who profess sound doctrine are just as lost as the Catholic who believes the RCC doctrine of salvation. So, if somebody asks whether or not Catholics are saved. The only biblical response is: Anybody who trusts in Christ alone for their salvation is saved. And that is what I have been maintaining all along. God bless.

Subject: Re: so true From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 17:23:04 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, Not to beat this topic to death, but I am compelled to respond to the following statement you made: It is not belief in certain thoughts about Christ that saves, but rather Christ himself. What I object to here is the bifurcation you have made, and which far too many Evangelicals make, concerning doctrine and Christ. One cannot rightly believe on Christ without knowing the truth ABOUT Christ. Doctrine is not ancillary!! It is essential as Scripture and the Lord Christ Himself affirm. Let's take for example the masses that followed the Lord Jesus throughout His ministry and even believed upon Him: John 2:23 'Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.' and in another place: John 8:30 'As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?' There are of course many other examples that we could bring to show that many believe on Christ, but for the wrong reason, because their understanding is 'darkened' and they have no need of the Lord Christ as He truly is. The most obvious examples today are Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. But there are far more who are on the surface 'Orthodox' yet have no saving faith despite their confession to 'believe in Jesus'! The Epistles also speak of the necessity of right doctrine in relation to salvation. Why would Paul, for instance, spend so much time preaching 'sound doctrine' to his hearers before speaking of repentance and faith in Christ? He admonished his young disciple in the faith, Timothy, 1Tim 4:16 'Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.' Doctrine is indispensable to one's right believing upon the biblical Lord Jesus Christ. And but one more quote from Paul here to make the point even further: 2Cor 11:3 'But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.' There are two elements here that we must regard with the utmost attention: 1) What Jesus are people putting their 'faith' in? 2) What kind of 'faith' do they possess? Is it fleshly 'faith' or a fiduciary 'faith' that is wrought by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit? It is very difficult to conceive that one will be saved by 'believing' upon a false Jesus that comes by way of wrong doctrinal preaching. Yes, God has marvelously saved, as anyone who is truly saved is done so marvelously and miraculously, those who have not heard sound preaching and the pure Gospel of salvation. But that is God's sovereign work wherein only He has the power to lead one to a right understanding of the truth, which the Lord Christ says will set one free. At best, we must admit that in such cases, as is in our finite ability to do so, one sits in a precarious position who has been exposed to such preaching. And it is up to those who have been given to know the truth to try and lead such individuals to an understanding of the truth either for the first time or 'more perfectly'! (Acts 18:24-26). Salvation is not the embracing of sound doctrine, but salvation is not embraced without it. For it is the 'means' and the 'power of God' unto salvation Rom 1:16 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.' As to judging others and their salvation, perhaps this article might be of some edification to you and others: Is it Right to Judge? In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: so true From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 08:23:47 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello Pilgrim, You wrote One cannot rightly believe on Christ without knowing the truth ABOUT Christ. Doctrine is not ancillary!! It is essential as Scripture and the Lord Christ Himself affirm.....Salvation is not the embracing of sound doctrine, but salvation is not embraced without it. Obviously one must know some truths about Christ in order to believe, but which ones? And if salvation is not embraced w/o sound doctrine, how much false doctrine can be present before salvation is not to be embraced. If justification is a once for all declaration, how is it that one's understanding of doctrine almost always is very limited and in error upon first believing in Christ. When my 6 year old son knelt by his bed to pray that Christ would forgive him of his sin, did Christ hear him? Was his doctrine sound enough? And it is true that God's Spirit will guide one into more truth, it is also true that some are granted greater understanding than others. (cf Heb 6:3) So the question that has been unanswered is what specific facts must be understood and affirmed in order for someone to judge whether a person is elect, or reprobate? (This question isn't necessarily directed towards Pilgrim) Some verses to consider: Mark 10:17-28 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. 'Good teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'' 'Teacher,' he declared, 'all these I have kept since I was a boy.' Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, 'How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!' The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.' Acts 16:30-33 He then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. God bless.

Subject: Re: so true From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 15:34:12 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, You asked, 'And if salvation is not embraced w/o sound doctrine, how much false doctrine can be present before salvation is not to be embraced.' I don't know how many times I have heard this question asked, but assuredly it has been in the hundreds. Why ask such a question, I ask? It is akin to the similar question just as often asked, 'How much of the world can I incorporate in my life and still be considered a Christian?' These questions and others like them are very revealing about one's spiritual condition. No, I'm not even going to make a judgment at this point about your spirituality or anyone else's. However, it does indicate that there is an unhealthy aspect to it. Rather, the question should be, 'How much truth can I learn and teach to others concerning salvation in Christ Jesus the Lord?' It is God Who calls! It is God Who regenerates! It is God Who justifies! It is God Who sanctifies! It is God Who glorifies! And we are responsible to preach the truth to sinners as the means of grace. Let's move on from this shall we, that is if you can accept that man is responsible to 'continue in Christ's Word', to 'grow in grace', evangelize the lost, etc. What needs to be addressed here is the complimentary aspect of faith itself. Surely, those who heard the Lord Jesus preach and teach heard the truth presented to them perfectly. There was no faulty or erroneous doctrine that proceeded from the mouth of Him. Yet, there were still multitudes which did not believe. And there were others who did believe, yet who were yet dead in their sins. As I tried to point out in my last reply to you, right doctrine (the pure gospel) is essential, concerning our responsibility to present it to the world. What God does with our down fallings, ignorance, etc. is not our concern. We are not to presume upon God's sovereign mercy to over ride our slothfulness or our heretical views. Now, while right theology/doctrine is an essential element of gospel preaching, the embracing of it by anyone in no way equates with salvation. When the Holy Spirit regenerates a sinner, ALL his faculties are recreated; mind, emotions and will. Hearing with the ears of flesh, comprehending and assenting with the mind are not salvation. Biblical salvation comes fundamentally and initially out of a heart felt NEED. One who has been 'quickened' will first and foremost have a conviction of sin wrought in his/her soul. This one is 'driven' to Christ out of necessity. The truth of the gospel is the MEANS by which the Spirit works these virtues in the heart. And the result is an irresistible NEED of the Lord Christ and His substitutionary work. There is also an insatiable desire to be reconciled to God as the Creator and Father, which Christ alone is able to accomplish through faith. The Lord Jesus said, Mark 2:17 '. . . They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' If there is no apprehension of 'sickness', no conviction and guilt of sin, then one will never come to Christ with a spirit wrought faith unto justification. All other 'believing' is of the flesh and cannot save. Thus the more we are able to convey to a person about God and His inexorable holiness, the Fall and its consequences that all men share in common, Christ Jesus in His person and work, the final Judgment, etc. the better that person will be able to comprehend, at least intellectually, of his/her NEED. Again, assenting to Truth, regardless of how little or how much does not equate with salvation. This is the heresy of Sandamanianism, which today is rampant among the churches. Easy Believism produces multitudes of hell bound sinners who have the name of Jesus on their lips and walk around with Bibles in their hands, who are convinced that God loves them and Jesus is their friend. You also asked: When my 6 year old son knelt by his bed to pray that Christ would forgive him of his sin, did Christ hear him? Was his doctrine sound enough? I'm not even going to go there! :-) May it be so that the Spirit has given your son new life and he is covered in the white garments of Christ's righteousness by grace through faith. I never presumed upon my own children's salvation, and to do so concerning your son, upon what you have relayed here would be more than foolish. As Rod rightly pointed out to you, there was much more said to the hearers of the accounts you referenced than has been recorded in Scripture, as is the case in so many other places. I am convinced that the Jews of Jesus' day were far more knowledgeable of the Scriptures than most professing Christians today. Add to this the teaching of Christ Himself and that of the disciples who went out preaching the 'good news'. No one believed on Christ salvifically simply by the hearing of the name and praying a 'sinner's prayer'!! No one is saved in a vacuum. How much doctrine must one hear/know before they can be saved? As much as we are able to tell them by God's providential grace!! In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: so true From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 12:53:52 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric You used very good scripture referrences. Obviously the rich man's problem was that he was not able to put Jesus ahead of his wealth. I think the following statement by Jesus confirms that: 'Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.' I think it is safe to say, that only those who are elect, will believe/follow. Like John 6:65 says 'And He said, 'Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by my Father.' I also believe that when one first believes, they do so with only the basics, much like the example of your son. The only problem I see is, obviously it is important to embrace the basics of the true gospel. Otherwise their faith is founded on something that isn't real. Hence they have not got true faith. I think that is why scripture gives the warning in James 3:1,'My brethern, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we recieve a stricter judgment'. I once read that John Knox, took this warning very seriously, so much in fact that everytime he prepared to preach the gospel. He cried openly to God, because he was afraid of preaching something that wasn't true, to those who heard his message. Hope this helps Tom

Subject: Re: so true From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Sep 26, 2000 at 14:17:38 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: It's interesting to note a few things in realtion to the second Scripture reference. First is this, prior to the washing of the wounds and baptism and believing, the people had the Word of God preached to them. We aren't told what the Apostle said specifically, but we can be sure that he told them the essentials of the faith and that they believed them, a la Rom.10:17. A contrasting example is Nicodemus in John 3 who, though told more than once by the Lord Jesus, 'Ye must be born again,' could not accept it at that point with faith, though he was (literally) 'the [foremost] teacher of Israel.' We aren't given his salvation experience, but it evidently came later, as he was given more of the teaching and the grace to receive it. And, just a reminder, before one has faith unto justification, he has to be given the life of the Spirit of God beforehand: 'But ye are not in the flesh [dead in trespasses and sins] but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9). The regeneration by the Spirit precedes all else. That's why it is repeated by Paul in different places that 'salvation is by grace.'

Subject: Rod and Pilgrim From: Eric To: Rod Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:51:33 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, I agree with your point. I was even going to make the same comment on the passage when I posted it, but I knew somebody else would--I guessed it would be you. :) Pilgrim, I don't appreciate your insinuation as to the spiritual condition of someone who asks 'how much error can be embraced and still be saved.' The whole conversation has been about Catholics and salvation, and all discussions have been about theoretical points, and not personal issues, I can only guess as to why you would include an inappropriate comment like that in a post. (oops I did the same thing) Since nobody wants to answer the main question in contention, I will assume this conversation has run it's course. If someone wants to give it a shot, here it is. What specific facts, and understandings about those facts, must one believe in order for us to judge whether an individual is saved or not? God bless.

Subject: Re: Rod and Pilgrim From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 07:53:34 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I stand firm on my comment concerning ANYONE'S spiritual health who asks such questions concerning salvation. A 'healthy' spirit does not ask 'how little righteousness, how little doctrine, etc. can one have and still be saved'. Such an attitude reveals a lack of the 'fruit of the Spirit' to be sure. It is so obvious, that I am rather amazed that you would be offended and even more that you or anyone would not realize that this is a given. Compare such with the testimony of King David: Ps 119:1 'Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. 2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. 3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. 4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. 5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes! 6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. 7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments. 8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly. 9 BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. 10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. 11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. 12 Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. 13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. 14 I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. 15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. 16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.' Notice that both a godly life and the desire to KNOW God's Word (doctrine) is included in David's heart and prayer to the LORD. In my other replies I have also included some of Paul's inspired words which show the necessity of knowing, teaching and preaching right doctrine, for they are used of God as a means of grace, both to the unconverted and to the saints. So too, all who profess to be in a living relationship with Christ are commanded and must desire to 'love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.' (Mk 12:30). Asking 'how little' we can offer obedience to God's law, asking how little of God's truth must we embrace, etc. is antithetical to spirituality and not indicative of one who loves God. Does such a confession mean that one is unregenerate? No, not necessarily, for all of us are 'prone to wander' and having the remnant of the 'old man' resident within us constantly wars against the spirit (Rom 7:7ff). And thus we are in a state of constant repentance. But if such questions are a motivating force within us which have the upper hand, then this truly is a dangerous sign. Further, I specifically wrote that I was not intending to judge you or anyone else as to their spiritual condition, yet you chose to take offense, having obviously ignored this comment and taken my words personally. Did my words prick your conscious therefore? If so, then perhaps you need to take heed to your own soul in this regard. Now lastly, you are want to press this issue as to 'how much' right doctrine/knowledge of the Gospel must one have in order to be saved. Again, it isn't a matter of HOW MUCH, but rather HOW RIGHT the doctrine is that one must know. To each is given to know as the Spirit wills. There is no AMOUNT of doctrine/truth that is set forth in Scripture that one must embrace IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. It is Christ Who saves and by grace through faith. What we DO know is that there are multitudes of false gospels, false christs, false spirits which were, are and will continue to be preached on earth before men. Naming the name of Jesus does not save anyone. There is no 'magic' in the name of Jesus Christ itself. It is the embracing of the person of the Lord Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures that counts. What is the Gospel? I would direct your attention to this section of The Highway: Calvinism and the Reformed Faith and more specifically to the second category on that page where you will find several articles that address that question. May I remind you that it is not just a matter of 'right doctrine' that must be embraced, but with a true knowledge of God, Christ, sin, redemption, etc., there MUST ALSO be a DESIRE of heart to embrace the true Christ out of a Spirit-wrought and heart-felt NEED of Him. One must KNOW in one's being; head and heart that they are a sinner and that the Lord Christ alone is their only hope. Wrong directions will rarely bring you to the appointed destination regardless of how diligent you are in following them. Sincerity alone doesn't save anyone. There is no reward for embracing error. In His Grace, Pilgrim 'Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.' - John Owen (1616-1683)

Subject: lol, lighten up. From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:09:17 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim wrote: Did my words prick your conscious therefore? If so, then perhaps you need to take heed to your own soul in this regard. Give me a break! Again, we were having a theoretical discussion, and then you post some nonsensical statement, about the state of someone's soul who would dare ask such a question! I wasn't offended, but rather surprised that you would take such an approach. Now lastly, you are want to press this issue as to 'how much' right doctrine/knowledge of the Gospel must one have in order to be saved. Again, it isn't a matter of HOW MUCH, but rather HOW RIGHT the doctrine is that one must know. To each is given to know as the Spirit wills. There is no AMOUNT of doctrine/truth that is set forth in Scripture that one must embrace IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. It is Christ Who saves and by grace through faith....May I remind you that it is not just a matter of 'right doctrine' that must be embraced, but with a true knowledge of God, Christ, sin, redemption, etc., there MUST ALSO be a DESIRE of heart to embrace the true Christ out of a Spirit-wrought and heart-felt NEED of Him. One must KNOW in one's being; head and heart that they are a sinner and that the Lord Christ alone is their only hope. Hmm, you seem to have answered my question. Correct me if I am wrong but you have answered: 1. A true knowledge of God, Christ, sin, redemption, etc. 2. One must KNOW in one's being; head and heart that they are a sinner and that the Lord Christ alone is their only hope. You gave a good answer, I would say that #2 is normally required, and that a rudimentary knowledge of #1 is normally needed. But, we all hope that Christ saves those who are incapable of either. Obviously the thief on the cross did not necessarily meet both conditions, probably #2. And the most of the OT saints had no clear understanding of the incarnation, nor the details of redemption. Lastly, cheer up, my friend. Life is much better than we deserve, Christ is on the throne, He has overcome! God bless.

Subject: Re: lol, lighten up. From: Tom.H To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:53:50 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric You said: Obviously the thief on the cross did not necessarily meet both conditions, probably #2. May I remind you that if you follow the gospel naritive of the thief on the cross, that his statements indicated that he displayed both charactaristics of #'s 1 & 2. I suggest you read the passage again. The fact that he would even say those things in the first place, is evidence that God was at work in his life, drawing him to Christ. Jesus' reply shows that, the thief's heart condition was right, since He had the ability to look inside a person's heart. Tom

Subject: Re: lol, lighten up. From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:55:33 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric - you funny! The WCF acknowledges the 'normal/ordinary' means of salvation just as Pilgrim has articulated. I don't think anyone here would dispute that 'extraordinary' means may/do exist whereby God touches the 'thieves on crosses', retarded, blind/deaf/dumb, etc unto salvation. But on the whole.....misplaced sincerity and gross doctrinal error are a 'problem'... as is presumption for that matter. ;-) laz

Subject: Re: so true From: Rod To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 14:26:36 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Five S, If one has saving faith in God's promises in the Lord Jesus by the prior saving grace in regeneration of God, even if he fails to understand it all, then he has it. That is, he is justified by God and saved. However, if one has faith in something other than Christ Jesus as Savior, an organization or priests or preachers for example, to bring him to God, then he doesn't have God's grace or saving faith; the mediation of 'the man Christ Jesus,' the 'one mediator between God and men' isn't his. If one believes the position of the RCC, he cannot have faith in Christ alone as Savior, for there are too many layers of mediation between the Lord Jesus and the member of that organization. These lead him, not in the direction of God in Christ, but in the direction of the power of the organization and its administration to save him, in place of the power of the grace of God through simple faith in Christ Jesus. When officials of that religious organization say, 'Neglecting to pray to Mary leads to neglecting to pray to Jesus,' (and I have heard priests say this exact thing), that leads away from the Lord Jesus, not to Him.

Subject: Salvation--Roman Catholic view From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 09:21:45 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Often when the subject of the RCC comes up, Catholics and uninformed non-Catholics assume that a blind, unreasonable hatred of Catholics is the norm for those of us opposing this false system. While some misguided people may indeed do that, it is important to understand that it isn't the individuals who are opposed and hated by thinking and submitted-to-Christ Christians (just as we don't hate others outside the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ), but a false Christianity, a terrible system of untruth and heresy. No one can give a definitive analysis here in this brief space of the whole of the situation and I'm not qualified to even try, but, for those who don't know what is being dealt with and don't understand the absolute nedessity for opposition to this false religious system, let me point out a few things. As I have tried to point out to Catherine, 'salvation' to the RCC means something entirely different to the RCC than to the true Christian Church. To illustrate that, let me quote some items from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/). But, first, I have to point out the extremely significant fact that under 'S' at this site, the word 'salvation' is not even listed! It is used and discussed in connection with certain sacraments, for example, but is not discussed as a separate subject. This is very telling, as is the way in which it is employed in the Encyclopedia. For example, concerning 'Holy Communion,' this is said: 'The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptaions and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, whter [sic] is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life. How often this precept urges outside the danger of death it is not easy to say, but many hold that the Church has practically determined the Divine precept by the law of the Fourth Council of Lateran (c.xxi) confirmed by Trent, which obliges the faithful to receive Communion once each year within Paschal Time.' Now note several things about this statement: First, it is not the pronouncement of the Bible on the subject which is in view, but 'the doctrine of the Church,' the RCC. This is reemphasized in another clause which reads ' many hold that the Church has practically determined the Divine precept by' two councils. The Bible is not quoted on this subject, but the final authority is with the councils. Very revealing for the non-Catholic not familiar with the process of that body. Concerning 'baptism', here is a compelling statement: 'One of the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church frequently called the ''first sacrament'', the ''door of the sacrament'', and the''door of the Church''.' It is immediately obvious that regeneration isn't at all possible without this 'sacramment' being administered by the priesthood of the RCC. Confirming that the RCC teaches 'baptismal regeneration' are these words: 'Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti.' Thus far, in order to obtain salvation, we have seen that one must be baptized by the RCC and take communion administered by it. Are we beginning to get a clue that this is a 'works salvation?' Before leaving this subject of baptism, notice this statement (again from the 'Necessity' of baptism): 'It is owing to the Church's belief in this necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that, as was already noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said that baptism is also necessary, by the necessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving a precept, viz. adults.' [Emphasis added by me.] Interestingly, we find this statement regarding the attitude of the RCC for those of us outside it: 'In general, we may state that the Church claims no authority over unbaptized persons, as they are entirely without her pale. She [the RCC] makes laws concerning them only in so far as they hold relations with the subjects of the Church.' That simple statement, regarding others unbaptized by RCC individuals, shows the position they hold (or actually don't hold) as being 'saved.' I would like to quote and examine all the expressions on baptism, but that is impossible. I will stop the discussion of their views of baptism with this : 'XII. EFFECTS OF BAPTISM This sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons of God. Baptism incorporates us with Christ's mystical body and makes us partakers of all the privileges flowing from the redemptive act of the Church's Divine Founder. We shall now outline the principal effects of baptism. (1) The Remission of All Sin, Original and Actual ' I find that this is most interesting. Baptism supposedly does all this, but it isn't enough. More sacraments must be observed and more 'work' must be done. In fact, the concept of a once and for all regenerative, born again, experience in which a person is made alive together with Christ in salvation by the grace of God alone is completely foreign to the RCC. Proof for that is contained in this statement under 'Regeneration': 'As regards the use of the term in Catholic theology, no connected history of regeneration can be written, as neither Christian antiquity nor medieval Scholasticism worked consistently and regularly to develop this pregnant and fruitful idea. At every period, however, the Sacrament of Baptism was regarded as the specific sacrament of regeneration, a concept that was not extended to the Sacrament of Penance.' [Emphasis added by me.] Since this isn't a scholarly treatise and since I don't want to belabor the points too much, I will stop with a few concluding remarks. It is manifest from these statements of the RCC that Catholicism is a 'works slavation' religion. That a person can never be assured of being saved conclusively in this life is evident by the fact that he must keep 'doing things' as required by and administered by the RCC priesthood and heirarchy. The RCC knows nothing of the principles stated in Eph. 2:4-5: '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 alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)'. 'By grace are ye saved through faith' declares verse 8, repeating the principle of truth of salvation. This the RCC denies and doesn't understand. I submit that neither Catherine nor any other follower of this system can 'know' that they are saved in the manner described here by Paul. It is a terrible system of religion without effecacious grace. May God deliver His people from it. P.S. I particularly recommend that you take at look at 'Grace' in their Enclyclopedia, particularly 'Controversies.' Very revealing for the non-Catholic.

Subject: Re: Salvation--Roman Catholic view From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:26:26 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod and Others, All these errors which you have mentioned, and to which many more could be added, are but evidences and the means by which the fundamental error of Rome (which is shared by all other religions), i.e., 'Justification via SYNERGISM' or in the vernacular: 'Faith + Works = Justification', is apprehended. The RCC strongly claims that salvation is 'all of grace'. Their literature is replete with this claim. However, what Rome understands as 'grace' is a far different thing than what Protestants and the Scriptures define as GRACE. Secondly, as Luther succinctly put it and to which Rome gnashed its teeth against him, 'simul iustus et peccatore', i.e., When a person is Justified by grace through faith God DECLARES/PRONOUNCES that person Righteous while that same person remains a Sinner. This forensic/legal declaration is grounded in the active and passive work of the Lord Christ who satisfied all the demands of the law, both in the keeping of it and suffering the penalty it demands for those who transgress it VICARIOUSLY and SUBSTITUTIONALLY for all those whom the Father gave Him from eternity. At the very moment a person trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ by a living faith, GOD DECLARES and ACCEPTS that individual as RIGHTEOUS. Consequently, this same person is adopted into the Kingdom of God and made an heir of all the benefits, both earthly and heavenly which Christ secured through His efficacious atonement. Having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God, the redeemed sinner CONTINUES to exhibit this 'new birth/life' throughout his/her life by the doing of 'good works' whereby the person is continually being conformed to the 'image of Christ'. This is of course the SANCTIFICATION of the justified sinner which does not and CANNOT contribute to Justification, since the Justification is complete in the Lord Jesus Christ and declared to be so by GOD by grace through faith!. Again, all these other errors which we Reformed Christians see in Roman Catholicism are but the MEANS to accomplish the end, i.e., Justification is a PROCESS that is secured through baptism, faith, good works, penance, confession, purgatory, indulgences, etc., etc., etc.! It is true that men like Hans Kuhn and others are coming closer to the biblical truth concerning the doctrine of Justification, but they are yet unable to embrace it as taught by the Scriptures and the Reformation. Consequently, they are teaching a FATAL error. Let us all pray that Rome will come to embrace the glorious truth that 'God Saves Sinners'. But until then we MUST oppose ALL and ANY teaching that distorts or denies the biblical doctrine of SOLA FIDE. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Salvation--Roman Catholic view From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 10:23:01 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Pilgrim, I am interested in your thoughts on whether you believe that Catholics are lost. And if so, how do you distinguish between the Catholic view of salvation and the Arminian, wherby the Arminian must add their faith to Christ's work on the cross, in order to enable their salvation? ISTM, that the fundamental error is the same. God bless.

