'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 hea