Subject: Re: Salvation--Roman Catholic view From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:38:33 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Pilgrim, I am interested in your thoughts on whether you believe that Catholics are lost. And if so, how do you distinguish between the Catholic view of salvation and the Arminian, wherby the Arminian must add their faith to Christ's work on the cross, in order to enable their salvation? ISTM, that the fundamental error is the same. God bless. --- Eric, Let me answer your first question initially this way: No true Roman Catholic can be saved for to embrace the Roman Catholic doctrine of soteriology denies the efficacy of Christ's atonement and to trust in something other/in addition to it. That there are individuals who are members of the Roman State Church who have been regenerated and embrace Christ with a true living faith cannot be denied. However, I believe that the number of such persons is few. John Hampshire is correct in this one thing at least, that being that a true Christian will eventually be compelled to leave that 'church' as the Spirit brings to their experience and knowledge the truth of the Lord Christ and the doctrine of salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone according to the Scriptures Alone. As to your second question concerning the Arminian soteriology as compared to the Roman Catholic soteriology: it seems obvious that Arminianism is a modified form of Catholicism (synergism) as the Synod of Dortrecht rightly judged it, as has the vast majority of Reformed people have also judged it. August Toplady wrote a tract called, 'Arminianism the Road to Rome', I believe, which shows the similarities between the two and the inherent dangers of Arminianism. And if I may be so bold as to assert, that personally, I believe that somewhere around 90% of all Protestant churches are more Roman Catholic in their soteriology and are guilty of 'synergism' no less than Rome. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Salvation--Roman Catholic view From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 10:00:15 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, Good to see you posting again. You are, of course, exactly right. And, yes, there many more errors in that organization than we have time to catalog and than people have the patience to endure reading. I have tried to give just the basic fallacies, but to do it in such a way as to illustrate how pervasive they are. The RCC documents are always verbose, convoluted, and unncessarily involved and one must wade through a great deal of material and be weighed down with rhetoric to get to their real beliefs. But when one does, he is always left with this stark, and devastating to the truth of God in His revealed Word, fact: Salvation is through the RCC and not through the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The 'one meditor between God and men' is ignored and mediation must continually take place as administered by the priesthood and only by that organization. Jumping through the sacramental 'hoops' established by that religious body is the only means of entrance into Heaven. May God remove the scales from the eyes of many and rescue multitudes from this error.

Subject: Re: Salvation--Roman Catholic view From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:43:48 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Amen, brother!! What one needs to do and that tenaciously is to first understand the definition of the terms used. When one does this carefully and methodically, one will quickly see that in the Catholic 'system' grace is a far different thing that what the Scriptures define grace as. And this is also true with many other commonly used terms/words. The deception is pervasive and effective to the unwary and/or undiscerning individual who would have unity at any cost. In His Grace, Pilgrim PS. Glad to be back after 3 weeks of R&R! :-) On Justification: 'If the purity of this doctrine is in any degree impaired the Church has received a deadly wound and brought to the very brink of destruction. Whenever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown. - John Calvin 'The Necessity of Reforming the Church' p. 42

Subject: Re: Salvation--Roman Catholic view From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:33:28 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Oh, it's even worse than all that, Rod. ...we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.' --Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum, 1302. I don't think that one's been rescinded, either...

Subject: However... From: Eric To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 11:44:20 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The errors that you cited are grievous, but we should also be careful to acknowledge that the majority of practicing Catholics are just like the majority of Protestants--a general ignorance of biblical doctrine, as well as actual positions that their church holds. So, because a pope long ago made some edict that has never been recinded(sp?), does not mean that the average devout Catholic is aware of, or even agrees with a given doctrine. With that being said, my experience has been that the majority of Catholics I have come across do not exhibit evidence of regeneration, but I can say the exact same of the people I have met who come from mainline evangelical churches. But, I have also met Catholics who do seem to have a genuine profession, and who live out their lives in Christ marked by love and obediance. Just my $.02 Eric

Subject: Re: However... From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 13:47:20 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Eric, Once again, I am speaking of a system and not individuals. I am told that some know Catholics who are Christians for certain, but I personally can't confirm that. So far as I know, all RCC members I have come into contact with (several, in person and on the net, with whom I've had discussions) are trusting in the church to save them, needing that mediation with God rather than relying on the truth of 1 Tim. 2:5. And, as can be seen from what I quoted and actually any and all official writing of the RCC, there is no salvation, no entry into Heaven possible apart from the adherence to and obedience to the pronouncements established by the RCC. One must strive to be saved and to maintain that salvation in the RCC, in direct opposition to the Bible's declaration that It is 'the gift fo God--not of works, lest any man should boast' (Eph. 2:8-9; cp. Rom. 6:23). When the organization is delcared to be the way of salvation alone, then the declaration of the Bible that 'we are his [God's] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus' is made a mockery. God creates the child of God purely and simply, as is stated twice in Eph. 2 'by grace,' not by the church. The Church is made up of Christians, not the creator of them. God isn't referred to as the 'Father' for nothing. The begetting of the children isn't by their 'brothers,' but by the 'Father' to the glory of the Son through the power of the Spirit: 'For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children whom God [not the church] hath given me' (Heb. 2:11-13). Any 'good' Catholic knows that basic principle of salvation only in the 'chruch' taught by the RCC and, if he doesn't know it, he hasn't been an active Catholic and been taught the catechisms. Non-Catholics may have a general ignorance of Biblcal doctrine for two reasons: poor preaching/teaching, coupled with a lack of desire to read the readily available Scriptures; and/or not having had a real salvation experience. But even the 'best' Catholic who has had all the 'benefits' of the RCC and its teaching will have serious error about the Bible and its truths and the source of salvation in his core beliefs. As we've seen from the brief quotes I've cited, it's inevitable. When an organization is the source of salvation, rather than the Lord Jesus Christ, falsehood is unavoidable. Eric, if you haven't done so, please go to the site I provided and look at their views on grace. There can be no doubt of the error. In this system the Encyclopdia proclaims: 'In the process of justification we must distinguish two periods: first, the preparatory acts or dispositions (faith [note that especially], fear, hope, etc.); then the last, decisive moment of the transformation of the sinner from the state of sin to that of justification or sanctifying grace....' This comes under the heading of ' JUSTIFICATION: THE PREPARATION FOR SANCTIFYING GRACE'. It can be readily seen by anyone reading the Bible for its simple content that this view means that grace proceeds from justification, not the other way around. Rut Romans teaches the extreme opposite. In Romans 3 we have, as the primary source of justification, grace: '...Being justified freely BY his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (verse 24. Then we have, in verses 26-28, the definite declaration in several ways that justification stems from faith, not faith from justification as the above quote declares. Note what verse 26 declares 'that he [God] might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.' God, in grace, justifies the one who has faith because the grace is responsible for the faith. And not leaving that statement alone, we find ultimate reinforcement for its truth in Eph. 2: 'For by grace are ye saved through faith' (verse 8). Notice what saves: 'BY GRACE' which comes through faith. Now, if it is 'by' something that a thing is achieved, it doesn't come after the thing has already been obtained. it precedes it! And all that (grace through faith) comes as 'the gift of God.' Furthermore, we're told in Rom. 10:17 that God gives the gift of faith by His grace in delivering internally (through the Spirit of God) the ability to hear with the ears of faith: 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.' So, it is 'by grace' that one is saved. That grace is channeled 'through faith.' The faith comes when the Spirit uses the Word of God to make a faithful child of God. It doesn't come through baptism in water or through communion, or by any other means. The person is 'justified' by the just God by faith alone in God's Word alone. THAT washes him clean from sin by the power of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the waters of baptism. Otherwise, he would not be 'justified,' meaning given (as a gift) the righteousness of the Lord when he believes. Under the RCC system, he isn't clean until the water of baptism washes his sin away. The Bible is so simple when we let it speak. 1) Grace justifies the sinner 'freely' (Rom. 3:24); 2) Faith is the conduit of justification (Rom.3:26-28); 3) Grace makes faith possible as a gift of God so that God may be glorified, not man (Eph. 2:8-9). If anything but grace alone saves man, it is teaching contrary to the Bible. When one places his faith in a human person (priest, pope, saint, etc.), or a religious organization, rather than in the Person of the Savior alone, he is in serious, grievous error. No one who has the slightest knowledge of the RCC can fail to see that, apart from the organization and its priesthood, salvation is unobtainable, according to their dogma. Recognizing the simple and clear truth of the Bible, that dogma must be rejected.

Subject: Re: However... From: Chrysostomos To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 12:05:41 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>So, because a pope long ago made some edict that has never been recinded(sp?), does not mean that the average devout Catholic is aware of, or even agrees with a given doctrine. I wasn't implying such (assuming your post was adressed to me). I was only pointing out an element of Roman teaching that is very old and persists to this day--as evidenced by the recent uproar amongst ecumenists caused by Cardinal Ratzinger and friends. Don't be surprised if the rhetoric coming out of Rome in the future sounds more like Boniface VIII than that of JP II. The average Catholic may think you're just as 'saved' as he is, but that's not what his church teaches. dominus iesus www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

Subject: Are Catholics 'Saved'? From: Catherine To: All Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 22:19:50 (PDT) Email Address: fraygrence@yahoo.com Message: Just a quick question...do you think that Catholics are saved?

Subject: Re: Are Catholics 'Saved'? From: Rod To: Catherine Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 21, 2000 at 15:49:20 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Well, Catherine, now that all the cards are on the table after your 'Response' post, let me reply. This is a very complex issue. First of all, 'salvation' most likely means something different to you, as a member of the RCC, than it does to the rest of us. So, is one 'saved?' It depends on what salvation is, what it is by definition and by reality, i.e., what God says salvation is. Having had this basic discussion with a number of RCC people over time, I think we have to start with a real understanding of the problem/issues. The sole source of authoritative information on the subject to the way of thinking of most here is the Bible. The RCC, however, doesn't have the Bible as the final, ultimate source of authority, but also has interpretations and pronouncements by the church organization and priesthood. Often these have, officially or not, equal and even more weight than the Bible. So, the basis for conflict is laid right there: We here accept God's revealed Word to mankind in the Bible to be His definitive statement, His one and only means of determination of His truth. But the RCC has these extraneous things, these pronouncements, traditions, interpretations by the pope/priesthood, without which the Bible cannot stand alone. You see, Catherine, the basic stance of the RCC is that salvation is through the church and its priesthood's intervention and mediation. Our basic stance is that salvation is in a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. On the one hand (yours), the sacramental system administered by the prieshood alone results in salvation, in a person's going to Heaven. On the other, (ours) faith in the Christ of the Bible, given as a gift of God's grace because of 'regeneration,' new spiritual life, is the determining factor in one's salvation. Yours is a system in which one has to have an intervening authority to bring one to God's grace; ours is the belief and conviction that God reaches out to an individual with a new life which enables him to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ in faith and is a personal transaction between the person being redeemed and God: 'There is one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus' (1 Tim.2:5), a most definitive statement. These facts have led the RCC, in the declarations of the Council of Trent (which are still in effect and have never been rescinded) to determine that all non-Catholics are lost, and they have lead most non-Catholics who understand the situation to seriously question that most RCC people are saved. So, we have the position of the RCC that no one else is saved because they are outside the intervention of the RCC, first of all. Then we have the conviction among us here that one saved is saved from his sin by the grace of God in gifted faith alone, resulting in our being placed in Christ for salvation. I invite you to click on 'The Highway' logo at the top of the discussion topics page, scroll down to 'Articles on Important Topics' and click 'Roman Catholicism.' There you will find an extensive list of articles delving into the issues. The ones by Richard Bennett, an ex-Catholic priest, will be of particular interest. Luther's '95 Theses' go to the heart of the matter, also.

Subject: Re: Are Catholics 'Saved'? From: Rod To: Catherine Date Posted: Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 01:28:53 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Hello, Catherine, I'd be glad to react to your question, but I'd be most interested in knowing why you ask first. Are you Roman Catholic? If not, how are you associated with Roman Catholicism? What prompted your question? Inquiring minds want to know. :>) P.S. The official stance of the RCC since the Council of Trent, ending in the 1560's is that non-Catholics are lost since salvation is obtained through the "sacraments" administered by the priesthood of that religious organization. Any honest, well-informed Catholic knows this, but many who know better still deny that they teach that those outside the RCC are necessarily lost because the RCC is, in the dogma of the RCC, the only way one may receive the "graces" necessary to enter Heaven.

Subject: Re: Are Catholics 'Saved'? From: john hampshire To: Catherine Date Posted: Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 00:51:15 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just a quick question...do you think that Catholics are saved? --- Hello Catherine, No, Catholics are not saved, only Methodists (hehe). Obviously the denomination or doctrinal beliefs one holds tells much about your spiritual state, and a person who loves truth will not long endure lies. So we should expect a person whose spirit loves Truth to seek it out, leaving whatever falsehoods are held behind as understanding grows. For a short while we could expect a regenerated individual to continue in rather gross error, but certainly as awareness grows of Biblical truth they will leave error behind. There are many, many, denominations and sects which teach error... Catholics included; a true believer will eventually come out of that confusion because his spirit cannot abide it. But how are Catholics saved? The same way Methodists and Jews and Buddhists are. God gives spiritual life. So anyone who God wishes to save will find salvation, no matter what denomination they currently attend. But once they are saved we should not expect them to continue in sin, but seek out a Christ-centered, Bible believing church. The answer then is: No, most Catholics are not saved, but some are and these ones will grow uncomfortable; leaving to find a place where truth is taught. Why do you ask? Growing uncomfortable? john

Subject: Perhaps you can elaborate From: Eric To: john hampshire Date Posted: Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:42:54 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi john, Don't take this post the wrong way, but I think you stepped way over the line in your post. You wrote: So we should expect a person whose spirit loves Truth to seek it out, leaving whatever falsehoods are held behind as understanding grows Exactly what falsehoods can a Christian still remain in? There are multitudes of disagreements between Christians over many many issues. Obviously most are in error. HOw is it that they can persist in these errors and still be saved? ...a true believer will eventually come out of that confusion because his spirit cannot abide it. Is there scriptural support for this? And again, where is the line drawn--what falsehoods are acceptable? But once they are saved we should not expect them to continue in sin, but seek out a Christ-centered, Bible believing church. Which one? The PCA, OPC, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran...Are there not some serious disagreements(and by necessity, falsehoods being taught and endorsed)about what the Bible teaches among these denominations? No, most Catholics are not saved, but some are and these ones will grow uncomfortable; leaving to find a place where truth is taught. Careful here. Very dangerous statement from a sinner saved by God's grace alone. Nobody is saved by thinking right thoughts about Christ, or having right doctrine. We are saved by Christ, and through Christ, apart from works--which include correct thoughts. It is being united with Christ that saves us. He who has the Son has life. If a Catholic has the Son, they have life. Lets promote truth, but also lets place the personal Christ at the center of our salvation, and not objective facts about Him. God bless.

Subject: Re: Perhaps you can elaborate--OK From: john hampshire To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 16:16:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello Eric, You wrote: Don't take this post the wrong way, but I think you stepped way over the line in your post. My reply: Whose line? Yours or Gods? You wrote: Exactly what falsehoods can a Christian still remain in? My reply: The hallmark of a Christian is a living-spirit which seeks truth and is obedient to it. It is enough that a Christian have an on-going desire to please God, learn truth, and be obedient. If a professing Christian does as he pleases, resisting correction, displays an aversion to Biblical truth, clings to every false thing… there is no fruit of a living-spirit. It is not a matter of counting falsehoods but a matter of intent and desire. You asked: How is it Christians can persist in errors and still be saved? My reply: It is God that reveals truth. But if God has started a good work in us, He will surely bring forth good fruit. While errors will always be with us on earth, there will be a continuing on-going spiritual maturation that conforms us to Christ. We will always be seeking truth though errors will always remain (hopefully increasingly smaller ones). You asked: Are there not some serious disagreements (and by necessity, falsehoods being taught and endorsed) about what the Bible teaches among these denominations? My reply: A regenerated spirit cannot accept a half-truth. Eventually truth must be harmonized with all Scripture as God gives illumination. Though the churches cannot find agreement as to truth, individually each believer can find assurance by the constant testing of doctrine, the searching of Scripture to see if these things are so. This is where believers become steel sharpening steel, each believer builds up his neighbor—which is the original purpose of church, a gathering together of spiritual people. You said concerning my statement that most Catholics are not saved: Careful here. Very dangerous statement from a sinner saved by God's grace alone. My reply: Is it dangerous to differentiate between truth and a lie? Are Christians not called to judge righteously, to be the bearer of truth, a light shining in the darkness—should we seek friendship with the world? If I am saved by God’s grace, what do we say to those who are saved by their works? It is not love to support wrong. You said: He who has the Son has life. If a Catholic has the Son, they have life. My reply: If a Catholic has the Son, God the Holy Spirit will regenerate him and that new life will see, hear, and understand truth with spiritual eyes and ears. The spirit of the regenerate will not abide a corrupt, blasphemous church for long. If a Catholic has the Son, they will not be long a Catholic (or Mormon, or Buddhist, or any religion featuring a false-gospel with a man-centered salvation), but will seek greener pastures as God leads them. You said: Lets promote truth, but also lets place the personal Christ at the center of our salvation, and not objective facts about Him. My reply: Those objective facts concerning Christ are called Scriptural truths. We cannot promote Christ as the center of our salvation while embracing lies and deny the Scriptures which illuminate our rebellion. Because a church says 'Lord, Lord' does not mean they have understanding or seek to honor God. They may give lip service but they are hardened and darkened against the true gospel of Christ. If you love Christ you will obey, but what will you obey unless you have the mind of Christ, and how will you have the mind of Christ unless you seek first the Word of Christ – which leads us back to comparing Scripture with Scripture to perfect our understanding of our God. Christ cannot be personal unless you know His Word first and take up and carry His cross. You said: God bless. My reply: He does and He has. john

Subject: Re: Perhaps you can elaborate--OK From: Eric To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:57:09 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi john, My reply: Whose line? Yours or Gods? It is one thing to pass judgement on doctrine, but quite another to judge the eternal fate of someone who professes faith in, and obeys Christ. I think this is God’s area. You wrote: Exactly what falsehoods can a Christian still remain in? My reply: The hallmark of a Christian is a living-spirit which seeks truth and is obedient to it. It is enough that a Christian have an on-going desire to please God, learn truth, and be obedient. If a professing Christian does as he pleases, resisting correction, displays an aversion to Biblical truth, clings to every false thing… there is no fruit of a living-spirit. It is not a matter of counting falsehoods but a matter of intent and desire. The hallmark of a Christian is his love of Christ and his obedience to Him. Christ is the ultimate truth upon which all else hinges. What did Christ tell his followers to do? You asked: How is it Christians can persist in errors and still be saved? My reply: It is God that reveals truth. But if God has started a good work in us, He will surely bring forth good fruit. While errors will always be with us on earth, there will be a continuing on-going spiritual maturation that conforms us to Christ. We will always be seeking truth though errors will always remain (hopefully increasingly smaller ones). Again, which errors can separate us from Christ, and which ones can’t? Election? Eschatology? Baptism? While spiritual maturity is something that most Christians grow in, this is not always the case. You asked: Are there not some serious disagreements (and by necessity, falsehoods being taught and endorsed) about what the Bible teaches among these denominations? My reply: A regenerated spirit cannot accept a half-truth. Eventually truth must be harmonized with all Scripture as God gives illumination. Though the churches cannot find agreement as to truth, individually each believer can find assurance by the constant testing of doctrine, the searching of Scripture to see if these things are so. This is where believers become steel sharpening steel, each believer builds up his neighbor—which is the original purpose of church, a gathering together of spiritual people. So if one believer is convinced of a premillenial eschatology, and one is convinced of a post mill, how is it that that one can have assurance while believing a lie? Why can’t the churches agree if a regenerate spirit cannot accept a half truth? You hit the nail on the ehad when you said as God gives illumination. It is entirely possible that God gives various levels of understanding as He sees fit. You said concerning my statement that most Catholics are not saved: Careful here. Very dangerous statement from a sinner saved by God's grace alone. My reply: Is it dangerous to differentiate between truth and a lie? Are Christians not called to judge righteously, to be the bearer of truth, a light shining in the darkness—should we seek friendship with the world? If I am saved by God’s grace, what do we say to those who are saved by their works? It is not love to support wrong. Again, differentiating between a truth and a lie is entirely different than judging a professed believers soul. I did not advocate friendship with the world. The point is, is that God’s grace saves, and not the doctrines of men. You are judging based upon doctrine, and not on faith in the living Christ. You said: He who has the Son has life. If a Catholic has the Son, they have life. My reply: If a Catholic has the Son, God the Holy Spirit will regenerate him and that new life will see, hear, and understand truth with spiritual eyes and ears. The spirit of the regenerate will not abide a corrupt, blasphemous church for long. If a Catholic has the Son, they will not be long a Catholic (or Mormon, or Buddhist, or any religion featuring a false-gospel with a man-centered salvation), but will seek greener pastures as God leads them. Again, how is it that a regenerate man will understand certain spiritual truths, and not others. There are many Reformed churches that are corrupt and blasphemous, and yet I am sure contain many redeemed individuals. You said: Lets promote truth, but also lets place the personal Christ at the center of our salvation, and not objective facts about Him. My reply: Those objective facts concerning Christ are called Scriptural truths. We cannot promote Christ as the center of our salvation while embracing lies and deny the Scriptures which illuminate our rebellion. Understanding scripture does not save! We all embrace lies whenever we hold to a faulty view of scripture—so how is it that you can embrace a lie and still be saved? Because a church says 'Lord, Lord' does not mean they have understanding or seek to honor God. They may give lip service but they are hardened and darkened against the true gospel of Christ. If you love Christ you will obey, but what will you obey unless you have the mind of Christ, and how will you have the mind of Christ unless you seek first the Word of Christ – which leads us back to comparing Scripture with Scripture to perfect our understanding of our God. Christ cannot be personal unless you know His Word first and take up and carry His cross. How were members of the early church saved prior to the writing of the NT? Did you misspeak, or are you saying that one cannot receive Christ unless you know His Word? I hope you don’t mean that. My whole point is that we need realize that even the redeemed are imperfect, and prone to, and even wallow in error. The history of the church should speak clearly to this. If a member of the Catholic church professes faith in Christ and that He alone is the one in whom salvation lies, then we can confidently point out how the teaching of their church is in error, but yet we cannot go so far as to judge the state of their soul. We are not saved by thinking, or even believing right thoughts about Christ. You said: God bless. My reply: He does and He has. Good, then I ask God to continue to do so for you—take care, Eric

Subject: Re: Perhaps you can elaborate--OK From: john hampshire To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 19:06:15 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I will assume you believe that once a person professes faith in Christ everyone is bound by that profession as proof of their membership in the Kingdom of God. Even more, if you question the validity of that faith openly confessed, then you are judging matters which belong only to God. Is that your stance, I think it is. The question of how many errors before you’re not a Christian is invalid. Let’s take the Catholic religion as an example. If the Bible is opposed to everything that a Catholic holds true; teaching a completely different truth concerning salvation, Christ’s work, God, man, the purpose and relationship of man to God….shall we say it is no matter, all is fine if there is a confession of faith in Christ. I think not! For what have we placed our faith in ultimately depends on our understanding of Scriptures, we have faith in that which we understand--those things we understand are determined agreeable by our spirit. Our spirit is at the core of where we place our faith. Can I say I love Christ and not have a desire to obey Him? Do you not see it is not the number of errors that decide if we are obedient, but our desire in searching and clinging to truth when we find it? We all must start somewhere. A new believer will continue in error, but he is searching and finding (as God illuminates) truth and becoming conformed to Christ. A person who is happily engaged in a false gospel and sees it as perfectly acceptable, disregarding truth when confronted with it, does not fit the description of a perfect-spirit seeking God (despite the professions which you hold so dear). No true Christian will sit day in and out in a blasphemous religious system without great discomfort in their spirit. How can we daily wallow in mire and muck with joy and still claim, “I am clean and love all that is clean”. Assurance of our faith is not based on getting amillenialism aright, or understanding baptism by sprinkling, or knowing this or that. Certainly many theologians know all kinds of doctrines, even preferring some over others, but they are not diligently searching for truth, they are not seeking to know their Creator. For them truth is a commodity, bought and sold. Is it that God has given some more understanding than others? While we all vary in our intellect and understanding, we are not speaking of our capacity to know; it is our DESIRE and striving to know that makes the difference. Even the lowest intellect can find the assurance of salvation by noting their on-going desire to please God, to understand His Word and be obedient to Him. You have said that I am judging based on doctrine rather than on faith. I will challenge you to tell me how you judge on faith. Is it because someone speaks softly and uses religious sounding words that you find great faith? Is it because they pray long and hard? Is it because they talk of their endless devotion to Christ and their love of Him? You look on the surface, you see people as they desire to be seen. What goes on beneath where the real being lurks is only seen occasionally, it rises when challenged by either lies or truth. To discover the real person behind the mask examine where they keep their treasure, what do they hold dear. Do they scoff at truth and cling to their ego-centered doctrines, then this is where there spirit is—in the flesh, despite the outward show. We can say “God’s grace saves and not the doctrines of men” all day long, but God’s grace yields fruit; it won’t be rotten and despising every good thing either. You said there are MANY Reformed churches that are corrupt and blasphemous. Please name some, and how are they corrupt and how are they blasphemous???? Do they claim a human sinful female is a Co-redeemer and Mother of God?? Do they claim clergy can forgive sins? Do they teach a salvation of works?? Do they teach purgatory for further removal of sin?? Do they multiply and worship images of God and created beings? Do they hold to superstitions and doctrines of men? Do they add to the Word of God, holding other writings or pronouncements from men to be equally authoritative? Do they pervert the Scriptures and lead men astray? You tell me where the blasphemy is! Do you see that a Catholic who professes faith in Christ for salvation is no different than a Mormon who professes faith in Christ for salvation, or a Jehovah Witness who professes faith in Christ, or a Cult member who professes faith in Christ for salvation. It is not enough to say they have a church with errors. It is that they have a spirit which seeks after and loves these errors, which wallows in rebellion and moreso desires YOU to join them in their hatred for God’s truth. Eric, you are judging poorly by using human standards. john

Subject: Re: Perhaps you can elaborate--OK From: Eric To: john hampshire Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:21:17 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello john, John in italics. I will assume you believe that once a person professes faith in Christ everyone is bound by that profession as proof of their membership in the Kingdom of God. Even more, if you question the validity of that faith openly confessed, then you are judging matters which belong only to God. Is that your stance, I think it is. Sort of. If a person professes trust in Christ alone for salvation, and their lifestyle bears the normal marks of regeneration, then yes we should not dare to pronounce the eternal state of anothers soul. The question of how many errors before you’re not a Christian is invalid. Just saying something is invalid does not make it so. Your stance is proof of the validity of the question, for you are basing your pronouncement of anothers soul on certain truths and errors. The question stands, now perhaps you would like to answer it. Let’s take the Catholic religion as an example. If the Bible is opposed to everything that a Catholic holds true; teaching a completely different truth concerning salvation, Christ’s work, God, man, the purpose and relationship of man to God….shall we say it is no matter, all is fine if there is a confession of faith in Christ. I think not! You are setting up a straw man here john. I said no such thing. Now, let’s test your statement. Do Catholics believe that Jesus was fully God and man? Do they believe that He was sent by God to take away the sins of the world? Do they believe that He was sinless? That He took their rightful punishment? That those who do not have Christ are lost? That it is Christ’s righteousness that saves them? The Catholics I know affirm these truths. Is this not enough? For what have we placed our faith in ultimately depends on our understanding of Scriptures, we have faith in that which we understand--those things we understand are determined agreeable by our spirit. Our spirit is at the core of where we place our faith. Can I say I love Christ and not have a desire to obey Him? Really? How is an infant saved? What about a dev. disabled person? Obviously they don’t have an understanding of the scriptures. Have you read the writings of the early church fathers? A lot of their understanding is quite a bit different than yours. Do you want to take Augustine’s understanding of the sacraments? Do you not see it is not the number of errors that decide if we are obedient, but our desire in searching and clinging to truth when we find it? Hmmm, it is not our desire in searching and clinging to truth, but in obeying! The one who loves Christ is the one who keeps His commandments. It is the one who visits the prisoners and feeds the poor, who loves God, not the one who has perfect theology. We all must start somewhere. A new believer will continue in error, but he is searching and finding (as God illuminates) truth and becoming conformed to Christ. A person who is happily engaged in a false gospel and sees it as perfectly acceptable, disregarding truth when confronted with it, does not fit the description of a perfect-spirit seeking God (despite the professions which you hold so dear). You hit the nail on the head, as God illuminates. And since God is sovereign, we need to understand that God grants His grace in varying measures to various people. And your sarcastic remark about confessions should be re-thought as God himself said that if we confess with our mouth and believe with our heart we are saved. No true Christian will sit day in and out in a blasphemous religious system without great discomfort in their spirit. How can we daily wallow in mire and muck with joy and still claim, “I am clean and love all that is clean”. While I agree with you that a Christian will not sit under a blasphemous church if they no it as such, the issue is whether or not they know that it is, and if not, is God’s grace able to save that person with their limited understanding, and also if we are in a position to judge whether or not this happens. Assurance of our faith is not based on getting amillenialism aright, or understanding baptism by sprinkling, or knowing this or that. Certainly many theologians know all kinds of doctrines, even preferring some over others, but they are not diligently searching for truth, they are not seeking to know their Creator. For them truth is a commodity, bought and sold. Is it that God has given some more understanding than others? While we all vary in our intellect and understanding, we are not speaking of our capacity to know; it is our DESIRE and striving to know that makes the difference. Even the lowest intellect can find the assurance of salvation by noting their on-going desire to please God, to understand His Word and be obedient to Him. So is it our desire to know the truth that saves. Or is it union with Christ that does? And what is the necessary knowledge that allows one to be united with Christ? You have yet to answer this question. You have said that I am judging based on doctrine rather than on faith. I will challenge you to tell me how you judge on faith. This is the difference john, I don’t dare judge the eternal state of someone’s soul if they profess trust in Christ alone for salvation. If someone is going against Christ’s commandments, I will gladly instruct them as to the proper behavior of a Christian, I will also give the scriptural warnings associated with such conduct. Is it because someone speaks softly and uses religious sounding words that you find great faith? Is it because they pray long and hard? Is it because they talk of their endless devotion to Christ and their love of Him? You look on the surface, you see people as they desire to be seen. Really? I look at the fruit of their lives. If someone seeks to live in accordance with Christ’s commands, and they profess His Lordship over their lives, then I have no choice but to treat them like a brother. You said there are MANY Reformed churches that are corrupt and blasphemous. Please name some, and how are they corrupt and how are they blasphemous???? Do they claim a human sinful female is a Co-redeemer and Mother of God?? Do they claim clergy can forgive sins? Do they teach a salvation of works?? Do they teach purgatory for further removal of sin?? Do they multiply and worship images of God and created beings? Do they hold to superstitions and doctrines of men? Do they add to the Word of God, holding other writings or pronouncements from men to be equally authoritative? Do they pervert the Scriptures and lead men astray? You tell me where the blasphemy is! There are many Reformed/Presby churches that are riddled with strife and bickering. Look at the numerous church splits among them. Also, many Reformed churches eliminate the role of affection and emotions in the worship of God. There are many Reformed churches that teach that man is required to obey God because He gave himself for us, and there by in essence teach that we must pay God back for His free gift. Also, most Reformed churches are a little to enthusiastic in their criticism of the Pentecostal movement, and thereby may be guilty of quenching the Spirit. And last but not least, several of the Reformed churches I have been to, are satisfied with a “dead orthodoxy” whereby a living relationship with Christ is reduced to thinking correct thoughts about Him. Do you see that a Catholic who professes faith in Christ for salvation is no different than a Mormon who professes faith in Christ for salvation, or a Jehovah Witness who professes faith in Christ, or a Cult member who professes faith in Christ for salvation. It is not enough to say they have a church with errors. It is that they have a spirit which seeks after and loves these errors, which wallows in rebellion and moreso desires YOU to join them in their hatred for God’s truth. Eric, you are judging poorly by using human standards. I would not say that all those groups are equivalent in their teaching. What about an Arminian john, are they saved? If they are presented with the truth of biblical soteriology, and they reject it, what can we say about their spirit? How can they persist in error after being shown the truth in such a vital area? It would be helpful if you will present your understanding of the gospel message which must be believed in order to be saved. Also include the proper understanding one must have of these concepts, and not just the words. Perhaps then we can use it to determine who is saved and who isn’t. To my way of thinking, you already must have some sort of list in your head as to which you judge by. God bless.

Subject: Response From: Catherine To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 21, 2000 at 06:54:00 (PDT) Email Address: fraygrence@yahoo.com Message: I'm sure you all are either wondering or have already formulated your theories as to why I would ask such a question. Yes, I am Roman Catholic and I wasn't asking out of curiosity for my own salvation--I know that I am saved. I was asking because I was very curious what the response would be. For the most part, I was pleasantly surprised. However, John you did exactly what I expected. See, once I was researching a paper for college and I typed in 'Roman Catholicism.' The abundance on anti-catholic, hateful web sites innundated me. The most surprising thing about this, is that I have yet to find a Roman Catholic web site angrily spouting hate towards any other denomination. While all of your responses were respectful, and I appreciate that, John I have to ask--'But once they are saved we should not expect them to continue in sin, but seek out a Christ-centered, Bible believing church.' What is that supposed to mean? Christ is at the utmost core of the Roman Catholic church and the Bible is most certainly believed. I am also interested in what your response to Scott Hahn, a former Protestant minister, doctor of theology who came home to the Roman Catholic church after years of studying the Bible and religion? John, you seem to think that Roman Catholics are searching for the truth--some truth that will lead to them leaving the Church and coming to a 'place where truth is taught' I'm here to tell you as a rock-hard Roman Catholic who loves Jesus Christ with all that I am, that I am in that place. I don't need to look any further nor do I feel the need to tell anyone else how wrong they are.

Subject: Re: Response From: Diaconos To: Catherine Date Posted: Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 12:13:47 (PDT) Email Address: DiaconosM@netscapemail.com Message: Catherine, Let me jump in here for just a few words. I was raised in several church denominations, and am currently very active in a Southern Baptist Convention church (Southern Baptist by the way is not a denomination as such). One of the churches that I attended as a child was a Roman Catholic church. I have even attened several sunday services in the past few years in Catholic churches. I can honestly say that the churches (preists actually) did not center thier teachings around Christ, but rather around Mary or any one of a number of Saints. I am not saying that all Roman Catholic churches are this way, but that is the norm for them. I must say that I have attended several (shall I be politacally correct here) Evangelical churches that have the same problem, but instead of centering thier messages around Mary or Saints, they you modern conteparay figures. In one of them then only time the bible was even used was in the opening Scripture reading. One even centered his entire message around an Indian Chief in Florida, and never once even referrenced the Scriptures. All this just to say that I believe that some Catholics are saved. But I know many others that do not even know what they are saved from. Yet they are devout Catholics. I could not say that they are devout Christians, however. My major concern is wether or not a Catholic beleives it is by grace, through faith that man is saved, not by any works, but solely as a gift from God. I also must ask if a Catholic believes that there is only ONE mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ. If so, then the RCC has no role in salvation, and anyone can be saved, wether or not they belong to the RCC, and there is no need to pray through any Saint. I will not go into the many issues that I have against the RCC, for I must confess that I have issues with all of the 'Evangelical' churches also. If you are in a place that you beleive God wants you, if you are fellowshiping with other Believers, and enjoying the grace of God in your life, and you rely on the Bible as the sole and ultimate authority, then I praise God with you. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Focusing on the issue From: Rod To: Diaconos Date Posted: Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 14:38:15 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Hi, Matthew, There are a lot of things here to respond to and, therefore, it can't be done well. I'll confine myself to a few things. There are most likely lost people in all 'Christian' churches. Some estimate as many as 70% or more of all church attendees and members are lost. I have no way of knowing that, but there is a great deal of lack of fruit at any rate. Add to that the fact that many mainline denominations (for lack of a better designation) have left their first love and you have widespread 'Christendom,' not Christianity. But that isn't germane to the question Catherine asked originally. Striking near the heart of the matter, you wrote, 'My major concern is wether or not a Catholic beleives it is by grace, through faith that man is saved, not by any works, but solely as a gift from God. I also must ask if a Catholic believes that there is only ONE mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ. If so, then the RCC has no role in salvation, and anyone can be saved, wether or not they belong to the RCC, and there is no need to pray through any Saint.' But, you see, that is the point: No real Catholic may believe that. Foundational to the RCC is the seven 'sacraments.' Concerning them the teaching of the Catholic Encyclopedia says, quoting the Council of Trent, 'According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, accepted today by many Episcopalians, the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are not mere signs; they do not merely signify Divine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, they cause that grace in the souls of men.' Don't anyone miss that. God doesn't give grace freely, but it is bound up in observance and works: 'they cause grace' to be given by God. Things which men do cause God's grace, that is, actions, performed and observed 'correctly,' result in salvation! This is the teaching of the RCC. That fact necessarily places the whole of the RCC system under the catagory of falsehood. If one is in the RCC who doesn't believe that, he should immediately leave or be an affront to God. If he believes that, he doesn't understand God or salvation, a situation not consistent with being saved, based on Rom. 10:17 and many other passages. Here is the official pronouncement of the RCC: ''Against all innovators the Council of Trent declared: 'If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema' (Sess. viii, can.vi). 'If anyone say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God's promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema.''' All those outside this sacramental system, who do do not ascent to it, are pronounced, as part of the official dogma of the RCC as 'accursed of God'--anathema! The issues are clear cut and there is no blurring of the lines. Can one believe the RCC teaching and be saved? It is inconsistent with the Bible which teaches, 'For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God--not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:8-10), the NT in miniature. Catholicism is false Chrisitianity. Other systems are also false Christianity. True Christians oppose all error, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

Subject: Re: Response From: john hampshire To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 15:06:42 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Catherine, You did ask the question did you not? When you received the answer that the doctrines of the RCC comprise a false gospel, your reply insinuates that I, among others who find this churches teachings to be blasphemous, are somehow seething with hatred against its members. You will get no pity from me. I will not be namby-pamby with you concerning the grievous affront the RCC presents to the true gospel. Yet don't confuse my disdain for a pagan, false-gospel that is antithetical to true Christianity with hatred. Where do you find hate? If I hated you I would be your friend and support your wrong, but truly you will find no support from me. Are you offended because I say a true believer will leave behind lies and seek out truth? Rightly so, for the inverse of this is that an unregenerate individual will seek systems that provide ego-support, a salvation of works-- something to exert energy against (such as the RCC provides). A true believer will understand that salvation is by God's grace, apart from man's effort, that he can do NOTHING. A true believer can readily accept this truth with rejoicing, pleased to give Christ the glory. Do you see, the unregenerate needs to do things, to act out of self to become 'right' with God. For him/her salvation must always be man-centered. I am not attacking only the RCC. Do not think the RCC to be the only man-centered, works salvation, for they are legion. RCC is prominent, but not unique in this manner. If the purpose of a church is to teach truth, spread the good news of salvation, build up the saints.... if this be true, then any church, RCC included, which fails this, is of no spiritual value whatsoever. Worse, to lead people astray is the greater sin and worthy of greater punishment. Since you say you know you are saved, please explain how you became saved— by what right do you have to enter heaven? To enter heaven you must be sinless, how is your sin removed? You believe in the Bible, that is good. Do you believe also that it is the single authoritative means to know truth --- that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the Word of God --–that there is no other source of divine truth given to man? You say Christ is the center of your church, that is good too. Do you believe that Christ suffered the penalty of eternal damnation on behalf of His elect, that is, that Christ, the God-man, became the perfect substitute for those the Father gave Him to redeem? Do you believe that Christ fully paid the entire sin-debt, satisfying completely the wages of sin owed against each of God’s chosen ones, that is, the elect were made judicially sinless and perfect in the Father’s eyes because Christ the Son of God became sin for them? Do you believe that God the Holy Spirit gives life to these same elect who Christ redeemed, that the Holy Spirit regenerates the dead spirit within the elect and creates a perfect, living-spirit; that is, a spirit which can then love Truth and seeks out its Creator in obedience? Do you believe that this entire salvation process from election by God the Father, to redemption by Christ, to regeneration by the Holy Spirit and eventual glorification in heaven is all done by God apart from any merit, effort, will, desire, word or deed, of man --that it all totally rests in the power of God as He acts upon men, doing as He pleases and wills? You asked a question and I answered. Those are my questions to you, will you answer? Fear not, I will not be upset or offended (or even hate you) know matter what your response, if any. So, what say you Catherine? john

Subject: To: John From: Catherine To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 09:39:12 (PDT) Email Address: fraygrence@yahoo.com Message: I have three questions for you before I respond. 1. You ask if I am sinless, are YOU? 2. Where in the Bible exactly is sola scriptura taught to us? In your reply you wrote, 'If a purpose of a church is to teach truth, spread the good news of salvation, build up the saints..if this be true then any church, RCC included, which fails this is of no spiritual value whatsoever.' I must ask--where exactly does the Roman Catholic Church fail? I'm not looking for sympathy--nor do I need a namby-pamby response. I asked the question out of curiousity for the answer. I asked the question to provoke discussion. Contrary to what you seem to think--I'm not offended by your reply--nor do I think that you personally have exhibited any hatred. I believe in my earlier response I thanked you for being respectful. I, personally think that open, honest discussion is very worthwile. You wrote, 'Do you believe that this entire salvation process from election by God the Father, to redemption by Christ, to regeneration by the Holy Spirit and eventual glorification in heaven is all done by God apart from any merit, effort, will, desire, word or deed, of man --that it all totally rests in the power of God as He acts upon men, doing as He pleases and wills?' Yes I do, however do you realize that in spite of all of this, we humans do sin. And we are responsible for our own sin--which could keep us from being able to freely love and worship our Lord and if sin goes unrepented, could keep us from the Kingdom. And, a soul illuminated by the love of God will do good things. Faith can be visibly shown through good works. Faith isn't just about saying 'I believe.' It's walking the walk--not just talking the talk. I'm not sure that I answered all of your questions, if not I apologize. Please rest assured, I am not offended by anything you say and I would not respond in any way less respectful than you have for me. I appreciate your time and thoughts and would like to continue the discussion... Caryn

Subject: Re: To: Catherine From: john hampshire To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 20:08:33 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Catherine, You agree then that salvation is entirely of God--that we have no part, merit, effort, will, desire towards our salvation? Good. But you mentioned that we must remember to repent of our daily sins or we might be left out of the Kingdom. Do you not know that Christ already paid the penalty of EVERY sin of His elect, past-present-and future? We repent not to remove sin, but because we are sorry in our spirit for offending God and desire to please Him again. How do we know our sins are forgiven? Because God says, if you walk in my statutes and obey--keeping may law, then your behavior demonstrates your love. An unregenerate spirit will not (and cannot) seek after God (except perhaps a false-god). We cannot give ourselves a living-spirit, we cannot exchange our spirit dead in sin by our own effort, by our own works. Since this is an act of God upon His chosen ones, we are left humbled, unable to do any more than pray that if it were possible, that God show mercy on us. Even our prayer for salvation or our fear of eternal damnation does not cause God to act. Our desire to seek God, if genuine, comes from the creation of a new living spirit within us. God does not regenerate willy-nilly. Regeneration is only for those that are perfect in the Father’s sight because of the substutionary atonement of His Son— --- these are the objects of God’s love. Christ did not die and suffer the torment of eternal damnation under the wrath of His Father for any but the ones His Father gave to Him. These are the children of promise, the chosen ones that are loved by God. God’s love is not emotional, it is demonstrated by action. He loved some before the worlds were formed, he set them apart for salvation and He brought it about by His strong arm. To your questions: Am I sinless? Yes I am in God’s sight. Though the elect sin, there is no more condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. Christ has suffered the wrath of God to pay the sin-penalty on behalf of His elect. God no longer sees my sin, it is covered by the robe of Christ’s righteousness—I am perfect in God’s eyes! What did I do to become sinless in God’s eyes? Nothing!, it is all of God. Do I desire to sin today? No, my spirit is perfect and loves what is perfect (God), I cannot sin in the flesh without offending my spirit—thus I am compelled in my spirit toward obedience. When I strengthen the flesh I turn to my own devices and I sin. But then I see my rebellion by the punishment God brings and I return. It is impossible for me to once again become enslaved in totality to the flesh as I once was. I am a new creation in Christ, there is no going back to the days of hiding from the light or the loving of a lie. john

Subject: Re: To: Catherine From: Tom To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 22:17:38 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: John I agree with you, but I want to point something out. When you said: there is no more condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. You were quoting from Romans 8:1, but you didn't identify who are in Christ Jesus, like the last part of Romans 8:1 does. It says 'who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.'

Subject: Re: To: Catherine From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 03:48:01 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Tom, It seems that many scholars say that these words you note do not properly belong in verse 1, being copied from verse 4 and inserted artificially here in verse 1. The verse apparently properly ends with 'in Christ Jesus.' That verse 1 then becomes a very simple, crucial, essential, and complete statement. Then, when verse 4 is examined in that light, it becomes evident that the 'walk' is the result of the new spiritual life and the fact that the redeemed person is 'in Christ Jesus.' It is an effect of being in Christ Jesus, not the cause of being in Him.

Subject: Re: To: Catherine From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 09:33:36 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod Either way when I look at the verse the way the KJV says it. I see it saying that the 'walk' is a result of being in Christ Jesus. It could be read the other way around, but in context I don't think it does. I think verse four shows this. I also think 1 John 2:4 goes right allow in that vein. 'He who says,'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in Him.' Tom

Subject: Re: To: Catherine From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:48:13 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Agreed, Tom, but some folks have taken the last clause of verse 1 to be a 'contingency.' They make salvation dependent on walking instead of a by-product of it. Though not a scholar, I do accept their statement that the verse is without it in the original and much more illustrative of Paul's meaning. Then, reading one through four without that clause leaves no doubt as to the Apostle's intent.

Subject: Re: To: John From: John P. To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 16:22:17 (PDT) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings again Catherine: I thought I would take a moment (brief this time) in order to defend sola scriptura. You said the following: 'Where in the Bible exactly is sola scriptura taught to us?' Everywhere and Nowhere. Christ, by His practice, taught that there truth can be acquired by more than explicit statements from Scripture. He taught, by His practice, that truth can be acquired also by making good and necessary inferences drawn from the Biblical truths. In other words, that which logically follows because of truths proposed in the Scripture is Scriptural, and infallibly true. This is clear from His answer to the Sadducees who believed there was no resurrection. They asked Christ, if you remember, about a woman who married a man, but had no children of the man, and the man died. So - according to the law of Moses - she married his brother in order that her first husband's name would not cease from Israel. However, he died before she had children. And this happened several more times. This is all recorded in Luke 20:27ff. Now, the Sadducees, believing that people would still marry in the resurrection if there was to be one, questioned Jesus by asking whose wife (of the seven men she to whom was married during her life) would she be during the resurrection. Jesus answered that there was no marriage in the resurrection, and then made an argument for the resurrection. When Jesus made this argument, He drew the conclusion based on a logical inference from the premises. He said, 'Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.' (Luke 20:37,38) Now, His reason goes like this: if God is the God of the living, and not the dead; and God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it follows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they be dead, must live. And if they live, then there must be a resurrection to come, else how will they have bodies, which are essential to one's being a man? Thus, we learn that inferential reasoning is Scriptural. How does this relate to Sola Scriptura? As follows: it is true that there is no express statement which says, 'Scripture alone,' as Roman Catholics desire us to produce. However, throughout the pages of Scripture, there is something which is consistent: The exaltation of Scripture / God's Word, and laying low of anything that could possibly be attributed man, to make him glory. Witness Paul's example and how he argues with King Agrippa. He said: Acts 26:22, 'Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come,' &c. Here we see that Paul counted it a virtuous thing, and a strong argument of his faithfulness, that when he taught people, he taught them, 'none other things,' than those which were containe the in already-completed Scriptures (the law and the prophets). Now, obviously, it is necessary, for Paul's statement to have any strength in defense of his own teaching, that beneath it lies the following assumption: That to teach anything other than that which can be found in the law and the prophets is less good, less virtuous, and, in fact, contrary to goodness. If he didn't assume this, then his argument was vain, purposeless, and not worth Luke's quoting it. Furthermore, the fact that Christ condemned the traditions of the ancient Jews, which tradition was almost perfectly analagous to that of the contemporary Roman Catholic Church, says much for Sola Scriptura. For, these Jews whom Christ condemned as teaching for doctrine the commandments of men (Mark 7:7), believed the following: that there was a 'sacred tradition,' which had its origin at the same time that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (but was unwritten - much like Rome's apostolic traditions), that they claimed that this 'sacred tradition' was infallible and equal in authority to the word of God (Like Rome's apostolic traditions), and that this 'sacred tradition' was inspired by God (like Rome's apostolic traditions). Now, this means that Christ condemned the very principles on which the Roman Catholic Church is built - EXPLICITLY. Yet, no doubt, the vast majority of Roman Catholics are just as Scripture says they are in 1 Timothy 4:1-3, they are walking with 'seared consciences,' and that they, perish because they are left by God to, 'believe a lie,' as 2 Thessalonians 2:11. For, they will hardly listen - if at all - to the clarity of the arguments put forth against them. The church as a whole (not every individual) has comitted the unpardonable sin by anathamatizing the doctrines of the Gospel at Trent as devilish, heretical, doctrines, yet she claims, 'I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.' (Revelation 18:7) She says she is the mother of all churches; the Bible says she is, 'THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.' (Revelation 17:5 - Caps in the original) Catherine, as you have read, I certainly am opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. I formerly was a member, server, participated in youth functions, and considered becoming a priest (!). Today, I grieve that I was ever a part of the system. I was void even of natural affection there. I worshipped my own pride, not God. I trusted in my own arm, not Christ. I prayed like the Pharisee who, though he said, 'O Lord,' nevertheless said it, 'to or with himself.' (Luke 18). O, I would to God that He would bring us out of this darkness! But, although it tarry, I will wait for it, it shall not tarry. God will bring down this great spiritual Babylon which sits on the seven hills of Rome. God shall destroy her with perfect destruction; and she shall know that she was a widow, forsaken of God. She shall know she was a whore who went whoring after idols, not a Queen. But, for the time being, those who are God's people in the Roman Catholic Church must head his call: 'come out from among her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.' (Rev. 18:4) Catherine, consider this. The LORD God is a good God, merciful, and abundant in goodness and truth. Be faithful to Him, and evidence your love to Him by coming out of the Roman Catholic Church - or at least putting it further to the test with the sincere prayer that you are willing to remove yourself if it is false. If you are sincere, and trusting only in Christ, He will hear you, and you will be delivered. Love, John Putz

Subject: Re: Response From: Tom To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 08:37:03 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Catherine Something you said intregued me a little. You said: I know that I am saved. I was asking because I was very curious what the response would be. I find that an interesting comment coming from a Catholic. I am having a conversation with a Catholic also and this is what he says on the subject of salvation. 'Our salvation isn't a 'thing' we possess, it is a covenantal, relational, walk with our Father God. We must have a working faith throughout our lifetime, and we must especially have had an on-going one at the time of our death. As long as we are alive we can break the covenant, death is the end of our earthly life and at death we show what our final stand with God is and has been.' So who is correct according to Catholic theology, you or him? By the way are you the same Catherine who visits a site called 'The Mountain Retreat' from time to time? Tom

Subject: To Catherine From: John P. To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 07:17:24 (PDT) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings Catherine: Although you have already received a few responses to your initial question concerning whether or not a Roman Catholic person can be saved, I think that I may be able to help a little with defending the historic Reformed and Biblical view concerning the salvation of those in the RCC. However, before I proceed to discuss that, I will briefly comment on Scott Hahn, and other former Protestants who are presently Roman Catholics. Although it isn't uncommon for people to claim that Hahn was a 'conservative evengelical Protestant,' and the like, he nevertheless in many aspects of his theology was far from the historic, orthodox, reformation principles which were taught in the first (16th century - Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, &c.) and second reformations (1638-1649 British Isles, Presbyterianism / Puritanism). Where he primarily erred was in his understanding of worship. He denied the reformation principle of worship which declared that (as John Knox, the Scottish Reformer once said,) 'All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry.' In other words, although he certainly would not have accepted the seventh 'ecumenical council' (i.e., 787, Second Council of Nicaea) in which the veneration of images is expressly concluded as lawful and profitable, he nevertheless would have agreed (albeit unwittingly) with the principle that the means of worshipping God do not necessarily have to be expressly set down in Scripture. Jesus said, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the *commandments of men.*' (Mark 7:7) Jesus said this is in response to the Pharisees condemning of Christ and His disciples for not ceremonially washing their hands after the tradition of the elders (which traditions were supposedly orally passed down from the time of Moses, and of equal authority with the Scripture itself - much like RCC traditions). In other words, Jesus expressly condemned the practice of worship based on tradition independant of Scripture even though the established church of that time believed it to be God-inspired, and said that the sort of traditional, man-innovated worship, is vain worship. Hence, Hahn had already adopted RCC principles of worship long before he ever formally moved into the Roman Catholic camp, and applied those principles in a manner which allowed him to participate in the 'sacrifice of the mass.' Now, also, before I do continue on to discuss whether or not Roman Catholics are saved, I would like to address your stedfast confidence that you are (perfect tense) 'saved'. Laz is correct, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a process which is not completed until one is totally, inherently purged from all sins. If needbe, they will have to go to purgatory before they go to heaven. Thus, they say, the full assurance of one's own salvation is presumptuous, arrogant, and sinful. As the Council of Trent in its decree on Justification, the 9th chapter, says: 'But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.' Now, my suspicion is this: when you say that you *know* you are saved, you are claiming that you have certainty of the forgiveness of sins in your life. The church under whose authority you have placed yourself says you cannot have that assurance, and that your hope is that of a presumptuous 'heretic.' You must doubt 'til you die. --- -Actually, you don't have to doubt until you die. The Bible teaches plainly that we may know that we have eternal life: 1 John 2:3, 'And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.' Notice that in this verse, our keeping Christ's commandments is not the grounds or instrumental cause of our knowing Christ - rather, if we keep Christ's commandments, we evidence with certainty that we already 'know him.' We may have assurance of our relationship with Christ; we may 'know that we know him.' --even if the Pope and Roman Catholic councils say otherwise. Now, after having said this, let me answer your question. You asked, 'Are Catholics 'saved'?' My answer: I have no Scriptural warrant to believe that absolutely no Roman Catholic is saved. In fact, I believe I have the express teaching of the word of God that says that some (albeit few) are saved within the Roman church. From where does this confidence that some people within the Roman Catholic Church come? Well, it is going to be a sort of a two-edged sword, I think. You will be pleased (I hope?) that I confidently assert that some Roman Catholics will have an abode in heaven; however, you may be displeased (I hope not?) that I confidently assert that the place from whence I gather this confidence is the fact that I believe the Roman Catholic Church is Scripturally denoted Antichristian and that the position of the papacy is Antichrist. How does this prove that there are genuine believers in the Roman Church? Well, let me demonstrate this from a couple of passages: II Thessalonians 2:3-4,7; with Ephesians 2:19ff: II Th 2:3-4 'Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God...For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.' Eph 2:19-21, 'Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord...' Notice that in the first of these two passages, we read that in the times subsequent to the apostolic era, 'there shall be a falling away.' For there to be a falling away, one must first admit that those falling away fell away from something worth having (i.e., the truth - which the apostolic Church held). Now, note that during this falling away of the church, a man would set himself up in the 'temple of God,' taking to himself the authority of God. Now, if you consider the second passage I quoted, you will see that the Temple in New Testament writing is none other than the visible church of Christ: Christians are made by God a 'building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.' This is why we are no longer restricted to some spacio-temporal temple in Jerusalem which could not contain the infinite God - the church of Christ is the temple; and it is within this 'temple' that a man (during the 'falling away') would set himself up with the authority of God. Now, I'm not sure how aware you are of the claims of the 'Roman Pontiff' as to his authority, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which John Paul II said is, 'A sure norm for teaching the faith,') says that the pope, 'by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor [i.e., shepherd--JP] of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.' (emphasis added) Now, my theology says that the Person who has, 'full, supreme (i.e., 'second to none'), and universal power over the whole Church, a power which can always (i.e., not limited) exercise unhindered,' is the same Person of whom the Scripture says that the Father set, 'Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all,' i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. (Ephesians 1:21-23) Now, two more pieces of evidence that I would like to bring forth supporting my claim that the pope is Antichrist, are those found in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and Revelation 17:9, 1 Tim 4:1-3, 'Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.' Rev 17:9, 'And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.' Now, in the first of these two passages, we read that during the same 'falling away,' (here under the spoken of as some 'departing from the faith') that Paul mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4ff, we read a description of the doctrines taught are doctrines of 'devils.' And, indeed, two of these doctrines are the, 'forbidding of marriage, and comanding to abstain from meats (i.e., foods).' Each of these are doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. For evidence, consider the following documented quotations: (1)That the Roman Catholic Church forbids marriage (or obliges priests, etc. to remain celebate in ordinary circumstances), consider the following quote from Encyclical of Pope Paul VI promulgated in June of 1967, entitled, 'Sacerdotalis Caelibatus' or, 'The Celebacy of the Priest': 'From the beginning of the 4th century, the Church of the West strengthened, spread and confirmed this practice by means of various provincial councils and through the supreme pontiffs. More than anyone else, the supreme pastors and teachers of the Church of God, the guardians and interpreters of the patrimony of the faith and of holy Christian practices, promoted, defended, and restored ecclesiastical celibacy in successive eras of history, even when they met opposition from the clergy itself and when the practices of a decadent society did not favor the heroic demands of virtue. The obligation of celibacy was then solemnly sanctioned by the Sacred Ecumenical Council of Trent and finally included in the Code of Canon Law.' (Emphasis Added) So, Roman Catholicism forbids marriage. (2) That Roman Catholicism has ordinary fasting laws, consider the 'fifth precept' of the Catholic church: 'You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.' (Catechims of the Catholic Church, 2043) So, they command (a 'church precept,' in fact) that all must keep the days of fasting prescribed by them, and even required during supposedly 'holy' seasons (like 'Lent'). Furthermore, in Revelation 17:9, we find that Antichrist (the Roman Church, with the pope as its head) will sit on the seven hilled / mountained city, and that city is none other than: Rome. If you are familiar with history, Rome acquired that title long before the apostle John wrote this Revelation, and to this day the city is still renowned as the 'city of (or on) seven hills.' How does this prove that there are genuinely saved people in the Roman Catholic Church? Well, in Revelation 18:4, their is a command from heaven to those who are among or in the church of Antichrist called God's people. The command goes like this: 'And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her [the Roman Catholic Church personified as a whore-JP], my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.' Now, if God expressly says in His word that there are people of His (i.e., 'my people,') in Antichrist whom He has commanded to come out of the Roman Catholic Church, then who am I to say that no one is saved in the Roman Catholic Church? I cannot do so with good conscience, even if I do believe that Roman Catholicism is a sinful system. From a born and raised - now former - Roman Catholic, John P.

Subject: Re: To Catherine From: Catherine To: John P. Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:03:01 (PDT) Email Address: fraygrence@yahoo.com Message: I'm sorry--I'm replying before I've even read the entirety of your message, but antichristian? How could that even be said? The center, the very core of my faith is Jesus Christ. I take him into my body each time I receive communion--Everything the Roman Catholic church does revolves around and is for the greater glory of Christ. And in response to your question of how I can be so sure sure of my salvation--I'm not 100% sure nor did I say as much. I know that I love God and try to live in accordance with God's will, but I also know that I'm human and I sin. We are all responsible for our own sins and our own shortcomings in the eyes of our Lord. Don't forget that the road is long and narrow, and as humans, we tend to stray from it, which grieves our Lord. Just as a sidenote, I have to ask, have you ever considered that the very early Church did not have the Bible to go on? Have you ever done any research on those instrumental in compiling the Word of God? And have you ever wondered why, on any given Sunday you could walk into any given Protestant church and hear the same scripture read, but have wholly different sermons? Not that just words and examples are different, but the actual lessons are? Pastor says, 'This is what God means when he says that...' 'This is what Paul is saying...' And he is adding his interpretation of the Bible, yet his interpretation is infallible? If the Holy Spirit enabled all of these Godly men to understand the meaning of Scripture, then why is there not a general consensus? In short, why is it so far-fetched that if Christ left us with His Word, He also left us with a way of interpreting that word? Interested in your thoughts on the matter. I am going to finish reading your post now. Catherine

Subject: Re: To Catherine From: Tom-E To: Catherine Date Posted: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 07:05:53 (PDT) Email Address: txm284@gateway.net Message: Hi Catharine: I have read most of this dialogue concerning Catholicism and salvation. I came from a catholic background and understand your position. I am now part of Messianic Judaism. (Jews that believe Jesus is the Messiah.) I would just like to encourage you. Salvation is bought with the blood of Messiah. Yet the works we do are commanded by G-d and give evidence that we are actually operating in the covenant that G-d made. In doing so we are partaking with G-d in the process of the worlds consummation. Jesus I call him Yeshua (Hebrew name) only condemned tradition when it contradicted scripture. He, Paul, Peter, were all Jews and kept tradition. The Jewish religion as a whole does not view tradition as being equal to the inspiration of scripture. They do believe it holds a level of inspiration. Weather it does it is or isn’t is not the point. The point is that tradition as long as it does not contradict scripture is good if it aids us in our worship and understanding of G-d. Catholic tradition should be seen in the same way. If your tradition does not contradict scripture and aids you in worship do it. Weather it’s inspired well that’s another issue. Please realize that not everything that is said in this forum is necessarily correct. Go to other sources beyond reform theology and research. Get all the knowledge you can. I wish you the best. Shalom Tom-E

Subject: Vatican Revelation From: lindell To: Catherine Date Posted: Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 09:13:21 (PDT) Email Address: ldunning@usa.net Message: Fatima,Portugal (ap) Vatican reveals'third secret'of Fatima. Ending an enduring mystery,the Vatican disclosed the so-called third secret of Fatima on Saturday,saying the secret the Virgin Mary is said to have told two children more than 80 years ago was a foretelling of the shooting of Pope John Paul II. Since 1917-when two shepherd children said the mother of Christ appeared above an olive tree in Fatima and told them three secrets-many have speculated about the third. The first two are said to have foretold the end of WWIand the start of WWII,and the rise and fall of Soviet communism. Some believed the third unrevealed secret was a doomsday prophecy foretelling the end of the world. But a top Vatican cardinal said otherwise on Saturday as the pope visited Fatima to beatify the two shepherd children from the story. Cardinal Angelo Sodano said the'interpretations'of the children spoke of a 'bishop clothed in white'who, while making his way amid the corpses of martyrs'falls to the ground,apparently dead,under a burst of gunfire.' The description recalled the 1981 assassination attempt against John Paul,who was wounded when a Turkish gunman opened fire in St. Peters Square. The shooting came on May 13-the same day as the first of the reported Fatima visions in 1917. John Paul has credited the Virgin of Fatima with and saving his life. The pope had said a 'motherly hand'guided the bullets path,enabling the 'dying pope' to halt 'at the thresholdof death.' The article was taken from the Kokomo,Indiana Tribune this spring.

Subject: Re: To Catherine From: John P. To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 15:15:47 (PDT) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings Catherine: Have you read the rest of my post yet? What is your response? I certainly hope you do some research of your own. Let me answer each of your questions: (1) 'have you ever considered that the very early Church did not have the Bible to go on?' -Sure they did, Catherine. There is more to our Bibles than the 27 books of the New Testament. There are a whole 49 (not 56) books of the Old Testament which are a rule by which Christians could judge what was being spoken and read even by the apostles. See Acts 17:11, where we read the following, 'These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word [i.e., from Paul] with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.' So you see, they judged Paul's doctrine by the Old Testament Scriptures. Besides, by the time Peter wrote his second epistle in the AD 60's, he already knew that Paul's epistles were Scripture, and it didn't require first Council of Nicaea to conclude it for us. Peter wrote, 'As also in all his [i.e., Paul's]epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.' (2 Peter 3:16) Scripture, Catherine, is self-attesting. It does not require the authority of a Church, man, or anything else to vindicate its authenticity. When God speaks, He speaks authoritatively and needs no defense of man nor church in order to make His authoritative threatenings and promises discernable. As Jesus said, 'But I receive not testimony from man...' (John 5:34) The Word of God made flesh said it plainly - *no man is needed to testify of Him in order for Him to be in authority.* (2) Have you ever done any research on those instrumental in compiling the Word of God? -In all honestly, I only have done a little reading in this area. We don't have time for everything. However, I do know some of the basic principles used by the council in order to discern which candidate writings were canonical and which were not. However, I don't think that this is a problem. I think councils are good in-and-of-themselves (if they are used rightly), and I receive the first council of Nicaea. I just don't receive it as establishing the authority the word of God - in fact, I believe the word of God had to establish the legitimacy of having a council (see Acts 15). (3) 'And have you ever wondered why, on any given Sunday you could walk into any given Protestant church and hear the same scripture read, but have wholly different sermons?' -I wouldn't walk in just any Protestant church. I believe the overwhelming majority are fallen for Roman Catholic Principles and/or ecumenicalism. However, I do realize that one can go into a genuinely Protestant church, hearing the same Scripture as the Roman Catholic Priest read, and hear totally different sermons (i.e., as to meaning, not only words). This is the product of a difference in underlying assumptions. For the Roman Catholic, they believe the church is superior to the Scripture in that it is the only infallible interpretor thereof; we, on the other hand, believe that individual passages of the sacred Scriptures are to be diligently searched (John 5:39, 'Search the scriptures...'), and interpretted in subordination unto, the rest of Scripture as a whole, or more clear places in the Scripture. (4) Not that just words and examples are different, but the actual lessons are? -Yes, indeed. Same in the Catholic Churches (I hate to say that to you, but its true). You have Augustinians, Thomists, Jansonists, &c. They all differ (as far as I remember) - the pope just said that they can't argue anymore. In fact, there were groups that formerly anathamatized each other *within the Roman Catholic Church* and now (I'm afraid) they have the same (or many of the same) differences, but simply aren't allowed to talk about it. Now, it is quite a stretch to call that true unity. I call that a lot of schism covered-up. (5) 'Pastor says, 'This is what God means when he says that...' 'This is what Paul is saying...' And he is adding his interpretation of the Bible, yet his interpretation is infallible? If the Holy Spirit enabled all of these Godly men to understand the meaning of Scripture, then why is there not a general consensus?' -Because their interpretations are not infallible, and Holy Spirit hasn't enabled these men to understand the meaning of Scripture (in many cases and doctrines). Besides, your argument would have condemned the true Prophets in the Old Testament. People frequently had to discern between the true and false prophet, and they didn't have a pope or infallible church to discern the difference. If it is unjust of God to do it this way today (i.e., as Protestants believe), then it must have been unjust of Him to do it then (i.e., During the time of the prophets). However, we both know that God isn't unjust. Therefore, it must be just of God to work as He Protestants believe He works today. (6) In short, why is it so far-fetched that if Christ left us with His Word, He also left us with a way of interpreting that word? -God teaches us all genuine believers: John 6:45, 'It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me (i.e., Jesus).' You see, we learn of the Father insofar as the Father effectually enables us by the power of the Holy Spirit to, first, receive Christ, then receive truths subsequent to that time. This does not mean that all genuine believers are going to have the same knowledge, nor does it mean they will hold the same amout of truth (some err more than others - this is all determined by God). Is it a mystery that God gives more to one than He does to another? Absolutley. Do I intend to pry into it? Absolutely not. Nevertheless, I do know it to be true. Scripture teaches us this much (see 1 Corinthians 3, where believers build on the foundation of Christ with different materials - some good, some bad; and 2 Thessalonians 3, wherein believers are called to separate even from 'brethren,' who 'walk disorderly' - meaning that two people can be brethren in the faith, and yet not have the same amount of truth when it concerns how to walk.) Finally, Paul was persuaded that he was saved: ' 2 Tim 1:12, 'For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.' Also, we have an apostolic command to make *certain* we are saved: 2 Peter 1:10, 'Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall..' So why do you hold the traditions of the Roman Catholic church over Scripture, and deny that a genuine Christian can have full assurance of their faith in Jesus Christ? Catherine, I encourage you to consider whether or not the sand on which the Roman Catholic Church is built is a very dangerous foundation. If you were to simply swipe away the fact that the largest part of the church is Roman Catholic, swipe away all of your Roman Catholic assumptions which are not proven, and consider what the Bible teaches, you would find that it is not teaching Roman Catholicism. I hope you are willing to see that. Don't forget to respond to the last part of my previous e-mail which you read after responding. Thanks - I may not have much time to continue this, but, hopefully I will. For Christ's Crown and Covenant, John P. putz7@msn.com

Subject: Correction From: John P. To: John P. Date Posted: Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 22:20:17 (PDT) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: In the above post, I wrote: 'Yes, indeed. Same in the Catholic Churches (I hate to say that to you, but its true). You have Augustinians, Thomists, Jansonists [sic], &c. They all differ (as far as I remember) - the pope just said that they can't argue anymore.' I was working from memory on this one, but I erred in saying that the pope allows Jansenists (proper spelling) as among the Roman Catholic Church without condemning them. They were too near to Calvinists (opposing semi-pelagianism, believing in irresistible grace, and believing in limited atonement, &c.), and have been declared heretics by the Roman Catholic Church. My sincerest apologies. Promoting Truth and a Third Reformation: John P.

Subject: Re: To Catherine From: Tom To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 22:46:50 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Catherine Recently I was in a conversation with another Catholic (a very learned one at that) and one of the things he said was, that the pope was correct in 99% of his doctrine, and the 1%, others just misunderstand him. Do you agree with your Catholic brother about this? If so, why over the centuries have popes taken different views of the same topics. Also, why is the pope apologising for what the Catholic Church did during the holicost(sp?), if the pope of that day supported what was being done? Is the pope falible or not? Tom

Subject: Re: To Catherine From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 07:18:25 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom - ask your RC buddy again. H may have meant that the Pope is 99% correct only when he does not speak ex-cathedrally (sp?)...meaning he's just a very smart man virtually all the time. Otherwise the Pope's pronouncements are indeed perfect and infallible when he says 'thus saith the Lord'. Read This on Papal Infallibility laz

Subject: Re: Response From: laz To: Catherine Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 21, 2000 at 17:14:42 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Catherine - you said: Yes, I am Roman Catholic and I wasn't asking out of curiosity for my own salvation--I know that I am saved. This is not a trick question. How do you KNOW you're saved? Where does your assurance come from? love, laz p.s. maybe you meant to say that you know you're in the PROCESS of being saved?

Subject: Re: Response From: Catherine To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:05:33 (PDT) Email Address: fraygrence@yahoo.com Message: Salvation is a continual process--I did not mean to sound assured that I was absolutely saved. Sorry for the misunderstanding...I should pay very close attention to my wording. Catherine

Subject: Catherine, thanks for the honesty From: Rod To: Catherine Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 15:17:59 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Now, an honest question from me. Here is what you said, 'I did not mean to sound assured that I was absolutely saved.' This must, naturally, be your position as an instructed Catholic. Now, if you don't and can't believe you are absolutely saved, why should anyone else believe it about you?

Subject: Re: Response From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 21, 2000 at 18:03:27 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: laz, If I understand your last statement correctly, that is the only way a member of the RCC can view things based on the sacramental system they espouse. The salvation "process" is always ongoing under that system, never finished in this lifetime. Even at death, it isn't complete, as all RCC people, even the pope, must pass through purgatory under that system of belief.

Subject: Re: Response From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 21, 2000 at 18:11:47 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes, being raised initially Catholic, my parents are still devoutly so....assurance for them is presumptive. My mom is very fearful of death on account of not having any assurance that she will 'merit' the prize at the end of the day. laz

Subject: Re: Response From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 21, 2000 at 18:22:12 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, laz, I remembered your mentioning your RCC background and the fact that your family is still in that organization. You have the unique position of being able to understand the desire to 'merit' reward far better than the rest of us. 'Meriting' salvation is the accurate way to describe the RCC view and the basis of all false Christianity: '...the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord' (Rom. 6:23). Given, not earned.

Subject: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT! From: Pilgrim To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 16:28:16 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please make note of the following schelduled Server move: 'On Wednesday September 20, 2000 the Hotboards.com,Paradise-web.com, Paradise-serve.com and pergatory.com server will be down from 8:00 AM PST for approximately 12 to 24 hours. During this downtime we will be transferring data to a new server and upgrading forum software. While we do not expect to be down for the full 24 hours or hopefully not even 12 hours we wanted to make sure that we have a large enough time window in the event that something does go wrong. : These are the New URL's for the forums: Theology:.......... http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=discuss Open:.......... http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=highway Prayer:.......... http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=prayer In His Service, Pilgrim

Subject: Passibility/Trinity for Eric From: laz To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 13:44:34 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, you wrote: Please provide for me your biblical basis for the immutability of God. As well as your philosophical basis for it. Some questions you want to ask yourself is how does the incarnation fit into this. You may also want to consider God's wrath as well. Was God's wrath present w/in the relationship of the Trinity? God bless. P.S. Can you move this up top please. See short link. laz Does God 'Change'? www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr97/1997.04.JulAug/mr9704.pa.impassibility.html

Subject: Re: Passibility/Trinity for Eric From: Lurker Jr To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 13:54:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Most interesting piece... www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/openness.htm

Subject: For Rod from below From: Eric To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:58:07 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry about starting this thread up top, but my browser frequently fails to load this page completely. Rod wrote: Just for clarification: Do you believe that sin was unforeseen and dealt with as an afterthought by God? That is, do you believe that God was unaware that sin would occur until it happened, or that He decreed that it would happen prior to its arising, making Him the ultimate reason sin entered the world? God knew full well when He created Adam that he would sin. However, God did not decree Adam's fall. Rather He ordained it, and used it for His own purposes. God gave Adam the ability to choose his destiny. Trust in God, or trust in himself. Adam chose the latter, and all of humanity has been granted their wish--life apart from God. There is a reason that God gave Adam the command not to eat of the tree. It would have been perfectly just for God to give Adam no commands, and create him w/a mind to obey at all times, but He didn't. And, I guess the main reason is so that we will live to praise the glory of His grace and mercy. With that in mind, I do hold out hope that one day, all men will be reconciled to Christ, and that every man, woman, and child ever born will be praising His grace for eternity. God bless.

Subject: Re: For Rod from below From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 15:01:20 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Eric, I have stayed out of this so far, not being a real theologian. There are, however, a couple of things you wrote here that I would like to comment on. One is this: 'However, God did not decree Adam's fall. Rather He ordained it, and used it for His own purposes.' I don't know if Webster qualifies as good enough for theologs or not, but by my old dictionary defines 'decree' as: ''1) An authorative order or decision deciding what is, or is to be, done; edict...3) (Theol.) an eternal prupose of God foreordaining some event or condition.'' Similarly, it says this about to 'ordain': ''1) to establish by order, decree, or law; to enact; esp., of the Diety, fate, etc., to destine,; predestine.'' I can't see that it makes any practical difference, in short. God determined that man (in Adam) would sin. He didn't directly force Adam to sin, but knew that he would and had to both know it and to have decided it for the express purpose of bringing about his eternal plan to save some of mankind and to condemn the rest, all of which is to the glory of His Son. You also wrote: 'It would have been perfectly just for God to give Adam no commands, and create him w/a mind to obey at all times, but He didn't.' I beleive, if you will consider this carefully, you will be forced to deny this statement. God is just at all times and whatever He does is just. If it had been just to do what you just wrote, that is what He would have done, being the just and holy God. But, instead, He did the just and righteous thing and created the representative man, the federal head of the human race, just as He did, with the capacity to sin, and knowing that Adam would sin. When He did it, God already knew, 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor. 15:22). God does things the just and righteous way, there is no 'Plan B' with Him. I infer and believe that your position is predicated on preserving God from any charge for the moral responsibility of sin. That is unnecessary, as He declares throughout the Bible that He is just, holy, pure, righteous, and that He hates sin. The paradox is that He can use sin, which He detests, to bring about His purpose. Moreover, He intended to use that sin to accomplish His plan, to bring about the conformation of those whom He did predestinate to the image of His Son, 'to them who are the called according to his purpose' (Rom. 8:29). This mystery is referenced in Acts 2, where Peter preaches that the Lord Jesus was 'delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,' which is by ordination and decree, but in such a way that the ones who did it were 'wicked,' not God: ''Him...ye have taken, and by WICKED HANDS have crucified and slain' (verse 23). God predetermined that this would come to pass to save His elect, which is just, merciful, and righteous, but the men who did it are 'wicked,' not God. To digress slightly, below, in the former thread, you challenged me to affirm where immutability is found. I submit that it is everywhere evident throughout the Bible. In the general sense it is proved in that God's salvation has always been, throughout the Bible, 'by grace through faith.' Adam who sinned found grace in that God provided the blood to cover his sin and clothed him with the evidence of that blood, the skins of the animals, immediately after putting him out of the Garden, while Adam expressed faith that God's pronouncements were true: see Gen. 3:20-21. Undeservable favor, grace, resulting in the gift of faith unto salvation is always God's way from the beginning. In the specific sense, God's immutability is declared in precise ways such as: 'Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand and I shall do all my pleasure' (Is. 46:19). (Not long ago, someone, I can't remember who, denied recklessly that this was a statement of immutability, but applied to a specific isolated event only. The context and construction of the statement are sufficient within themselves to deny that--it applies both to this instance and to all instances as a statement of principle. And the events and unfolding of history in the Bible reinforce the truth of it.) But the simplest statement proving immutability is Mal. 3:6: 'I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.' (Again, this was denied by someone before as a universal statement, but there is no rational basis for that denial. It is a universal statement and an application of it to a specific occurence.) It isn't 'I don't change in relation to this particular incident and circumstance, but 'I am the LORD [the ''I AM,'' a constant state of sameness, literally, ''I am the I AM''], I CHANGE NOT.' Clearly this is an unmistakeable evidence of immutability. If God changed in His core atttibutes and essence, He would be, not 'eternal,' as He declares, but 'evolving,' growing and learning and adjusting and tilting events so that they would turn out as He hoped they would. Such a God could never say, 'God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. Hath he said, and shall he no do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?' (Num. 3:19). This was spoken by Balaam when explaining the futility of trying to thwart God's decree, in response to God's 'putting a word in his mouth' (verse 16) for Balak to hear. God declares His immutability in Ps. 102: 25-27: 'Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all them shall become old like a garment; like a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years have no end.' He reinforces that thought in James 1:17: 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' Not even a shadow of turning! God is immutable, the attribute of the Almighty which the Church has been led by the Spirit to believe and declare from its beginning. _____________________________________________________________________ Now, Eric, I must ask you to explain this statement. It sounds like true Universalism: 'With that in mind, I do hold out hope that one day, all men will be reconciled to Christ, and that every man, woman, and child ever born will be praising His grace for eternity.' If I understand your statement correctly, it is contrary to God's will and purpose because it doesn't apply to those whom God has chosen in predestination and election, thwarting the 'good pleasure of his will' in predestinating and electing those saved...according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed within himself' (see Eph. 1:3-14).

Subject: Re: For Rod from below From: Eric To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 05:39:40 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, First off, I don't know how the issue of immutability and impassability came up. I don't deny either of these. Some people though have different understandings of those terms. In regard to ordination vs. decree. My limited understanding is that God's decree is equivalent to a command, whereby His ordination is more along the lines of governance and permissive will. I don't want to get into this subject, as it has been broached before. You wrote: If it had been just to do what you just wrote, that is what He would have done, being the just and holy God. I would ask you to think about your line of thought as well. If I am understanding you right, you would affirm that God would not have been just in not electing you to salvation, and to punish you for your sins. Because after all, He did save you, and therefore it was perfectly just for Him to do so, so there could have been no alternative. Is this in line with your reasoning? Or would God have been just in allowing you to suffer the consequence of your sin? ISTM that justice is possible whether or not it is acted out. I don't think that God is forced into acting by His character. NOw, I am not saying that God doesn't always do what is just, but rather that God is free to do things differently. Now, as far as my Universalistic statement. I must confess, that I do hope that all men will be reconciled to God. Do I think this is the case? Based upon the majority of biblical evidence, no. However, there are hints of universal reconcilliation throughout the NT, and maybe our fallen minds have misunderstood the scope and duration of the judgement--I don't know. After all, God saved me. And if He sees fit to save this awful sinner, He certainly can do it to others. Actually I really started pondering this when I changed my view on original sin, and the comparison between Adam and Christ in Rom. 5:12-21. All I know is that when we see the outcome of redemptive history, we will say that surely God has done all things well. God bless.

Subject: Re: For Rod from below From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:54:26 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Hi, Eric, Well, we obviously differ somewhat on several issues. Let me ask that you consider a couple of things only, without going into the whole post. First, consider this sentence you wrote: 'I don't think that God is forced into acting by His character.' Taken as a bald statement, this can readily be seen as something directly opposite to the actual fact. God is forced by His perfection to do the best thing, the perfect thing. Conversely, He is forced by His nature and character into not doing the unrighteous thing while doing the righteous thing, meaning that He is both free and restricted. He is free to do the merciful thing because He has already done the righteous thing, which allows Him to express His love for sinners in mercy in such a way as not to diminish the just punishment of sin. He accomplishes that by Substitution of a righteous Person for the unrighteous one, but the sin is still judged. Justice is meted out. God is always bound by justice and righteousness, as evidenced by Gen. 18:25 and by Titus 1:2, where His inability to lie is bound up in His promise of eternal life for the elect whom He has foreknown. That promise was based on 'foreknowledge,' which means intimate, loving knowledge, purpose, and design--it has been described as 'foreloved' in illustrations by Bible teachers and that is apt. Then, 'whom he did foreknow, he did predestinate, them he also called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified' (Rom. 8:30). Why? We are told (by implication) it resides in Him to know why. It is only revealed to us that, again on the basis of 'foreknowledge,' the elect are 'predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). In that Rom. 8:29 verse, we see the term 'firstborn,' referencing preeminence, used in relation to the holy Son of God. The plan of the Triune God rests foundationally on the honoring of the Son, a most righteous thing to do and something which God, from His nature is bound by that nature to achieve. When God proclaims His magnificance, He isn't bragging, He is telling the truth, revealing to the universe His attributes. Because He is exalted and self-existent, He must, out of His divine nature, proclaim Himself to His creation. God is driven by His own existence and character to reveal His own glory. And it glorifies Him to save those whom He loves (the predestined and elect), not anyone else. It wouldn't glorify Him to save one person whom he didn't foreknow in that way because something other than His own character and determination would have caused Him to do so. So, yes, my condemnation on the basis of what is within me alone would have been just, right, and wholly deserved (just as with every other redeemed person), BUT, because their redemption is bound up in God's nature, not our own, it is perfectly right and just for Him to extend mercy to me and all the elect because it honors His love for them and glorifies the Son! Am I humbled by this? Definitely! Do I understand it all? Obviously not. Do any of us deserve this unfathomable privilege? No, we deserve damnation because we are moral agents responsible for sin, but then, yes, we do, because Another, working out of the basis of His own foreknowledge and all that entails made the decision that we do deserve it and took action in eternity and time to remove the guilt of sin from us and to place it upon Himself to be dealt with righteously and decisively. It is undeserved on the human plane, but it is deserved in the Divine sphere because God has decreed it so. The reason for His decree is enfolded in His own character and righteous nature, not in our own natural evil selves. How does God tell us that? Simply here: '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 alive together with Christ (by grace ye are saved)' (Eph. 2:4-5). The key is, as revealed in Rom. 8:29, revealed in the words, 'together with Christ.' If it were not for the Son of God, in His glorious nature and splendor, there would be no redemption. But because He is to be 'preeminent' and 'firstborn among many brethren' to His eternal glory, we are glorified with Him. That is what binds God to act as He did and does, His own unique nature, because everything He does brings glory to Himself. The elect receive 'glorification,' as Rom. 8:30 promises. But don't miss the fact that it is not their own glory. They are glorified by the 'King of glory' (Ps. 24:7-10). That is the only righteous manner in which the elect may be glorified: 'I am the LORD; and my glory will I not give to another' (Is. 42:8). And your wish, Eric, for God to be glorified by every person will be realized, yet not only in redemption, but also in condemnation, just condemnation for the lost: 'Wherefore, God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. [in order] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, TO THE GLORY OF GOD, THE FATHER' (Phil. 2:9-11). The redeemed will praise Him throughout eternity for what He has done for them and for His own glory, and the lost will praise His righteousness and admit their condemnation is, indeed, just, their damanation deserved (see Rom. 3:5-8).

Subject: Re: For Rod from below From: Eric To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:47:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thank you for your well thought out response. It is obvious you took some time with it, and I appreciate it. The Christ centeredness of our salvation is something that always amazes me when I am confronted with it--thank you. Our disagreements seem to be more about the 'how' as opposed to the fact, or even the 'why.' My point about God not being forced by his character was that I believe that there are a number of options that are equally just, and therefore God would have been free to pursue those. Cetainly God cannot do anything contrary to His holy character, but He is the free-st of beings, and the possibilities for Him are limitless. Something is either just, or it is not. There is not gradations of justice, nor is their only one just possibility. You are right that God would have been perfectly just to punish us for our sins, but since we are united with Christ in his death and ressurection, God could not justly punish us because we are clothed with Christ's righteousness. And yes, it is all wrapped up in God's effort to glorify himself. W/o that fact, we have no hope whatsoever. God bless.

Subject: Re-Salvation From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:19:25 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: As a continuation of my conversation with the person on the other board. I gave him my concerns with what he had to say. To which he responded: 'Let's take for granted, for the sake of argument, that your theology is correct, and let's take a practical, pastoral, hypothetical situation and see how you deal with it. A member of a Reformed Protestant church has placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation and he lives a holy life bearing the fruit, or evidence, of his salvation for a long time. After a time, he falls into horrible sin (say, adultery). It is a deliberate disobedience, on his part, to what he knows to be Christ's command to live a holy life. He comes to his pastor to ask a theological question: 'Is it *possible*, according to our system of theology, that I can be one of the predestined, effectually called by God, elect who will certainly obtain salvation? even though I am presently living in this horribly sinful condition? What is your answer if you are the pastor? Don'e tell him why he should live a holy life, or that he needs to stop sinning, he already knows that and he's not asking that. He simply wants to know what the Reformed Protestant theological system will be able to tell him. Is it *possible* that he is elect? The answer is: yes, it is *possible*.' To which I responded among other things: '...one who is a true believer, will not die in that possition. God will not allow his elect to go on sinning in this way.' His responce was as followed: 'Please make a defense of your theological position. Defend the statement you made where you said: '...one who is a true believer, will not die in that possition.' Feel free to use any biblical quotations, quotations from theologians, or confessional statements. I deny that what you said is true according to Reformed Protestant theology. In truth, according to Reformed Protestant theology an elect person *can* die in such a state.' Besides the fact that I probably shouldn't have made a statement like that, without backing it up in the first place. I am having a little trouble finding the imformation he requested. I made that statement, because I believe it is a logical deduction. Was I correct in doing so? If so can someone provide me with the imformation he requested? Don't worry, I am not going to carry on this discussion with him much longer, I don't think it is all that productive. Tom

Subject: Re: Re-Salvation From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 13:33:32 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hey Tom...you sure do engage in some doozies! hehe I believe that a true believer CAN die in gross sin...and that death can be a direct result of God dishing out a little parental discipline. Much like the Corinthians who were taking in the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner. We have no reason to believe that Paul was talking about unregenerate church members. Also, who is going to die without ANY unconfessed sin? We do so much wrong without even being aware of it. No? The bottom line is that we can't make absolute judgements about the salvific state of persons. Only God truly knows. We can only surmise based on confession and fruit...neither of which are absolute barometers, BUT, enough to grant that all-important MEMBERSHIP. hahahaha! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Re-Salvation From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 00:19:21 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Laz I guess I am going to have to study this one further. The problem I have is although it is impossible to judge whether someone is truly saved. If someone who is a genuine believer(at least as far as anyone can tell) who is experiencing fruit and over time deliberately starts to sin ie. adultry,as a result other things in his life suffer and God allows them to die in that possition. Shouldn't that be an indication that they weren't really genuine Christians in the first place? I believe we are to examine ourselves to see if we are truly of the faith. If this isn't something that is happening in a believers life, then they may have a presumed faith, not an actual faith. Tom

Subject: Re: Re-Salvation From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:12:39 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Tom, When David, the king, sinned in adultery and murder, did he cease to be saved?

Subject: Re: Re-Salvation From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 13:22:15 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod I think you missed my point, I was not saying that someone could loose their salvation. I was saying that if someone who constantly and willfully commits something like adultry. Isn't it an indication that they were not actually saved in the first place? Do you understand where I am coming from? Tom

Subject: Re: Re-Salvation From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 16:18:08 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Yes, I think I do. How long do you supposed David's affair and deception went on? What finally brought him to repentance? Wasn't it a direct action of the Lord God through the prophet? What did David do of himself to bring himself back to God? A person in gross sin is given over to sin by God until it suits God's purposes. On a personal level, I would question whether a person who commits adultery and murder is saved at all, but I know that David was God's man. Not only that, but he was His man in a way that was so special that he was a 'man after God's own heart.' We are to examine the fruit and the evidence of godly living is all that we have. But, as God declares in 1 Sam. concerning His annointed, 'God looks upon the heart.' Your correspondent posed this situation: ''Let's take for granted, for the sake of argument, that your theology is correct, and let's take a practical, pastoral, hypothetical situation and see how you deal with it. A member of a Reformed Protestant church has placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation and he lives a holy life bearing the fruit, or evidence, of his salvation for a long time. After a time, he falls into horrible sin (say, adultery). It is a deliberate disobedience, on his part, to what he knows to be Christ's command to live a holy life. He comes to his pastor to ask a theological question: 'Is it *possible*, according to our system of theology, that I can be one of the predestined, effectually called by God, elect who will certainly obtain salvation? even though I am presently living in this horribly sinful condition?' David's case more than answers this condition. Not only will he obtain salvation, but he has it and never lost it. Then you personally added that a person couldn't die in that sinful condition if saved. Have you examined 1 John 5:16-19? In it there is mentioned a 'sin not unto death' and a 'sin unto death.' If we accept that the Apostle is dealing with believers, we must accept that God ends physical life for believers at times because of sin. There may be room for question that the 'sin unto death' is by a true believer, but in verse 16, the person is called the 'brother' of believers. But then in verse 18, we are told that a believer and saved person 'keepeth himself and that the wicked one toucheth him not.' Does that mean that he can't sin so, or does it mean that, though he sins grievously, he is still under the provision of salvation from God and that the 'wicked one' can't get his eternal soul from God? If we didn't have the provision of the story of David, who sinned terribly in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, as well as affronting God in pride with the census at another time, I'd say the person was lost and not a true believer. But David committed sin worhty of death on three separate occasions and was spared from the physical penalty of the Law on the basis of God's grace. He was a saved man, evidence to the contrary indication notwithstanding, and no man could deny his entry into Heaven. We have to ask ourselves if God restores every gross sinner to earthly relation with Himself before He brings on that person's death? Or, does He execute some (most) who have sinned unto death, cutting short their earthly life as punishment and taking them to be with Himself to prevent their continuation in their sin? I lean toward the latter interpretation, that a saved person can fall into gross and deadly sin, as David did. If that person is saved, God will most likely send physical death instead of restoration, according to this context, punishing him and taking him out of the world rather than allowing the pattern to continue indefinitely as the person himself would will.

Subject: Re: Re-Salvation From: john hampshire To: all Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 17:35:27 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'If any one may see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give to him life to those sinning not unto death; there is sin to death, not concerning it do I speak that he may beseech; 17 all unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death.' I see the 'sin unto death' as any sin which is committed and has NO redemption planned. That is, the penalty of sin IS death... life is only available due to Christ's atonement. No atonement and the sin is surely unto death (the second death). However, if the sinner ask then God will give life (that's His policy), if the sinner has no redeemer then there is no need to pray for salvation... if only because the sinner WILL not. However, all sin leads to death... but some sin is covered and will not lead to death. Does that make sense? It does to me, though I'm like that. I would agree too that God 'takes out' the wicked as a means to control His universe. In Verse 18 'We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him' In this verse we are re-told that those 'begotten by God', meaning those God has redeemed to be His children DO NOT sin. They DO sin, but their trespasses are not ACCOUNTED by God, so it is AS IF they are PERFECT. Those that are begotten are 'kept' or 'preserved', that is, they are not to be destroyed. The last part speaks of the 'evil one', which I translate just as 'evil' (not referring to Satan). That is, those that are preserved by God are kept from EVIL, that is the Day and Hour of Evil--Judgment Day, which is the evil to come upon unregenerate mankind. The question at hand concerned a believer sinning and still be predestined or go to heaven... The premise is likely built on the erroneous idea that we must 'confess' all our sins or God will not forgive, thus, an unconfessed sin puts us in jeopardy of hell. There are many confused people who cannot sleep at night until they confess all their supposed sin, such is the level of this nonsense. The fact is believers are kept by God from Judgment Day and sanctified in this world--set apart, so with sin there is restoration, whether they live to fully understand it or not (i.e., thief on the cross). We do sin, but do not die (eternally). The unregenerate do sin, but DIE. And yes, if someone sins without remorse (David had overwhelming remorse) with no desire to please God (David desired to please God) they have reason to fear... despite their claim to the title 'Christian'. john

Subject: Re: Re-Salvation From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:47:37 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom - I agree with you...if a 'sound Christian' (from OUR human vantage point) dies in a particular gross sin, that person just MIGHT have been foolin' us. If a formerly 'sound Christian' falls off the wagon and begins living a life of debauchery, first, he needs to be disciplined so that he may be brought to repentence and restored back to the Faith. But if he refuses to repent, he can get excommunicated and is consided a pagan by those whom have been given the 'keys of the Kingdom' (JH's interpretation notwithstanding). Bottom line: We can't be absolutely sure, nor given the perogative or injuction to surmise, who is of the Elect. But that is not to say that we can't grant all the rights and priviledges of membership to those who make a proper confession and adorn that confession well...as well as rescind those rights/priviledges to those unwilling to tow the line. laz

Subject: Just thought you all needed to .... From: stan To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 14:18:32 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: be sure of your convictions on the second coming :-) http://www.clonejesus.com/

Subject: Incredible! From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 15:00:25 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: I noticed two significant things about this: 1) 'The Second Coming Project is soliciting contributions and donations to help us is [sic] our quest.' (Maybe the typo is very significant and actually true!) 2) The address given is in California. :>) What a pathetic and damnable thing! Zech. 4:6 and Acts 1:11.

Subject: Re: Incredible! From: mebaser To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 00:02:26 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 2) The address given is in California. :>) --- Hey! What's wrong with California? mebaser (a California resident)

Subject: Re: Incredible! From: Rod To: mebaser Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 03:05:10 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Hey, old cyber-friend, gladda see yuh! Most left coast people of my acquaintance admit that you have more than your fair share of kooks. Present company except, of course. Don't mean to offend, but that seems a fair assessment to me. Kooks per capita seem to be on the rise everywhere though.

Subject: Re: Right on! especially acts 1.11! NT From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 17:39:56 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: 'Voting' From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 14:09:19 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: I've really tried to stay out of the church membership discussion, as well as the hyper-Calvinism one, as I am not of the 'Reformed' persuasion per se, and not a member of any local church by acceptance onto rolls or, indeed, of any denomination. This isn't the normal thing on this board, nor do I necessarily expect my views about that to be casually adopted by the majority here. I do, however, have to seriously question the notion that voting by the members of a congregation should determine dogma and/or direction of the local church. That is the province of elders and the reason that local assemblies have them. The one instance of voting that I can recall in the Bible is in the beginning, in Jerusalem, and that in regard to choosing men to fairly distribute food, not in church worship service or doctrine in any way that I can tell. The leaders of that group, the Apostles, then were freed to devote themselves 'continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word' (Acts 6:4). The full assembly voted that one time, apparently, only as they were ordered to by the Spriit of God through the direction of the Apostles. Since we no longer have Apostles and since we have no other illustration of determination by voting, I don't see that there is a precedent set for local congregations. The elders are, by their very designation and qualifications outlined in the Bible, spiritual men. As such, they are spiritually qualified to lead the church, as they allow themselves to be led by the Spirit of God. That is the reason I think the Spirit of God spoke of 'elders [plural] in every city' (Titus 1:5), which would be effectively 'every church' as there seems to be only one assembly per city at that time. So, we seem to have a plurality of elders to insure there is no 'one man rule;' to insure unity of leadership in decision making; and no precedent for voting assemblies or majority rule. If we think about it, we find this principle to be true: Given that the elders are indeed spiritual men and led by God's Spirit; that they are submitted to Him in serving Him and the assembly; that the assembly is submitted to the Spirit of God as every Christians should be--there is no need whatsoever for voting by the assembly, for the elders will act out of godly desires and motivation. Granted that this doesn't take into account that men sin and that it is possible for elders to avoid or shun God's leadership, but we are talking about the way God laid things out, the way God intends them to function. There is no room in that plan for selecting elders who won't function in the manner which He ordains. If the proper people are selected, and if they are doing what they are chosen to do, they must serve God. And there is no provision in the Bible that the 'majority' vote will be the godly one either. The majority can sin from evil motives and be deceived as well as (possilby more easily than) the elders. In 1 Tim. 5:17, we find this statement: 'Let the elders [plural] that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.' The word 'rule' here indicates that they determine and lead, does it not? That again seems to indicate that these men are to lead, not to be led by determining votes of 'members at large.' It might be argued that this could mean approving and presiding over voting procedures, but that seems a weak and pitiful argument. How does one rule by allowing others to decide for him? Advice is one thing, but giving over the determination of matters is far more serious than that. Addendum: It isn't my intention to offend or to impose my views on others in this matter. But we must seek the Lord and we must do that from His revealed Word. It is true we have scant information on these things, but the little that we have seems to negate congregational voting.

Subject: Re: But what about MY rights? ;-) NT From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 17:49:14 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: But what about MY rights? ;-) NT From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 15:41:06 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: stan, I made a jesting reply to this statement which I believe the monitors saw fit to remove as it's not here any more. I suppose they thought I took and gave offense to your remarks. Far from it. I take it that you also are opposing the position of congregational voting? If so, would you affirm that so that the monitor(s) and all will know that we aren't at odds? And, if we are at odds, I need to know it, as I would have been under a misconception. Thanks.

Subject: Re: On a Christian board you are ....... From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 19:29:28 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: wanting to know the odds! No problem here! Didn't see the post - knew we were probably on same track from other exchanges in the past. Sorry if my assuming let to misunderstanding. I don't see voting as such in the Word even though I was raised spiritually with the baptists ;-) Never converted me :-) I do, in our church climate these days and most church governments, suggest voting on large expenditures etc. for the sake of being sure you have the backing you need. If on the other hand you have spiritual elders doing their job the congregation should - in my mind - early on be involved in setting the focus and mission of the church so that all are tracking on what the body wants to do - UNDER THE LORD'S Headship, but once direction is set and elders in place not sure it is needed. stan

Subject: Thanks, I thought so! :>) nt From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 19:56:04 (PDT) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: Salvation From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:06:34 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I am having a discussion with someone on another board, who has said the following to me: 'faith = works = salvation. Still, either way, we must have a working faith. It doesn't matter to me if someone says that you have to work in order to prove that you are saved, or if someone says that you have to work to in order to be saved. It's the same thing.' First, I want to make sure I understand him before I answer one way or another. Second, I want to know whether or not you agree with him, and why. When he said: 'or if someone says that you have to work to in order to be saved. It's the same thing.' I don't know if I really am understanding what he is trying to say. It seems to me, that he is saying that our works play a part of our salvation, instead of faith that works. If that is the case, I have to strongly disagree. But as I said, I may not be understanding him. The reason, I am puting this to this board instead of him personally, is because sometimes I have trouble with his wording and I am not sure it would help to ask him to clarify himself. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance Tom

Subject: Re: Salvation From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 18:17:40 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi tom, ' 'faith = works = salvation. ' I'm not sure how to figure this one. I would have to ask him to clarify. But nothing can come between Faith and Salvation. I would rather see faith + Salvation = works or something like that. 'Still, either way, we must have a working faith. ' At it's face value this is true. Now whether he means it the way I am perceiving it would require more explanation or seeing how he treats certain topics and/or scripture 'It doesn't matter to me if someone says that you have to work in order to prove that you are saved, or if someone says that you have to work to in order to be saved. It's the same thing.' ' This is just silly. There not the same thing. Of course the first of the two is stated awfully it does not mean works salvation. The first portion ('that you have to work in order to prove that you are saved,') should be stated like 'if one is saved then they will produce works and prove it true' or something to the effect. But the 2 statements he gave are not similar. Saying salvation produces works (that is biblical, James is good example.); saying works produce salvation is works-based salvation and is a false gospel. Just look at Galatians (among others). hope that helps. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Salvation From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 12:41:33 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Tom, I'm pretty sure you understood him right and he is confused, according to his statements, badly and sorrowfully so. john's statement below, 'Regeneration produces spiritual life which produces a living faith, which produces good works' is the simple and direct truth. The emphasis is upon 'new life' which is from the Spirit of God. That spiritual life works out its essence in serving God, what we call 'good works.' That is the reason James wrote his chapter 2, verses 14-26. In that passage, we have the whole thing laid out, with faith being compared to a living human: 'Even so faith, if it hath nor works is dead, being alone' (verse 17; and 'For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also' (verse 26). A human life produces bodily activity. A spiritual life from God produces spiritual activity from the body and spirit of the saved person, or produces 'good works.' Paul said it like this: 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10, the same thing James is saying. Human life means expression of life in activity, thought processes, emotions. Spiritual life means the expression of that life by the activity of the Spirit Who gives that life and sustains it. This is fundamental to understanding the Christian faith. A salvation produced by works is the 'big lie' of Satan, not of grace and therefore, not of God: 'For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God--not of works, lest any man should boast' (Eph. 2:8-9). So we see that this expression from your friend is dead wrong and in direct opposition to the gospel: ''faith = works = salvation. Still, either way, we must have a working faith. It doesn't matter to me if someone says that you have to work in order to prove that you are saved, or if someone says that you have to work to in order to be saved. It's the same thing.'' It is emphatically NOT the same thing. Paul said, "Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love [from the spiritual life produced by the Spirit of God], it profiteth me NOTHING" (1 Cor. 13:3). Works don't equalsalvation. But, because one is saved by grace through faith, not works of his own, he does good works which proceed from God, Who has ordained that we will work from the power of His Spirit Who guides us and serve Him according to His purposes. The process of salvation is first and primary. Only when one has the new spiritual life can he work and he must then do the works which God "hath before ordained." The flow is not from faith to to works to salvation, but from spiritual life to faith as a gift from God by grace in salvation to works in service to God.

Subject: Re: Salvation From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 09:09:19 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Good post. I might add that the 2nd chapter of James isn't talking about faith + works as some espouse, it is talking about faith. A genuine faith that is evidenced in works. Tom

Subject: Re: Salvation From: john hampshire To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 00:40:53 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The divine order is: Election, Redemption, Regeneration, Effectual Calling, Sanctification, Glorification. Salvation is seen in men in effectual calling-- toward a new sanctified life. Regeneration produces spiritual life which produces a living faith, which produces good works. It is not the same thing to say 'Good works produces spiritual life which produces regeneration'. Properly understood we find that good works do not produce spiritual life, it is rather spiritual life that produces good works. Your friend has the cart pulling the horse, which does indeed matter, especially to the horse. By the way, the Bible places emphasis on good works as fruit of a living spirit not because we earn salvation, but because it is the flower of the seedling planted by God in regeneration. No flower or fruit--no regeneration. The flower/fruit is how we are able to judge the spiritual character in ourselves and in others. Churches are full of plastic flowers manufactured by plastic Christians. The real thing is beautiful and honorable, the faked flower is cheap, contrived and useless. One has roots in the spirit, the other has roots in the flesh. One is spiritually minded, the other motivated by ego. Guess which one God approves? john

Subject: Hyper Calvinism? From: Five Sola To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 14, 2000 at 15:23:53 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi all, I was challenged in something and I am curious on what the Reformed understanding of this is. I know that if one holds to predestination it must logically be double predestination, but I have heard of Active/passive predestination meaning God Actively(sp?) chooses those for salvation and Passively 'chooses' those for reprobation (ie., meaning He just passes by those whom are not chosen unto salvation). I have also heard of Active/Active in which God Actively chooses both for election and reprobation. I am currently accepting this view, at least as I understand it. My question is that someone challenged me and stated that a Active/Active view of predestination/election is found only in Hyper-Calvinism. Is this true? For I am not of the Hyper-Cal point-of-view, and detest all that they stand for. Am I misunderstanding the view of active/active which has led me to believe in it incorrectly? Five Sola.

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:16:06 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Five When I look at Romans 9 particularly verse 18, it would seem that it supports the active/active position. But I may be missing something that would sway me towards the active/passive possition. To which our learned coleague Pilgrim holds to. Tom

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: kevin To: Five Sola Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 12:45:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Five Sola, I personally have wrestled between the two and in all honesty it can depend on my thought processes as to which way I will lean that day. But as to the Active/Active view being strictly in the ballpark of the HyperCalvinist I would say your friends are mistaken. If one holds to HyperCalvinism (which I do believe to be heretical) then one must of neccessity hold to the Active/Active view. However, holding to the Active/Active view does not mean one is a HyperCalvinist. I hope that helps. In Him, kevin sdg sf ss

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: laz To: Five Sola Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 14, 2000 at 17:42:27 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Five Sola - I too understand as you do....the article on Predestination by RC Sproul seems to suggest as much, as I recall...so, I can't see this as being hyper-anything. To me hyper-calvinism is fatalism to the extent that preaching the gospel to the non-elect (a silly notiong prima facie as if one could ever tell) is not warranted. It also can suggest (perhaps logically necessary) that human responsibility is negated. my 3 cents, laz

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 14, 2000 at 23:32:40 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Laz Would I be correct to say that those who believe in active/passive predestination are Infra-lapsarians(sp?), and those who believe in active/active predestination are called Super-lapsarians(sp?)? Tom

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:57:16 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: hmmmm, these are very hard concepts as they involve speculating into the 'secret things' of God. But, I'd say that God is active in both election and reprobation in that He's ordained both .... but as a good calvinist, that human responsibility is never negated. ;-) Thinking out loud I'd say that there is not a real difference in viewing it as either active/passive or active/active...the bottom line being that the hyper-calvinist introduces some ideas foreign to the scriptues (and the nature of God and redemption)...such as maintaining the things I mentioned earlier to include limiting the preaching of the Gospel to only the elect and killing human responsibility. blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 09:31:17 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Yes I agree with you on that. The problem I have with Hyper-Calvinism (among other things) is how could anyone know who the elect are? Also, in order for it to be true, one would have to disregard the great commission. Tom

Subject: Re: HyperCalvinism From: Brother Bret To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 14:11:00 (PDT) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: J. Vernon McGee said 'it's not like we can lift up their shirt to see if there is a yellow stripe down their back and if there is, witness to them.' I wonder why he picked yellow :-)? Anyway, my understanding is that Hyper-Calvinists believe that since the elect's salvation is inevitable, there is no need to share the gospel, and it doesn't matter how the elect lives once supposedly saved, let alone as already said, whether they ever do or need to believe.....Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:29:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Supralapsarianism is hyper-Calvinism. Same with double predestination. By definition, people are in hell, not because they sin, but because a perfectly loving God sees fit to place them there. Cut through all the double talk, and that is what the supra position comes down to. God bless.

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: Five Sola To: Eric Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 17:01:24 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I know you have been answered (most likely) downt the thread but I wanted to point out your misrepresentation, intentionaly or out of ignorance (I will assume the latter) 'Same with double predestination. By definition, people are in hell, not because they sin, but because a perfectly loving God sees fit to place them there. ' Double predestination (for there is no such thing as single predestination unless you think in a illogical and chaotic universe) says no such thing. Man's sin places him in Hell. I do not understand it all and how but that is clear. God does not force sinful man to sin, and yet the Bible is clear that He choose some 'vessels for glory and some for wrath.' Does that make Him less loving? According to Paul (and thus God) NO! Does it make Him responsible for the sin or punishment? according to Paul NO! Do not Divorce some of God's character to fit the God of your choosing. He is not love alone. He has numerous characteristics (and many we may not be aware of or able to comprehend). I will trust His judgement in whom goes to Hell and whom goes to Heaven. He knows best. And who am I to judge God by my standards? I am the pot He is the potter. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 22:50:21 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric In case you are looking for scriptural proof for what five sola said. You can find it in Roman 9:16-22. Tom

Subject: Re: Hyper Calvinism? From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:59:46 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Supralapsarianism is hyper-Calvinism. Same with double predestination. By definition, people are in hell, not because they sin, but because a perfectly loving God sees fit to place them there. Cut through all the double talk, and that is what the supra position comes down to. God bless. --- Eric - not that static again! haha I'm going to let some heavier weights weigh in on your erroneous post. blessings, laz Short Defn

Subject: awww, come on, you are heavy enough! nt From: Eric To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 08:15:46 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: nt

Subject: You got nerve! From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 08:27:00 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: nt --- You callin' me fat!! hehe If you read that short article I posted...you can see that the only diff btwn infra and supra is in the order of the decree, and not the actual content or end result. So, based on what I know about your views as expressed in past posts ...you'd have a problem with BOTH as they put God squarely at the controls in determining unconditionally who is predestined for grace and glory. laz

Subject: hey kettle... your black! From: The pot To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 08:47:30 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I couldn't find the link you mentioned. But if it is the article by Sproul on double vs. single, I have read it a while ago. Let me see if I have a handle on the issue. Infralapsarian position. 1. God decides to create the world. 2. God ordains the fall. 3. All men deserve eternal death because of Adam (remember that one? You were right :) ) 4. God decides to save some from this just punishment for the sake of His Son and the praise of His grace. Supralapsarian 1. God decides to create the world. 2. God decides to create some men to be objects of eternal torment, and some for eternal blessedness. 3. God decrees the fall 4. All men deserve eternal death because of Adam, but most were already destined for eternal death prior to any sin of Adam, and this would not have changed if Adam had not sinned. 5. God saves some for the sake of His Son and the praise of His grace. So, hell is not a place for punishment of sins, but rather as a place for God to display His wrath. Now, where did this wrath come from? Is it a essential part of who He is, and He had it bottled up inside from eternity past w/in the fellowship of the Trinity? Or is it a response to something, an effect? God bless.

Subject: Re: hey kettle... your black! From: Five Sola To: The pot Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 16:52:53 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'the pot' (eric?) Do you hold to the 'openess of God' heresy? it seems you may be hinting at it or just defending it unknowingly. You say: 'So, hell is not a place for punishment of sins, but rather as a place for God to display His wrath. ' Actually it is both. Hell is a punishment of sins by the diplaying of God's Wrath. God is not absent in hell for God is everywhere but Hell is the absence of God's mercy and the fullness of God's wrath (which has been held back up till then) Also 'Or is it a response to something, an effect? ' yes it is a response. As Calvinist and double predestination states. It is a response to Man's sin. You almost seem to imply something more. God knew and ordained man's sin (passively) or else it wouldn't have happened. Five Sola

Subject: Re: hey kettle... your black! From: laz To: The pot Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 09:49:15 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If God is immutable...can He be spurned to wrath?? What's the DIff?? www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/supralap.htm

Subject: ISTM both infra & supra are wrong.... From: Anne To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:56:10 (PDT) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: . . . . .if one accepts the definitions in the link provided: The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is: (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others; (2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated; (3) the decree to permit the fall; and (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is: (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race; (2) the decree to permit the fall; (3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Boy, ain't we (by which I mean people in general) egotistical critters? Look at #1 on both positions. What have they in common? Both have us as the primary focus. The best explanation of the doctrines of grace that I recall reading is that the creation story is the love story between the Father and the Son. Through it, the Father honors His Son, the Son glorifies His Father, and the Holy Spirit fits in here someplace but darned if I can remember how. The point is, the Trinity is the reason for the creation of the world; the Persons of the Holy Trinity are upholding and glorifying and honoring each other, and our creation just happens to be how They do it. We are the tools They are employing. When the Eternal Author penned His tale, His focus was necessarily upon the point of His story . . . . He didn't write it just so He could have fun thinking up all these neat characters. The creation is the means to an end, not the end in itself. Or so it seems to me, anyway. Anne

Subject: hey Anne From: kevin To: Anne Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 12:51:19 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Have you been reading John Piper or something?

Subject: Is that it? From: Anne To: kevin Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 12:59:51 (PDT) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I have read Piper, yes, indeed. He's excellent! Am also thinking I may be dredging up some of Sproul Jr.'s thoughts from 'Almighty Over All.' Come to that, not too long ago I was savoring Calvin's 'Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God,' and it seems he also addressed this. Anne

Subject: Re: Is that it? From: Tom To: Anne Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:24:13 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Anne I agree about John Piper, he is a good teacher. I almost like him as much as Sproul. Though I have not read anything writen by him on this subject. Tom

Subject: Sure From: Eric To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:07:53 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>If God is immutable...can He be spurned to wrath?? It depends on if we want to interpret the scriptures by our philosophy, or do we want our philosophy to be a reflection of the scriptures. The biblical answer to your question is a resounding YES. And to clarify, I do hold to infralapsariansim. All I can do is sin, and God's job is to redeem. I don't confuse the two. Since you are supralapsarian in your views, will you please explain this to me: Acts 17:26-27 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. [27] God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. Let's not forget Romans 10:12-13 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, [13] for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' If God decided before the creation of man that certain ones would be objects of wrath, is God being truthful when He tells us that He determined the exact places and times of their birth for the express purpose that they might reach out for Him? Now we also know that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. So, with your view, we have God working to override His own decree. It doesn't hold. God bless.

Subject: Re: Sure From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:22:13 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric - I'm not supra...never given it THAT much thought to be honest.... my point simply being that supra is NOT synonomous with hyper-calvinism. Was Vos a hypercalvinist? Not hardly. I'm confused. How does being infra excuse you from having to deal with the very same verses you just posted? In both systems, predestination/election is determined before the birth of the individual. laz

Subject: Re: Sure From: Eric To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 13:05:31 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry, I thought you said a few months ago that you were, or leaned that way. My mistake. Please forgive the assumption. As to reconciling that verse w/in the infra view point. It is my belief that God does desire that all men repent and turn to Him. (I am on safe footing here because God himself said it.) And the gospel is freely and legitimately(sp?) offered to all (which is impossible w/supralapsarianism). God also has given mankind the ability to choose life apart from his Creator. Which, as we all know, we blew that one. So, God gives us every opportunity to turn from our selves and to Him. But, we love darkness more than the light, so it is necessary for God to change our hearts so that we run to, instead of away from the light. The fact that some were predestined before creation for salvation, does not change the gracious offer of God to all. Perhaps it will become evident to the rebellious on judgement day, to what various lengths God has gone to reconcile Himself with every man. It is just that God chooses not to regenerate some for His own reasons. We sin, God saves. The reason people are in hell, is because they want to be there. And this is not the result of some hidden decree, but rather the natural result of a creature seperated from his Creator. Take care and God bless.

Subject: two things From: Five Sola To: Eric Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 18:18:56 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, [first let me say I am not trying to jump on you with a lot of post in one day but I was away from here for a few days and will not be able to return for a few more.] Two things I wanted to address, one is from a previous post that I will include in here: 'If God decided before the creation of man that certain ones would be objects of wrath, is God being truthful when He tells us that He determined the exact places and times of their birth for the express purpose that they might reach out for Him? ' hmmm, there is nothing in the verses you qouted that would contradict a Reformed view but your application is not entirely right. We know that God has appointed some as 'vessels of Wrath' for He clearly says that in Romans 9 (particularly 14-23) and even says why He chooses some for Wrath... 'Ro 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,...' Is that Wrong of God? Is it unjust? Is He unrighteous for doing it? of course not, and 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God? ' I didn't like it when I read it first and finally understood it but realized I must accept it. 2nd point: 'It is my belief that God does desire that all men repent and turn to Him. (I am on safe footing here because God himself said it.)' Again you seem to be taking scripture and trying to fit them to your theology. If the Scripture that speaks to God 'desire that all men repent' meant what you are trying to make it say then our God is a failure and cannot accomplish His desires and thus I will not put any faith in Him because if He cannot accomplish such a task as that, who is to say that I will ultimately go to Heaven? Maybe He really can't defeat Satan, etc. See my point? God will accomplish ALL His desires, so if He desires ALL MANKIND to repent and be saved (in the sense you are meaning it) then all mankind WILL BE SAVED. You statement supports universalism. I will not get into God's Permissive & Declaritive will (did I get that right Pilgrim?) because I do not understand it fully to define it, I will leave that one to the guys with more experience than I. Five Sola

Subject: Re: two things From: laz To: Five Sola Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 18:44:47 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: FS - I believe it's 'preceptive' and 'decretive' will? blessings, laz

Subject: Re: two things From: Five Sola To: laz Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 19:57:11 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks laz, and thus explaining why I left it to others :-) I know the general idea but that's it. LOL Five Sola

Subject: Re: Sure From: kevin To: Eric Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 12:55:23 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: THe biggest difficulty when debating the supra vs the infra is that too often we tend to veiw them as happening in a certain order in regards to time. But they are dealing with a logical order and not a temporal one. All in all too often I find that debating between the two is running dangerously close to offering profane fire to the Lord. Some mysteries are that way for a reason. In Him, kevin sdg sf ss PS And I do agree with Laz that supra does not neccessitate HyperCalvinism, but HyperCalvinism does neccessitate supralapsarianism.

Subject: Maybe you can explain From: Eric To: kevin Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 13:35:53 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: how there can be a free offer of the gospel to all w/in the supralapsarian viewpoint?

Subject: Re: Maybe you can explain From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:34:19 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Not to nitpick here, but we proclaim the gospel to all and let the Holy Spirit move on His elect. It is not a free offer! That being said, we proclaim the gospel to all, because out of obedience and it is a means that His elect come to the truth. Tom

Subject: Re: Maybe you can explain From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 17:09:41 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric - how's the offer of the gospel any less 'free' in the infra position when election has taken place eons ago as well? laz

Subject: Re: Maybe you can explain From: Anne To: Eric Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 16:12:56 (PDT) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I'm not him, but my understanding has always been that God is fond of causes and effects . . . . means and ends. Our presentation of the Gospel is the means toward a determined end, is all. It's all quite simple, really. (That's a quote from the movie 1776, BTW!) Anne

Subject: Free offer of the gospel From: Eric To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:00:56 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The essence of the supra position is that God creates people for the express purpose of displaying his wrath by eternally tormenting them. (I have yet to see any refutation of this.) Therefore, when you tell an unbeliever that God wants them to turn from their sins and trust in Christ for their salvation, you have to realize that this is not true for the majority of people. God does not want the reprobate to repent and trust in Christ because then they would no longer be reprobate, and therefore would have frustrated the original intent of their creation. Whereas the infra position allows one to say that God truly does want one to repent and trust in Christ, and that if they do, they will be saved, because it is only as a result of sin, that any will be in hell, and not God's design. The fact the God chooses to allow men to remain in their rebellion does not change the legitemacy of the offer. As to Five Sola's or Tom's point of God's not desiring all men to repent, this is fallacious reasoning, and really ties into the 'two will's' of God--which w/in the strict Calviniist paradigm doesn't really make sense, but within a proper understanding of God's sovereignty and governance does, when understood as God's various priorities. God bless.

Subject: qoute correctly please From: Five Sola To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:20:12 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I NEVER said God didn't want all mankind to repent. He says it in His Word, as I pointed out, but obviously if we are to believe in a God of any power or worthiness to worship, then He must be able to accomplish His desires. I mentioned the two wills of God. Apparently you are satisfied serving a god who is incapable of doing what He wants and must continually bow to the true god of man. That is what your scheme produces. God's success is DEPENDENT on man. I would never serve a god such as that nor put out a theology as pompous as that. Also in your thinking (I am assuming you are Arminian) your god (or the Arminian's god) is worse. He creates humans that He knows will deny him and spend eternity in Hell yet that god still does it even though there is not hope for them. Five Sola

Subject: hmmm... From: Eric To: Five Sola Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 13:43:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: First off, I am a Calvinist in regards to soteriology. As to God wanting all to repent, you are defeated by your own argument. You said you affirm that God wants all men to repent, and then you accuse me of serving a god who doesn't get what he wants! Obviously everybody does not repent. You really should think through your posts before you send them out. Also, I never said that God bows to the will of man. It appears that you throw out the tired old accusations of man centerdness to anyone who you disagree with. This is really sad, and unfortunately gives truth to the sterotype of Calvinists. I respectfully suggest you watch your tone brother. If you cannot dialog about these things in a Christ like manner, then you should not be here--it isn't worth it. God bless you.

Subject: Re: Free offer of the gospel From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:52:04 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric - I think I see your point.....BUT, if God has chosen to allow men to remain in their rebellious state from eternity past...what is the real distinction btwn infra and supra in the eyes of an Arminian? laz

Subject: Well... From: Eric To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:13:39 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: As you well know, Calvinism is often rejected out of hand by most Arminians. But if you get into serious discussion about the issue, the infra position and the Arminian position both agree that the reason people are in hell, is because of their sin. And that an infinitely holy and just God must uphold his glory by punishing those creatures who spurn it. Therefore, Salvation belongs to the Lord, but sin and it's effects fall solely on man, and not the awful decree of God. This seems to make the most sense to me. But what do I know, I am a free-will Calvinist. God bless.

Subject: Question for Eric From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:33:05 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Just for clarification: Do you believe that sin was unforeseen and dealt with as an afterthought by God? That is, do you believe that God was unaware that sin would occur until it happened, or that He decreed that it would happen prior to its arising, making Him the ultimate reason sin entered the world?

Subject: Re: Question for Eric From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 13:17:52 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thank you, Rod....this is way I asked Eric about the immutablility of God. Did God 'learn' something about man and his sin...ergo, suffer 'CHANGE'? Any thoughts of an 'afterthought' destroys the very nature of God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present. The whole thing boils down to 'mystery' as we don't really understand how God can decree ALL THINGS from before the dawn of time, yet hold humanity responsible for their sins. laz

Subject: Re: Question for Eric From: Eric To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 13:33:50 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please provide for me your biblical basis for the immutability of God. As well as your philosophical basis for it. Some questions you want to ask yourself is how does the incarnation fit into this. You may also want to consider God's wrath as well. Was God's wrath present w/in the relationship of the Trinity? God bless. P.S. Can you move this up top please.

Subject: Church Membership From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 21:12:58 (PDT) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Hi Everyone: Hope all is well in the Lord. Gotta question for ya! What do you think the requirements for church membership in the visible local church should be? Now some time ago, I think this was dicussed in passing. And there were responses ranging from no church membership to that of being based on if the prospective member is saved. How do you think it should be handled when only one of the spouses are a believer? On top of that, if the wife is the believer, and not the husband? I have a lady who wants her and her 2 young daughters to join, but her husband doesn't want her to yet. Her husband is the one that did our new church website for us, and is now redoing our church sign (for free and for cost respectively). Anyway, look forward to your responses based on your biblical perspective, church history and what your church currently does. Tanks!!! :^) BB Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: laz To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:24:46 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Everyone: Hope all is well in the Lord. Gotta question for ya! What do you think the requirements for church membership in the visible local church should be? Now some time ago, I think this was dicussed in passing. And there were responses ranging from no church membership to that of being based on if the prospective member is saved. How do you think it should be handled when only one of the spouses are a believer? On top of that, if the wife is the believer, and not the husband? I have a lady who wants her and her 2 young daughters to join, but her husband doesn't want her to yet. Her husband is the one that did our new church website for us, and is now redoing our church sign (for free and for cost respectively). Anyway, look forward to your responses based on your biblical perspective, church history and what your church currently does. Tanks!!! :^) BB --- BB - if the lady's husband is a believer...she should defer to his judgement and hold off membership for the entire family. It's the submission thing that many find very offensive these days. haha God's promises are covenantal...via FAMILIES of believers so decisions should be familiy decisions with the husband leading the charge. But if the husband is a pagan...the wife should join a true church regardless of what he thinks as she should honor God in worship (over and against her hubby's demonic objections)...along with her children if she can swing that also since as a believer, her kids are part of the covenant too. My take on membership is that since the 'keys of the kingdom' have been given to the visible Church ...which means to men ordained by God (and thus can speak FOR God as His ambassadors) for the task of leadership and to guard the souls of the general membership/laity....we need to be UNDER their teaching and DISCIPLINE. So, formal membership puts you squarely into the 'local family of God', provides you with spiritual covering/blessing and godly discipline as needed, and grants you full rights and priviledges to include voting on matters affecting the local body...which I think is the best reason to join via formal membership. Also, will any biblically-based church let a non-member vote on church business? Not likely. Church life and govt is supposed to be ORDERLY...not sure this can be done if voting rights/priviledges are not protected and granted to only those shown to be 'of the faith' and willing to be under the teaching and discipline of the leaders of the Church. Who should be allowed to join? 1) Professors of the faith via a public confession of Christ. Matt 16:16-17 2) Possessors of the faith via a public life adorning the above confession. James 2:18 It's good practice to catechize any new member to make sure they understand the gospel, church life and her doctrines and practices. My 2 cents... blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: john hampshire To: all Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:01:31 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: First, Peter is not the Rock upon whom the church is founded. In Mat 16:17 Christ acknowledges Peter's confession as being true (Vs 16) and that it is 'upon this Rock I will build My church' speaking of Himself. The Keys to the Prison House are Christ's and the prisoners are released only by Him. Isa 22:22 is clear concerning the keys of the house of David [the believers], that as it speaks of Eliakim ['God who Rises': referring to Christ] the son of Hilkiah [Portion of God] that Eliakim will be the 'father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem', speaking of Eliakim as a type of Christ. So it is Christ in Isaiah 22 that 'When He opens no one will shut, When He shuts no one will open'. Christ is the 'door' of entry into the Kingdom, it opens for those He died, and remains shut for those not redeemed. The church in being given these keys can only open what has ALREADY been opened and close what has previously been closed by God. The purpose of the church is not releasing prisoners from prison, that is done by Christ. The church is to preach the pure gospel. Those who are loosed will hear and follow (in sanctification). We should not conclude that these verses give instruction on church membership. The keys given to the church are not to bind one to church membership or loose one from membership. It is salvation and entrance into God's spiritual family that is in view (which we do not control in any way). What this means is that clearly Christ is the head of the church. Christ has established leadership within the assembly who 'have charge over you in the Lord and give you admonition' (1Thes 5:12). We do not find a separation between church members and non-members. We are to 'admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men'. The church was meant to be a gathering (out of the world) of those who believe. We are not called to judge between groups worthy for membership, not by any means. There are matters of discipline which may require the removal of one from the assembly, but we should not think of two classes of persons: Members and non-members. Foregoing church membership will not hinder instruction or lessen the authority of church leadership. The authority of the church is automatic over everyone present-- believers and non-believers alike. As for letting only members vote I see no validity. Let the whole assembly vote with the final call being made by the church leadership. The wife is under authority of the husband, who (believer or not) is under the authority of Christ. If the husband forbids the wife to attend church then he sins before God. But does that mean the wife is free to disobey? Sin is sin because of motive (the heart), so where a wife uses a church as an excuse to have her way against the husband, it is sin. A wife can disobey her husband to obey God and do so in such a humble manner without sin, it all depends on her motivation -- to please God or please herself. That is a matter for each spouse to consider before the Lord in prayer as their true intent. For a wife could equally believe herself functioning in obedience to God by attending church against her husband’s wishes, yet that church is a false gospel church and her husband is rightfully obedient to Christ in keeping his family away. Should the wife think she is free to disobey because she answers to a higher calling than her husband, the husband’s authority is undermined by a wife’s supposed obedience. Again, if the wife understands the husband’s position that her church is ungodly, and she wants to attend anyway, her heart is not right and she sins. A willful wife can easily parlay nearly every action into a 'got to be obedient to God' scenario against her husband’s wishes. Unless the husband’s desire is clearly sinful, I would say it is better for the wife to be obedient to the husband and try rather to win him without a word (by a humble, loving spirit), even if this means no church. Sounds rough, but what is obedience if the wife freely disobeys to run after her vision of God? john

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: Tom To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 09:58:20 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: John You said: Foregoing church membership will not hinder instruction or lessen the authority of church leadership. The authority of the church is automatic over everyone present-- believers and non-believers alike. As for letting only members vote I see no validity. Let the whole assembly vote with the final call being made by the church leadership. Although I agree with you that all believers are actual members of the Church. The reason for church membership is to protect the local body. When one signs a membership document, they are saying to the rest of the local body. That they are making themselves accountable to the rest of the body. It also help for legal purposes,for example, when someone has been disciplined by being asked to leave the local body, the fact that they have signed a document that has the requirements of members. Can prove helpful to the local body, should the one being disciplined decide to take the church to court. Tom

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:08:35 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom - as a practical matter, I agree with you....of course, haha... but what John is saying is that the Bible is silent on 'membership' and that by simply attending a church, you are agreeing to adhere to it's doctrines/bylaws ... whatever. In otherwords, you don't need a piece of paper or be on a 'list' for the leaders of a church to teach, exhort or discpline you. I suppose I agree. Even voting can be granted to all who attend and/or care about the church's business/spiritual interests. I still think membership (which has it's priviledges as they say) is more orderly, definitive and protective of the local institution as I can see a situation where 'antagonists' can bring in dozens of 'Joe off the Streets' on a given Sunday to affect the outcome of a contentious church vote. blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 14:19:48 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Laz Agreed :) I was talking in practical terms, but John seemed to be saying that we shouldn't be doing it that way(sorry John if I misunderstood you). I think that since the Bible is silent on the issue, I think a little Godly wisdom tells us that what I said is correct. Tom

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: john hampshire To: all Date Posted: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:53:36 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The best I can say about church membership is that in it people find a way to earn a sense of honor (or ego support), to become part of a distinct group normally equated with believers; to show the pastor you are conformed to the dogma and theology of that church. In other words, you earn credibility among the church leadership—they have less to fear, you will not challenge the church. Membership is a filtering device, allowing only the select to teach or in most churches—to vote. It is a self-perpetuating machine, keeping the doctrine pure or even impure—but in any case keeping it. The worst I can say about membership is that the Bible knows nothing of it. It is man’s invention; a means to segregate. It would be in politics as if there were only one political party, if you are a member of that party you may vote and speak, ensuring the propagation of the one true (false) party. By doing this we ensure no real challenge to the leadership and dissenting doctrines will easily be voted out. What would happen in the church without membership? Anyone could challenge the leadership’s dogma. The merits of each challenge would be decided on Scripture, with the voting done by the congregation. While the leadership could overturn a bad vote, there is little to stop them from being voted out of office too. Yet the church could grow stronger in the face of adversity (ohh noo). Hence the need for a tool to limit challenges to church doctrine. But once the church doctrine is corrupted, it becomes difficult to undo, the machine is self-perpetuating and self-regulating. And so a new church is started down the block in objection to the one party system at the established church, beginning the process that leads to stagnation and corruption once again. Long live church membership. Personally I like open debate and free discussion amongst all the congregation. Let the church be forced to the Bible to find truth—--or let it perish! john

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: laz To: john hampshire Date Posted: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 14:04:18 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: JH - so churches with membership don't have open debates/discussions? Does it also lead to 'stagnation and corruption? Is this because you believe such churches are overly prescriptive and unbending in their doctrines and practices? My church has plenty of dissenting opinions across many secondary issues and over time, some folks (even very well meaning ones of impeccable Christian character) become disatisfied with the preaching style (not the content), approach to missions, and/or structure of the worship service. I even know that some visitors don't return because they are looking for less cerebral preaching with more touchy-feely, practical, 'meet my felt needs' sermons. No 'milk and cookies' in our church. As one who just recently joined a denomination known to be amongst the most 'narrow-minded'...(or biblically oriented in my opinion)...the confession we were asked to make was as broad as any you'd expect to see in the 'evangelical' world. Simply the basics....to include a statement to be under the discipline of the Church. Now, if I wanted to become an officer of the church, the doctrinal 'requirements' understandably get tighter....after all, I'd be expected to teach the body of truth which the Church believes has been directly derived from Scripture...yes, to maintain the purity of the Churches' gospel message and practices. Are you suggesting that churches ought NOT have creeds and confessions as well? Are you also saying the the congregation ought to determine what's truth and right? That the elders ought to be oustable according to the whims of the laity? That THIS (ANARCHY) will make the Church stronger? Sorry, I must disagree. If a group of ordained men are faithful to the scriptures...they are then to RULE and DISCIPLINE with confidence knowing that Christ Himself approves. If a member doesn't like the teachings of the leadership...or their leadership in general, they can always find another Church. If a prospective member somehow missed what the church would be eaching while he/she was being catechized...or if a member has a change of heart after spending too much time on CARM, reading Christianity Today, hahaha...they know they can always rescind their membership knowing that their 'new views' will not be well received. They are always free to stay ( and debate the issues privately with the leadership or others in general) ... but not likely to teach or given a public platform to dissent. This works for me! laz

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: Brother Bret To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 14, 2000 at 15:42:16 (PDT) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Hey Brother Laz: Thanks for responding. I agree with much of what you are saying except a couple of points. You said: 'if the lady's husband is a believer...she should defer to his judgement and hold off membership for the entire family. It's the submission thing that many find very offensive these days. haha God's promises are covenantal...via FAMILIES of believers so decisions should be familiy decisions with the husband leading the charge. But if the husband is a pagan...the wife should join a true church regardless of what he thinks as she should honor God in worship (over and against her hubby's demonic objections)...along with her children if she can swing that also since as a believer, her kids are part of the covenant too.' If the husband is to 'lead the charge' in the covenantal family relationship, wouldn't his decision still hold even if he is unregenerated? Just as the children are part of the covenant family even if they have not believed on the Lord Christ, doesn't that also apply to the husband? Further, it is my understanding according to the bible, that the wife is to submit to her husband regardless of whether he is saved or not. That it would only be in cases of sin that she would not submit to him. Unless thou thinkest that passages like Acts 5:29 applies (We ought to obey God rather than man). Do you think worshipping the Lord in the local church falls into this catagory? Not only that, we are talking physical membership here. She is allowed to come, just not be a member. One can still come and worship without being a member :^ ). Perhaps Pilgrim can join us too?!? Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Church Membership From: laz To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 14, 2000 at 17:35:28 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hey Brother Laz: Thanks for responding. I agree with much of what you are saying except a couple of points. You said: 'if the lady's husband is a believer...she should defer to his judgement and hold off membership for the entire family. It's the submission thing that many find very offensive these days. haha God's promises are covenantal...via FAMILIES of believers so decisions should be familiy decisions with the husband leading the charge. But if the husband is a pagan...the wife should join a true church regardless of what he thinks as she should honor God in worship (over and against her hubby's demonic objections)...along with her children if she can swing that also since as a believer, her kids are part of the covenant too.' If the husband is to 'lead the charge' in the covenantal family relationship, wouldn't his decision still hold even if he is unregenerated? Just as the children are part of the covenant family even if they have not believed on the Lord Christ, doesn't that also apply to the husband? Further, it is my understanding according to the bible, that the wife is to submit to her husband regardless of whether he is saved or not. That it would only be in cases of sin that she would not submit to him. Unless thou thinkest that passages like Acts 5:29 applies (We ought to obey God rather than man). Do you think worshipping the Lord in the local church falls into this catagory? Not only that, we are talking physical membership here. She is allowed to come, just not be a member. One can still come and worship without being a member :^ ). Perhaps Pilgrim can join us too?!? Brother Bret --- BB - yes, we are ALL commanded to worship God...so a believer must disobey a disobedient husband who does not want his wife to worship God. As for membership...I really can't say dogmatically that one MUST be a 'member'...but if the wife is going to Church, she is confessing Christ, thus confessing membership in the Body...so, make the whole process complete by being under the authority of the leaders (undershepherds) of the earthly Body. I guess I'm saying that it's a package deal. That is not to say that one must rush into membership...I would take my time and the Church should be 'observing' my conduct and catechizing me before granting me membership. Something about protecting the rest of the flock from potential 'wolves' in sheep's clothing. You raise a good point about the husband being part of the covenant. Is he? We do know from scripture that an unbelieving husband is 'sanctified' (small 's') by the relationship he has with his godly wife...meaning that he often becomes 'a better man' if never a believer, by being around a godly woman and being around God's grace being manifest in the life of the wife (and enjoying many blessings as a result)....yet he remains unregenerate until the Spirit calls. Off the top of my head, thinking out loud...I'd say that just as 'covenenant children' have no guarantee of salvation....so is the husband, who like you suggest, should also be considered part of the covenant (even if he openly rejects Christ) as the spouse of a believer. Is that GRACE or what?? So, as with the kids, he is the beneficiary of being around the grace of God being manifested in his wife/kids. But I could be wrong....again. ;-) laz Pil...you around? ;-)

Subject: some thoughts please From: kevin To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 08:06:59 (PDT) Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net Message: I was asked in an email how can God be righteous and responsible for sin. I replied with the following as to my understanding of God's involvement with Adam's fall. I am looking to see what you all think about this and to make sure I am not way off base. I come to you all here because I have been impressed with the knowledge God has given many of you and I find Pilgrim' website to be a major help when looking for resources. Thank you in advance. Well He isn't. God is righteous and God is not responsible for sin. Adam is in the case of sin being in the world. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, becuase all sinned' (Rom. 5:12) I think your question may be more geared toward God creating Adam and what caused Adam to sin. I am sure that you have followed the discussion of this on CARM. I recently was doing some bible studying and meditating over the issue when I realized that both parties are forgetting one aspect of the fall of man. The serpent who was Satan. Basically God created Adam with the true ability to obey or disobey. Adam was not persuaded in either direction more than the other. Now let me clarify lest I be understood as saying that Adam was morally ambiguous. After God created Adam He gave him some commads. Some positive and some negative. Do take care of the garden and do not eat of this tree. There was even a punishment included, death (which I believe is spiritual not simply physical, ie. seperation from communion with God). So here you have Adam with the ability to choose good or evil equally but his only decision is good and obedience. Why is that you ask, well he is in constant communion with God. Except for one moment when the serpent enters into the scene. Here Adam is presented with the possibility of rebellion against God's commands. I wondered in this instance, where was God? It says that God and Adam were in communion constantly in the Garden of Eden. How did Lucifer enter into here without God knowing? Well God had to know since He is omnipresent and omniscient. God allowed the serpent access to the garden and allowed him to tempt Eve and the allowed Adam to choose between obedience and rebellion without His assistance. Adam choose to rebel. This illustrates perfectly the man without God will not choose obedience to God. Adam was not tainted with sin yet, as we are, without God's discenment (which is a grace) he rebelled. Now God set the scene and allowed for the players to do what needed to be done in accordance with their own inclinations. THerefore Adam was not forced to rebel but he was created in such a way as to need God's grace in obeying Him, just as we do. Thanks again. You can email me your replies. I check that daily. I only visit posting boards occassionally. In Him, kevin sdg sf ss

Subject: 2 quick items: From: stan To: All Date Posted: Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 18:41:49 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: THE GOOD: An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was. 'Well,' said the farmer, 'It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns.' 'Praise choruses,' said his wife, 'What are those?' 'Oh, they're okay. They're sort of like hymns, only different,' said the farmer. 'Well, what's the difference?' asked the wife. The farmer replied, 'Well it's like this. If I were to say to you, 'Martha, the cows are in the corn,' well, that would be a hymn. If, on the other hand, I was to say to you, 'Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,' well, that would be a praise chorus.' THE BAD: In the northwest the courts have sentanced an arian nation group to pay 6-8 million in punishment. The prosecution is blatant that they are trying to put the group out of business. Their beliefs are not to be tolerated. How long before we have some lawyers deeming churches beliefs untolerable and go after churches with the laws of the land? Our times is a changin!

Subject: Re: 2 quick items: From: Prestor John To: stan Date Posted: Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 20:35:36 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: THE GOOD: An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was. 'Well,' said the farmer, 'It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns.' 'Praise choruses,' said his wife, 'What are those?' 'Oh, they're okay. They're sort of like hymns, only different,' said the farmer. 'Well, what's the difference?' asked the wife. The farmer replied, 'Well it's like this. If I were to say to you, 'Martha, the cows are in the corn,' well, that would be a hymn. If, on the other hand, I was to say to you, 'Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,' well, that would be a praise chorus.' THE BAD: In the northwest the courts have sentanced an arian nation group to pay 6-8 million in punishment. The prosecution is blatant that they are trying to put the group out of business. Their beliefs are not to be tolerated. How long before we have some lawyers deeming churches beliefs untolerable and go after churches with the laws of the land? Our times is a changin! --- You know stan as a person who lives next door to the Aryan Nation Church. (Just a hop skip and a jump away) Who had to explain to his daughter why someone stuffed white supremacy literature into their grocery sack when I wasn't looking. And to see what its doing to the neighborhood and to see how the name of Christ is being put to shame by these hoodlums promoting their Godless hatred. I'm all for putting this guy and others like him out of business. Plus you seem to very ignorant of US history, the government has targeted these groups for some time. Take a look sometime on the history channel when they run a segment on hate groups you'll see the federal government right there every time.

Subject: Re: 2 quick items: From: Rod To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 10:03:12 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: I'm afraid you totally missed stan's point, Prestor John. stan is not advocating such groups as the 'nation,' far from it.

Subject: Re: 2 quick items: From: Prestor John To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 15:18:00 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No Sir! I'm afraid your missing the point, I understand that Stan may not be supportive of the Aryan Nations and those that espouse their bigotry. What I am saying is that it is good what happened to that group. Stan's comment: that a lawyer is targeting the group for express purpose of making Richard Butler and his group of fascists unable to gather together and promote his brand of 'beliefs' and that it is bad. Is in error. It is a good thing, it is morally superior than to allow them to continue. What Stan is purporting is that because Morris Dee took to court a someone whose beliefs are a twisted mockery of Christianity that those of us who hold to the 'real article' may someday also face this. First, if God so desired that this happened then who are we to go against God? Second, if those of us with some sort of backbone would promote 'real Christianity' and denounce those who twist it into hate filled propaganda instead of coddling them under the so called 'freedom of religion' thought. This isn't a religion, its dressed up as a religion but it isn't a religion. Its nothing more than hate. Prestor John

Subject: Hate isn't illegal From: Rod To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 17:21:42 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: It is wrong in some cases and may be sin, but it isn't illegal until someone does something which is illegal, declared to be lawfully wrong by action of a legislative body and ruled on by the courts. If the illegal acts are indeed wrong (there is a difference between what is moral and legal), then we all, as right thinking Christians should demand that they be punished. What we should not do is demand that thoughts and beliefs be punished, save by the sovereign God in His due timing. I haven't missed that most basic point of human rights and freedoms, Prestor John. I believe it is too often obscured.

Subject: Re: 2 quick items: From: john hampshire To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 15:38:46 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sure the Aryan Nation clowns are bad news; they shot at citizens thus violating the law. Sure they are bigots of the worse kind. But yet they have the right to express themselves, the right to assembly--all the same rights as you and I. Sure they are evil, because we judge them rightly to be so. But the US Government can judge a compound at Waco to be 'evil' or a family at Ruby ridge to be evil and shoot its family members. If we set aside laws so as to get the bad guys, soon the Justice Department finds bad guys in every conservative or religious closet. Who has targeted conservative organizations with tax audits: The US Government. Who attempts to remove tax-free status of pastors who support conservative candidates: The US Government. Who refuses to prosecute nearly every broken law done by the Clinton administration: The US Government. While we may enjoy some freedoms, they won't last when laws are abandoned at whim: because in the end it will be 'good what happened to that group'. When the next corrupt US socialist President removes your civil rights to enact his vision of utopia, he will be thinking 'it is morally superior than to allow them to continue'. I believe Stalin and Hitler thought themselves morally superior. Who is going to be the judge: we must keep the Constitutional laws of a country. john

Subject: Well said, john. nt From: Rod To: john hampshire Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 17:24:48 (PDT) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: Re: 2 quick items: From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 14:45:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Part of me ignorance is from not having cable and all the garrrrbaggge it brings - guess I'll just have to try harder! ;-)

Subject: FYI - or not ;-) From: stan To: All Date Posted: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 19:28:10 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Vatican has rejected the idea that all religions are equal. In a 36-page theological document, the Roman Catholic Church (see link #1 below) took issue with the idea that non-Christian religions could be equal to Roman Catholicism or that Protestant churches could be considered 'sister churches.' ...Non-Christians are in a 'gravely deficient situation' regarding salvation, the document said. The Church reiterated its official positions, ordering its theologians not to manipulate what it called the truth of the faith and to counteract 'relativistic theories' of religious pluralism, according to the document. ...The document said that other Christian churches had 'defects,' in part because they did not recognize the primacy of the pope. It dismissed all post-Reformation churches, saying those 'that have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the eucharistic mystery are not churches in the proper sense.' Other Christian churches 'suffer from defects' but have not been deprived of 'significance and importance in the mystery of salvation,' it said. ...The document caused quick reactions from other Christians. 'The Church of England, and the worldwide Anglican Communion, does not for one moment accept that its orders of ministry and Eucharist are deficient in any way,' said George Carey, the archbishop of Canterbury, according to The Times of London. He said the Vatican document failed to 'fully reflect the deeper understanding that has been achieved through ecumenical dialogue and cooperation during the past 30 years.' From News from ReligionToday is Copyrighted by Crosswalk.com. Content may be reproduced provided proper credit is given to Religiontoday.crosswalk.com.

Subject: To quote Richard Nixon... From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 22:21:21 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: ...one time only and that not in a reverential way: 'Make no mistake....' As most informed Christians here know, the RCC has NEVER officially believed, since the time of the Council of Trent that any 'Protestant' denominations are saved. The position of the necessity of the seven sacraments of the RCC's being administered by the ''proper, qualified people (read 'priesthood')'' dictates that fact. If one is not able to take 'communion' within the dictates of the RCC, he has 'certain graces' withheld by that priesthood and consequently, according to their express doctrine, cannot enter Heaven. This is, effectively, the central reason the RCC is an abomination to all thinking Christians: It is the RCC and its priesthood which admits or denies entry into Heaven (and thence salvation itself, de facto), not the Lord Jesus Christ as the Bible teaches. Nothing in all these centuries has altered or even threatened that stance. Salvation resides in the Church for the RCC, not in a Divine Person Who is the Savior and Sovereign of Heaven and earth.

Subject: Re: Amen NT From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 07, 2000 at 19:11:19 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Matt 13:32 From: Bro. Charles To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 20:07:47 (PDT) Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com Message: Matthew 13:32 'But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but the Father.' The question I have about this is: How can Jesus (who is GOD) not know when he will return? Christ is God and God is all knowing, therefor...? The associate Pastor from my Church and I where discussing this tough vs. I appreciate any insight I can get. -Bro. Charles

Subject: Re: Markt 13:32, Matt 24:36 From: john hampshire To: Bro. Charles Date Posted: Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:02:08 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Mark 13:32, Matt 24:36 'But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.' 'But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.' It is Mark who adds, 'neither the Son'. The verses speak of the 'day' and the 'hour'. The Bible uses these repeatedly for Judgment Day; the 'day' of Rev 18:8, and as the 'the day of the Lord'. In Rev 18:10, 17 we have Judgment Day as 'one hour'. Thus the phrase 'to know the day or the hour' rather than referring to the time of Christ's return could refer to the matter of experiencing Judgment Day. For instance, when Jesus said in John 8:14, '…for I know whence I came, and wither I go, but ye cannot know whence I come, and whither I go' He is saying He knows by experience the spiritual truths of heaven having been there and will soon return there. The Pharisees have no such understanding even if they 'knew' of His claim to be from the Father. The fact is neither mankind nor the fallen angels at time Jesus spoke these words had experienced eternal damnation. They will experience Judgment Day at the end of time, so they have no knowledge at the present. Also, it wasn't UNTIL Christ went to the cross that Satan and his angels were cast from heaven, so at the time Jesus spoke of the angels of heaven it could include Satan and his angels, or perhaps refer in a general sense that no angels (including the saints in heaven whom are also messengers) really knows the horror of God’s wrath --- except the Father. Jesus also did not know (have experience of) the wrath of God at that time, He had not experienced Judgment Day. He knew the timing, He knew when His time to suffer was at hand, but He did not yet experience it. Jesus indeed had to learn first hand of the wrath of God, as Heb 5:8 says 'Though He were a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered'. The Father knows the wrath to come, for the Father is the Judge, He must determine the exact amount of punishment upon His Son. The Father knows for He is the executor of the punishment. The Father has not experienced His own wrath, but in order to execute punishment from Himself He must know the magnitude of His OWN wrath. Jesus' experienced the cup of God's wrath beginning in the garden before His arrest. John 12:27 'Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I UNTO THIS HOUR'. That hour was Judgment Day on behalf of all Jesus came to redeem in their stead. It is not surprising that Jesus experienced a day and hour of Judgment, for He was the elects substitute (we don’t stand for Judgment again). The blood red sun, black sky, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, terror abounding are all features of both Judgment Days (Jesus' and mankind's at the end of time). So Mark 13 'of that day and that hour knoweth no man' teaches that no man or angel has experienced Judgment Day yet, not even the Son of man. Only the Father has the knowledge of the horror of His own wrath, for He alone will determine the extent of punishment as Christ’s Judge. Christ did experience that hour and learned obedience by His suffering. At this point in time ONLY Christ Himself and His Father 'know' of the terror of the cup of God’s wrath. But soon enough so will the angels (fallen) and all fallen mankind, and perhaps by observing their suffering so will the obedient angels and the elect learn of God’s wrath. Probably will not fit the demand of being an historic Christian prespective, but that’s my take, hope you benefit… john

Subject: Re: Markt 13:32, Matt 24:36 From: Bro Chris Tippett To: john hampshire Date Posted: Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 21:15:25 (PDT) Email Address: EvglstTippett3@cs.com Message: John, I must say that that was quite an amazing answer to Bro. Charles. Like Pastor Bret, I have never heard that or viewed it that way before. But as I read it, I was overwhelmed with Joy that the Lord would ever experience that for me. That He would voluntarily take my place of wrath. Thanks for that insight. Its one I will cherish forever. Love ya Brother!!

Subject: Re: Matt 13:32 From: stan To: Bro. Charles Date Posted: Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 20:34:23 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Some suggest that the Father is the planner, Christ was the accomplisher and the Spirit is the motivator. Since the Father is the planner, the other members do not know. Now if you like that possibility I have a nice bridge in New York we could also discuss. Email me. Others relate it to the thought that when Christ took on his humanity he voluntarily discontinued use of some attributes - in this case knowing all. Thus since He didn't know, he did not lie. I look forward to other thoughts on this line. stan

Subject: I think I asked the wrong way From: Bro. Charles To: Stan Date Posted: Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 20:27:47 (PDT) Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com Message: I must apologize for the way in which phrased the question. I was more or less trying to test the conclusion that I believe the Lord let me understand about it. All of the commentaries I read about it said on the lines of what you said Stan. And from that; when Jesus was in the form of a man (Christ being God robed in flesh, 100%God 100%man) That he was given things to know and do through the Holy Spirit as we do. I am in no way trying to say that Jesus was just like us when it comes to being a follower of God. (I am not trying to say he was more human than God like those Hollywood movies did) This is what I was originally trying to ask the board, and I will continue to pray about it that I might have a better understanding about it. Once again I appreciate any insight I can get. -Bro. Charles

Subject: Re: I think I asked the wrong way From: Brother Bret To: Bro. Charles Date Posted: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 18:58:53 (PDT) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Me thinks you and Stan are on the right tract, brother. Interesting position brother John, haven't seen that one before :-) Brother Bret

Subject: Duet.30:19 From: george To: All Date Posted: Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 05:59:21 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessings and cursings; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live,' Deuteronomy 30:19 Many times I have been confronted with this verse, as a proof text that man has a freewill in choosing God (Jesus Christ) and Spiritual blessings. Yet, what is Moses saying through the whole chapter? He begins with the pronouncement to Israel, that when blessings and curses come upon them in all the nations that the Lord has 'driven' them to, and when they then call to mind these blessings and curses, they shall return unto God. That is, those who obey His voice will return. The question one must ask; are these first five verses of chapter 30 a conditional promise or a absolute prediction? In verse five we have the word 'then', which would seem to imply that the return from captivity from all the nations are conditional to their response. Except, the following verse states, ' And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live'. Which was the command of verse two.We are given the law by Moses, yet the grace of God cause us to perform the condition set forth. In Ezekial 36:22-32, 'Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations where ever you went, And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God,'. Note that the people of Israel are not being commended on their obedient behaviour, yet, the latter part of verse 23 begins, 'when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, you shall be My people and I will be your God. I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses, I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations. Not for your sake do I do this, says the Lord God, let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!' Not only is the Lord the one who brings the blessings of our (the elect) identity in Him but life in general, all unmeritoriously in respect to man. We now need to ask, who is it that will choose correctly in Deuteronomy 30:19? The only reasonable answer, is those whom the Lord chooses out of His own good pleasure (Eph. 1:7-9) and regenerates for the purpose of salvation and obedience to His predetermine works He desires to perform in them (Eph.2:1-10). Then why, someone may ask, do we have the law set forth in Scripture, if only those whom God has chosen will obey? The law is the means that the Lord uses to bring the believer to his knees and cause him to ask for deliverance from it's (law) implications. The law is the means the Lord uses to bring the believer in line with His will for their lives. The law is a constant reminder of our need of a Saviour. The law maintains order in society, in the form of a general grace (not saving grace) given to the heathen and the pagan. Unknown to them, God causes a working out of His laws in their lives. Arthur W. Pink writes,' Exhortations and warnings are not so much the means whereby God's promises are accomplished, as the means by which the things promised are wrought. God has promised His people sufficient grace to enable and cause them to make such a use of the means that they will be preserved from fatal sins or apostasy, and the exhortation, consolations, admonitions of Scripture are designed for the stirring up into exercise of that grace.' May all of God's saints grow in the knowledge of His grace and sovereignty. george

Subject: Re: Duet.30:19 From: john hampshire To: george Date Posted: Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:03:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Speaking of Christ: Re 1:16 And He had in his right hand seven stars: and out of His mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and His countenance was as the sun shineth in His strength. Speaking of the Word of God, Heb 4:12, 'For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow... What can we say but that the word of God cuts like a sword, either to reveal sin and salvation or in the last to reveal sin and bring judgment and death. Deut 30:17 explains what the end is of those who turn away 'ye shall surely perish'. What are they turning away from but the word of God--His command vs 16 'In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments...that thou mayest live...' The word of God brings either life or death, we either embrace God and believe or hate His way and die. Yet very clearly the choosing is not ours. For Deut 30:6 says 'And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live'. Who is going to make the one who chooses life to live?? God is! He is going to circumcise the heart, that is equivalent to regeneration, after which your heart is inclined toward God. So choose life, if you have been circumcised of the heart of stone, for you are able, but if you choose death (disobey God's law) you have done so because your nature remains unchanged. Isa 65:12 'Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not'. Jo 10:3 'To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear His voice: and He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out'. It is God who allows the hearing of the word so that His people can live. Those who choose death have not been given ears to hear--they are not counted amongst His sheep who He leadth out of captivity. john

Subject: Divorse Revisited From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 31, 2000 at 17:58:32 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: First of all I want to say it is good to be back on this forum, I have missed it. Holidays were great. I hesitate to make this subject my first post in a while, however since this issue is quite close to my heart(It effects some of my relatives). I thought I would try to get some oppinions of those on this forum. I realise that John.H would say that no believer should divorse under any condition, so other than him, I would like some imput into the following situation. This situation does not involve adultry, but it involves physical and mental abuse, as well as alcoholism. I am of the oppinion that one should leave a spouse that is unrepentant of these acts. If for no other reason than for the safety of both the children and abused spouse. However, I don't know if I could go as far as to say that divorse is an option in this case. Do you agree with my oppinion on this matter? In my mind however (not that I always do what I think, over what I believe scripture says). I don't see a lot of difference between adultry and this type of abuse. Both break marriages apart. Tom

Subject: Re: Divorse Revisited From: stan To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 31, 2000 at 20:15:02 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not sure I should admit this but JH and I are on track on this one - SURPRISSSSSEEE!, but for differing reasons I would guess. ;-) Okay, just consider my nose black and blue or even broken if you want - you know - result of sticking it in where it don't belong, but divorce is a one time sin - so is a lie - so is --you fill in the blank --- so -- well -- what is that word adultry in there for? What are its ramifications? Really the point better made is all preachers beginning a series on marriage Sunday ;-) The church has a divorce rate that of the world because of neglect to preach the Word in some very important areas. stan - withdrawing, battered but having said his piece, into his shell.......

Subject: Re: Divorse Revisited From: john hampshire To: stan Date Posted: Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 06:39:16 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Stan, I would be curious what your reason(s) for believing there is to be no divorce? [I know my reasons, for the Bible is clear] Can you extract yourself from your shell one more time :) jh

Subject: For John.H From: Tom To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 17:06:09 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John I am curious as to whether or not you think a wife should leave a husband under the cercumstances that I mentioned in the opening of this thread. I am not talking about divorce. If you say the wife should stay, would you also say that it is God's will that they and the children suffer? Tom

Subject: Re: For Tom From: john hampshire To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 10:00:49 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Tom, Let's say a wife is being beaten by her drunk, rotten husband. Should she leave him? My answer is: it depends. Her first duty as a Christian wife is to be sure she is acting in her husbands best interest. The best interest of her husband is likely to have the police put him in jail followed by therapy. A Christian wife is not the husbands doormat (that is not the meaning of being submissive). As it happens, each spouse can contribute to the delinquency of the other, either by supporting evil or by reacting against evil with her own evil. A wife can contribute to her husbands lashing out by her own behavior, (no one is saying she deserves it). In a very real way the wife can use her abuse to become superior to her guilt-ridden husband. I don't want to turn this into psycho-analysis, but there are very real forces working in a marriage which go unnoticed--of this there is widespread ignorance. With the right person (therapist) it is possible for an abusive person to come to grips with their problem and find the root cause. Once the cause behind the cause is understood there often can be peace. Even if the abusive husband never changes,he may/should spend the rest of his days in prison, the wife is to remain married. Her life is not the ruined mess you imagine. If she acts as a Godly wife, caring for her husband's welfare (not as a sappy wimp) she brings honor to herself and to her children despite the adversity. As for God's will that children suffer, that is the logic that opened the flood gates of divorce. Part of the purpose of marriage is so self-centered egos can mature and find how to live as God intended. This usually requires egos to get crushed, much crying and suffering and hopefully a realization of how to live properly is arrived at in the end. With our rampant divorce today, no one gets that far. The first trauma and the lawyers are preparing the paperwork. That's where the children really suffer as selfish egos run to escape the realization of how rotten they really are. They never mature--perpetual weaklings and cowards forever. We must work out our problems between husband and wife, no matter how serious, it is all done within the framework of marriage. It is God's will that two people upon marriage are joined into a union where there are no longer two but one. The marriage bonds cannot be broken by man, only God can do that and that is by death of a spouse. To divorce, which really means to be cast out or depart (meaning the husband departs from the wife without intent to return) is sin. To marry another wife while your first wife lives is to have two wives, for despite the paperwork from the lawyer, only God can separate that union, man cannot. If an unbelieving spouse departs (divorces) the believing spouse is not required to try and chase after him/her, the sin is with the one who departed, though they should try and be reconciled. If you dream up a cause for divorce, I will tell you how many times the spouse is to forgive, seventy time seven--unto perfection, in other words--always and forever. Bottom line: the Christian spouse always is to seek the highest good for the other, and is to check carefully that they are not by their words/deeds provoking the other to wrath. If leaving temporarily (long enough in my opinion to have the abuser arrested) is necessary than so be it. Even more important is ensuring that women are protected. The father is not idle in these cases nor is the pastor, grandfather, uncle, brother, neighbors... all males should ensure women are protected at all times. Unfortunately today, females are mostly on their own. Hope I anwered your query... john

Subject: Re: For Tom From: Tom To: john hampshire Date Posted: Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:44:26 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John You said: Bottom line: the Christian spouse always is to seek the highest good for the other, and is to check carefully that they are not by their words/deeds provoking the other to wrath. If leaving temporarily (long enough in my opinion to have the abuser arrested) is necessary than so be it. I agree with you wholeheardedly on this. The Christian spouse should seek for the highest good of the other. I would however say that not all situations that don't have vilance associated with them, are situations where it isn't in the best interest for the Christian spouse to leave the abusive spouse. Some abusive spouses get their kicks out of making the lives of their spouse and children misurable. This isn't a physical thing, it is done with mean cutting remarks. As well as trying to control every aspect of the others life. This can in my opinion be every bit as bad a situation as if their was actual physical abuse being done. It is my opinion that after the abused spouse has done everthing in their power, to stop the abuse ie. counciling, personal evalutation etc... it is in the best interest of all parties involved, for the abused spouse to leave the abuser. At least until the abusive spouse has shown proof that they have changed. That may be only a month or two, or maybe even forever. Tom

Subject: Re: For Tom From: john hampshire To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 04:23:20 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, What did someone say: 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will NEVER HURT ME'. It may be quaint but it is true. Words have power only when we react to them. If a Christian knows right from wrong, truth from lies... why be made to doubt. React to words and believe you are stupid (for instance) and you are stupid! You've become stupid for believing the lie. Believing is compulsion, either from faith or from sin. In other words, words can hurt if you need praise and approval and the acceptance of men rather than living with eyes fixed on God. When a women (for instance) reacts to the cruel words of others and becomes degraded, she reacts as though the words were real things. Adam in the garden reacted to Eve's words; he believed into her. When you believe something, you but it. You go into it, and it comes into you; and it acts through you. What those words say is what you become. Where you place your faith, there unwittingly do you surrender your soul. You literally believe into people and they believe into you. Their belief into you sustains a false belief in yourself, an illusion of being something you are not. To break away from the power of words you must no longer see your need for love from people as something good, but see it rather as a selfish perversion of what love really is. Curiously, if the spouse does not act with resentment to the abuser, if the cruel words are spoken but find no home, they linger in the air (figuratively) for the abuser to examine. The effect of this is to magnify the offense of the sin, and whether the abuser is Christian or not, he will see himself clearly in that moment as he truly is. This is how the wife can win her husband WITHOUT A WORD. The spouse cannot win her husband by fleeing from the house because of some cutting remark which has hurt her pride. I understand that most people cannot avoid being riled or intimidated by words, but there is help available. When the proper understanding is gained, words lose their power over you (building pride--cutting it down). This is the desired state for each and every one of us, not just those who must face a daily barrage of loud, abusive remarks. So, I must disagree here. The wife is to remain and learn through such adverse conditions how to live properly for God (and the children learn from the mother). Again, the wife must examine herself carefully to ensure she is not provoking her husband to wrath too (which is often the case). It all boils down to coming to grips with ourselves, and learning how to be a right-minded person. Fortunately, there is help out there for those who really want it. Hope this makes some sense to you, john

Subject: Re: For Tom From: Tom To: john hampshire Date Posted: Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 19:14:35 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John You might be surprised to hear that I agree with you. At least to a point. The wife may be mature enough to handle the abuse herself. However when it is dirrected at the children, and it is evident that they are being devestated by their father/mother, that is another matter. Children are shaped by the actions of their parents. I was however talking about more than just abusive words. I was talking about the controling spouse who runs a house with an iron fist (figuratively). Tom

Subject: Re: For Tom From: john hampshire To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 03:33:26 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, A controlling spouse who runs the house with an iron fist? Wonder if you are talking about a husband or wife here. You know, husbands fear losing control of the reigns. Yet they lose it to the women every time. The reason is man's need for supporting 'love' and approval. He cannot function without his wife's support yet secretly he suspects she is somehow controlling him by it, which she is. In the end the husband becomes a tyrant, lashing out to try and hold onto the authority and power his ego craves. But it is all for naught, the women judges his behavior and rises above him anyway. This is when physical abuse to put the women down comes in, a last ditch effort. The solution is for the man to give up the selfish use of his wife. And to do that he needs to tame his ego so that in-turn he can tame her with patient, firm, discipline. The women likewise can stop interjecting herself into the man's failings, which she is hard pressed not to do (judging him). If she tames her ego, she can let the man's failings become evident without clouding sin with her own. Her calm, patient, forgiving nature heaps coals of guilt upon the tyrant-husband, and either drives him away or causes him to recognize his error and repent. There is a wrong ego-centered mock forgiveness which women use too, but I am speaking of real forgiveness that comes from understanding the motivation behind the tyrant and acceptance of her part in it. So, in marriage two egos fight it out, but as the pain increases it is possible for one or both to learn how to live properly with each other before God. It is God's design for making whole people from ego-aspiring, pleasure seeking, people-using cowards. It can't work if the cowards are allowed to run away. john

Subject: Re: For Tom From: Tom To: john hampshire Date Posted: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:13:27 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John You make it sound like if the husband/wife is a controling tyrant, that the other spouse has to take some blame for it. I guess that would include alcolism as part of the fault of the abused spouse and children. I personally come from a family where my dad was an alcoholic(still is for that matter), and my mother stayed with him, until long after all the children left the house. My mother isn't perfect, but her love for my dad was very evident. She is one of the most unselfish people I know. What you said about coal being heaped on a person's head is true. However in my dad's case the more guilt he felt, the more beer he consumed, in order to aleviate the guilt he faced. You might ask, how I know that? Well years ago, before I was a Christian, I sat down talking with my dad with a beer. When suddenly he had a very sober expression on his face and he said: 'You know Tom, be careful with boose, I don't want you becoming like me.' Of course that never stopped him from drinking and continuing on the way he always did, but it sure told me a lot about him. About eight years ago my mom returned to my dad, in the hope that they could make a go of their marriage, but after about two months it became evident that it wasn't going to work out. You know the funny thing about my mom and dad now? Now that they no longer live together, they get along better than I ever have seen them before. Christmas time every year the family gets together and for the most part, things have been quite civil. I would love to see my mom and dad get back together, however without God's intervention in my dad's life that will not happen. But with your reasoning, my mother should return to him, am I correct? Tom As to the controling spouse who rules with an iron hand. One can not generalise about those things, I have seen this occur with either of the sexes. It is a depravity issue, to which neither male nor female is ammune to.

Subject: Re: For Tom From: john hampshire To: Tom Date Posted: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:37:06 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>You make it sound like if the husband/wife is a controlling tyrant, that the other spouse has to take some blame for it. Hi Tom, Yes, that was intentional. In our victim culture it is no longer fashionable to place blame upon the 'victim'. What is the purpose of alcohol? Is it not simply a device used by cowards to avoid reality, the reality that they are not doing/speaking as they ought. Your Mom is partly responsible for your Dad's condition, as unhappy an idea as that is. But your Dad, controlled by a spirit which he gained from HIS parents, could not but fail (or fail to marry a woman like his Mom). And likewise, your Dad is responsible for your Mom's failures. While not every man becomes a lifelong drunk, there are plenty who become lifelong couch potatoes, lifeless drones who fear their wife's wrath. Every marriage has to establish who is going to maintain control. The Biblical marriage has the man taking responsibility for the families welfare. Yet, the wife by her very nature does not want to be subservient, and will work to upset her husband. Some husbands find it more economical to allow the wife to make decisions while they provide guidance. It seems egalitarian but it a dereliction of duty. If the husband won’t take charge then the wife will by default. She doesn’t want the job and resents her husband’s foisting upon her his responsibilities. The other case involves a woman who will not allow her husband into a position of authority, she would rather die in the fight than give up her position. A woman can only hold power if the husband can be made to doubt. Doubting occurs if the husband leans upon the wife, she is able to threaten removal of her support and thereby maintains control over his decisions. This is most common when the husband declares intent and the wife counters with an ultimatum. Drinking, drugs, passivity, are responses to responsibility. Often the husband finds comfort allowing the wife to run the show, but calls himself an “easy going” guy as a disguise for his own failure to act. There are rewards though for not acting: the wife keeps the husband passive with “love”, sex, some superficial freedom to make him believe he is in control. He is like a puppy on a string. The wife and children feign respect, but secretly he is resented for not keeping the wife in-line. You can see that if the husband does what is right, the wife loses her controlling influence and must either become the subservient wife she should be or seek greener pastures. When an honorable husband manning the helm, the wife and children fall in line, problems seemingly disappear. Obviously there is little you can do to influence your parents, but you CAN avoid resenting your father for not being there-—resentment binds you in such a way that you become the thing you resent. The forces that led to his downfall are the same ones that operated on his parents, and his parents before that --- and on you and your wife! Without a proper understanding we either buy into these forces, conforming to them, or rebel against the hypocrisy. In either case we are controlled and lose. There is a neutral state which allows objectivity. We neither react nor act because of external influences (people). To do this we must give up our dependency on people and things. Seemingly high ideals, but really rather mundane in its simplicity—which like salvation make it difficult for ego-filled mankind not to add to it. john

Subject: Re: For Tom From: Tom To: john hampshire Date Posted: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 14:10:18 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John Boy you have everyone fitting into a real neat box, don't you? You don't even know my mom and you presume to have her figured out. I guess it never occured to you that the victim, while they may be making matters worse, can be acting without selfishness, but not really know the best way to do it. There are so many voices out there, that claim to be able to help. Even in Christian circles, one must be careful what advice they believe and act upon. One Christian councilor can say one thing, even quoting scripture to prove their point. While another will say something completely different, while using scripture also. While we are responcible to God to learn His word, in order to discern truth. It isn't always black and white in order to discern the truth. Case in point, do you always agree with Pilgrim, when it comes to matters such as this? Of course not. Does that mean that one of you isn't a faithful student of the word of God? What I do think my mom is at fault for however is that she saw signs before she was married, that my dad drank too much. However, young love, or should I call it infactuation blinded her. She was even warned by some of my dad's friends. My dad's mom was a wonderful person, but my dad's dad was even more of an alcoholic than my dad is. My grandmother waited on him hand and foot, and sometimes it was painful to watch. By the way I don't resent my dad. I love him very much, he is still the only dad I have and I want to honor him as such. We live quite far apart, but I enjoy going fishing with him, when I get the time to. I have made sure he knows that I love him and want the best for him. I do not badure(sp?) him about his drinking, because it would only bring tension between us. Besides if anyone knows what it was like to have an alcoholic dad, it is him. When he was about 17 he had a fight with his dad over alcohol. Tom

Subject: Re: For Tom From: john hampshire To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:14:46 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, It is certainly difficult to find wise counsel, especially when it comes to so-called Christian psychologists. Psychological disorders are rarely fixed by simply being told what Scripture says. If your marriage is in the dumps and a counselor tells you that the Bible says to love each other how does that help if you don¡¯t know what love really is? The purpose of psychology is not to make people feel good about their wrong-doing, as you know. I am sure you care very much for your family, yet the forces that worked on your parents are active in every family, the reactions may vary somewhat by personality. The range of general reactions to stress are varied, but the proximal causes fit squarely into ¡°boxes¡±, as you say, as they are universal in nature and linked to the fallen human condition. We cannot escape being distorted by these forces, or distorting others. That sadly is the human condition. Nice talking with you, john

Subject: Re: For Tom From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 20:16:48 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I wish I lived on JH's 'high spiritual plane'...but I don't. I'm a simple guy. Just as encouragement works positive in wife, kids, friends, coworkers, WORDS of ridicule, condescension, etc...do harm...even hurt ... and LOTS. Kids can be marred for life by sinful parents with inappropriate speech. With a few words I can ruin a person reputation, cause them to be fired, never work again, cause some to want to shoot me, etc. If words don't hurt...then why does the 'tongue' take such a dubiously prominent place in scripture? Just thinking out loud...and sorta disagreeing with brotha John on this point. blessings to you both, laz

Subject: Re: For Tom From: john hampshire To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:04:49 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I suppose it odd for Christians to live with a spiritual dimension upholding their lives, but then I guess I'm just odd (happily so). If you were truly a 'simple guy' no one could upset you with words --- NOBODY!! Here are some thoughts... I know children are hurt by words just as adults are hurt. There is even a process of corruption that transpires from parents to children. Let me explain a little. The relative innocence of children is an affront and a stark reminder of how deep into sins the parents have sunk. Children are confronted with crafty lies and subtle distortions designed unknowingly by the parents to upset the child’s view of right and wrong. Mommy becomes upset when the child clearly sees that Mommy is in error and her behavior is wrong. Through a process of pressure, approval, reward, denial of wrong as wrong, acceptance of wrong as right the parent removes the threat and finds an ally. It is the job of Christian parents to protect their children, but to a large degree this is impossible. As fallen beings we harbor the effects of sin. Even when we maintain awareness of our pride’s attempt to grow, we cannot diffuse completely our hidden work to conform our children in our image. Unfortunately the majority of parents cannot see their own hypocrisy, though they see plenty of wrong with their spouse and children, they can find no particular problem in themselves and have no compulsion to change. If what I write make little sense, think back to when you were a child. Do you recall how your parents’ impatience, cruelty and seductive ‘loving’ caused you to resent them. Resentment is the classic response to temptation. Through judgment and blame, your sin-nature mushrooms. Pride (of judging) increases from each resentment. As pride attempts to make you something you grow further from the truth and the more reality must remain distorted to avoid the pain of being wrong (guilt). A child begins hiding from reality in a jungle of thoughts, lost in emotion; the pain seems to disappear. The greater sin is in not recognizing sin. We are motivated by each new sin's trauma to cause us to forget the last sin. In the end we forever spend our life trying to find love which our parents never had to give. If our parents had loved properly they would love with a patient, firm, no-nonsense approach—in this manner the child’s budding ego could have been stopped in its tracks. In the end it is PATIENCE that cures everything. 1Ti 6:11 'But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.'. So I agree that children are shaped (damaged) by their environment (parents, school). But also, children can side-step and diffuse the process, either during childhood guided by a strong, loving adult or later in life when their pain causes them to seek its source. But unfortunately it is pain which keeps people locked into escaping tactics. That is why escaping verbal abuse by running away is the cowards way of 'solving' a problem. The real problem is why verbal abuse 'hurts'? The solution is freedom from people, things, and dependency on being loved. Whew, that’s not likely to be well understood. Hope someone can benefit. There is help out there. john

Subject: Re: crrrreeeeek From: stan To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 16:25:23 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Biblical - so we track close most likely.