'Theology Discussion Group'

Subject: For those who are interested From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:14:44 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: For those who are interested, I was told that Dr. Michael Horton will be on the Bible Answer Man tonight. He will be discussing the Reformation. I for one am looking forward to it. Tom

Subject: Re: For those who are interested From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:23:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Drat! I will be in class. :-( I have been disappointed in Hanagraff in recent months but it might be interesting to catch the show online later tonight. Five Sola

Subject: Test From: Chad To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 14:45:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Test

Subject: Double Predestination From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:51:32 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Up until very recently, I believed in double predestination, without question. But now since I saw a recent conversation on another Reformed board, I am not so sure that 'double predestination' is biblical. I don't see anywhere in scripture that says God predestines people to hell and heaven. God's word seems to be saying man goes to Hell because of his own sin, not because God beforehand predetermined or Pre-Chose to send anyone to hell. God, being omniscient, foresaw that man would fall and that not one would choose to serve Him, and 'knowing this,' He Predetermined to save some of them anyway. These are the the elect, these are the predestinated. Some use the story of Jacob and Essah to prove 'double predestination'. But does saying Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, equate to 'I have predestinated and Chosen Esau to damnation.'? What it seems to be saying (at least to me)is that God loved Jacob, and predestinated Him, while He did not Love Esau. 1st John 4:19 says 'We love him, because he first loved us.' Esau, like all the rest of wicked man who is not Chosen of God 'by His own Sovereign will and for His own Purposes, are not Chosen of God. They are the opposite of Chosen, they are 'Not Chosen!' They do not come under the Love of God. But they, as created pots of the potter, are used of God to His own Glory. ..just as Pilate was, who crucified Jesus. Did God Predestinate Him to damnation? No, His own wicked heart brought him to the point that He was, and God used him to His own Glory! Indeed God allowed him to reach that point, to His own Glory. He was not Predestinated, He was allowed to be as evil as his wicked heart needed to do what he did. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something? Or perhaps I am being nitpicky, but those are my thoughts on the issue at this present time. Tom

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:43:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Somehow you have become a bit confused, and I suspect due at least in part, to what has been said elsewhere. :-) Five Sola has rightly pointed out that God in predestinating the lot of mankind is either 'Active/Active' or 'Active/Passive'. And I believe he is further right in holding to the 'Active/Active' position. Now, so as not to confuse you further, this 'Active/Active' view is NOT the same as what hyper-Supralapsarianism teaches. This whole issue revolves around one's view of the 'order of the decrees'. Yes, with God there is in essence but one decree, but in systematic theology, we speak of 'decrees' due to the finiteness of our minds and for the sake of being able to distinguish the works of God. [see the article by A.W. Pink The Decrees of God]. Secondly, another fundamental concern is how God's decree to save a people for Himself stands in relation to the Fall. Supra's believe that God decreed to save before He created mankind and obviously before the Fall. Infra's believe that God decreed the Fall before He decreed to save. The later [Infralapsarianism], thus holds that God decreed to save a remnant of fallen mankind and decreed to reprobate those not elected in Christ. In both views, God is 'active'. If one would posit that God only 'actively' predestinates and elects but simply 'passes by' those He has determined not to save, then this immediately raises a specter against God's immutable sovereignty. Because God's Foreordination, which includes Predestination and Election were all determined in eternity and in 'an instant' within the Godhead, it then follows of necessity that God knew those who were to be saved and those who were going to be damned. Perhaps you haven't read Dr. R.C. Sproul's article: Double Predestination? He gives a simple but accurate description of this doctrine which so many find objectionable. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:14:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, I was a single Predestinator (real word? :-) ) until someone pointed out an inconsistancy (sp?) with my thinking. If you believe in true Predestination of the elect then you must believe in a predestination of the non-elect. If only to say that those God did not choose (the 'leftover') are by default chosen for reprobation. Now let me make a clarification, one that I was asking a while back. There are two views on double predestination in the Reformed camp. One is refered to (I think I am getting the labels right) as Active/passive and the other is Active/Active. These refer to God's involvement in the predestining of the Elect & Reprobate, respectively. So someone who believes that God actively chooses those who go to Heaven and then simply passes by or over the remaining is a active/passive (by the way, this is what the Westminster Confession of Faith supports or at least as a minimum for belief in the Reformed Faith), then one who believes that God Actively chooses both those for election and reprobation is an active/active. At this point I am in the active/active camp. I am still studying but from what I see I cannot say that God is not involved in both decisions, now there may be different reasons for the decision for election than for reprobation but I am still studying that. We do know that neither good nor evil causes Gods decision to love or hate the individual (ie jacob/esau, national israel/other 'pagan' nations) but we do not know the mind of God so I won't go any further. I just know that both decision bring forth His Glory as all things do. Five Sola

Subject: The Anti-Christ From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:54:51 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: The Westminster Confession, Chap. 25, Art. 6 says 'There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.' Westminster Confession, Chap. 25, Art. 6 Although my understanding would put the Pope as 'an anti-Christ'. I don't think I would put him as 'that anti-Christ'. If my understanding of scripture is correct I would say that designation should be reserved for Satan himself. Am I understanding what the confession is saying correctly? Tom

Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:21:37 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Anti-Christ is not always used as reference to Satan, in fact most times it is not. In the eschatological sense it is an agent(s) of Satan and/or evil. But in many cases it is merely refering to someone who opposes the work of God and stands against it. I,II, III John mentions anti-Christ in reference to people who hold to various anti-christian heresies, (ie. not believing in physical death & Resurection, not believing in Diety of Christ,etc) If I'm not mistaken I think this is the meaning of the WCF. That the Roman church being an Anti-christian church is appropriately called an Anti-Christ for it is against Christ. Though there may be a deeper eschatological meaning to it that I am not aware of. [I am still the farely new presbie. :-) ] Five Sola

Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: JOwen To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:10:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Try this site in respect to your question. http://www.historicism.org/index.shtml JOwen

Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: Tom To: JOwen Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:58:00 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Sorry I couldn't find any information about this particular topic, in the site you gave. Tom

Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: JOwen To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:27:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Yes the Westminster Divines believed that the Antichrist was the Pope, as did all the reformed and orthodox theologians of that time. On the site I gave you, you might want to look at: The Anti-Preterist Historicism of John Calvin and the Westminster Standards - A short article by Dr. Lee. Rev. Greg Price of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton 'Antichrist and His Emissaries Unmasked and Rebuked' Many ref's to Westminster 1638-1649. JOwen

Subject: THe Gifts From: JOwen To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:08:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If I might, I would like to give you my take on the subject of the gifts. I was raised a Pentecostal, and am now approaching ordination in an Exclusive Psalmnodist Presbyterian Church. You can only imagine the road the Lord has put me on to lead me to this point. What a gracious Lord and Redeemer! I hope this will help in some small way. Major Premise: The Extraordinary gifts have ceased. It is my purpose now to prove three things; first, that the extraordinary gifts have ceased, second, immediate prophecy was an extraordinary gift, and last, all post canonical prophecy is mediate. For clarifications sake, immediate means by way of direct revelation, and mediate means by way of the Word only. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Cor 13-8-11). The Apostle in this text contrasts the revelatory gifts of prophecy, special knowledge and tongues, which by nature are dark and dim in contrast to the complete canon of Scripture (which was completed with the 27 books of the N.T.). That which was to replace the partial and do away with it was something designated “perfect.” “But when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” It is difficult to miss the antithetic parallel between the “partial” thing and the “perfect” (“complete, mature, full”) thing. Since the “partial” speaks of prophecy and other modes of revelational insight (v. 8), then it would seem that the “perfect,” which would supplant these, represents the perfect and final New Testament Scripture (Jas. 1:21). This is due to the fact that modes of revelation are being purposely contrasted. Thus, it makes the man of God adequately equipped to all the tasks before him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In other words, there is a coming time when will occur the completion of the revelatory process of God. Recognize also that, “face to face” is an adverbial phrase; it does not have an object. Second, “face to face” is contrasted with a “dim mirror.” Since “face to face” is adverbial without an object, the idea that it refers to Christ must be assumed or inferred. And since Paul has been contrasting forms of revelation throughout verses 8-12, it makes much more sense to interpret “face to face” in the sense of clearness (or perspicuity), in contrast to the dim mirror. The “perfect” is the closed cannon of scripture, and all we need for life and godliness. Within the context of 1 Corinthians 12 we do not need to do any herminutical gymnastics to see that 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 is dealing with immediate revelation. The word “tongues” in this passage means the gift of speaking in a language previously unknown to the speaker. The word “knowledge” is similar to tongues in that it is also an immediate gift; a gift of special understanding and wisdom that is a form of direct revelation from God. It would be foolish to think that we will no longer know anything when the cannon is completed, or in heaven for that matter. Scripture tells us otherwise. This word knowledge is a miraculous and immediate gift, designed for the benefit of those who are in an imperfect or dim setting i.e. the New Testament Christians. It is only fitting to agree that the context of the word prophecy in the same verse is also an immediate revelatory gift. Any who would try and repudiate this fact would be arguing against logic and sound hermeneutics. Minor premise: Immediate Prophecy was a Revelatory Gift Since Paul was referring to the universal church in Ephesians 2:20 and the Apostles and prophets laid the church's foundation by receiving and transmitting revelation (3:5), the implication is that once the Church was established the gift would be discontinued. By its very nature, a foundation cannot be continuously re-laid. This verse clearly implies that Paul viewed revelation as occurring during a specific, no repeatable era, with the church of subsequent ages commanded to discover its foundation in those apostles and prophets, or more specifically, in their doctrine as it is recorded in the Scriptures. Since the passage labels prophesy in itself as a foundational gift, the inevitable conclusion is that New Testament prophecy ceased along with the gift of apostleship. There are those who would argue that while the revelatory gift of prophesy as it pertains to the foundation of the Church has ceased, yet there is still a smaller, less pronounced immediate prophesy that is perpetual, and in fact has continued for almost 2000 years. I see a sound biblical exegetical foundation for cessationism (as mentioned above), but I am still not convinced of a sound scriptural basis for the perpetual nature of a lesser immediate gift. I do believe that the word prophecy is used post canon, but I believe it means something very different than what is being espoused by some. ERGO: All Post- canonical Prophecy is Mediate. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament is quite clear on the word propheteia when he says, Though much of the OT prophecy was purely predictive, see Micah 5:2, e.g., and cf. John 11:51, prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily fore-telling… it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the present, or the future. As Mr. Vine has pointed out there are many times in scripture where the word prophecy is used in a generic sense. Used in a way that is not immediate, but rather in a mediate sense. Lets examine briefly a few examples. Revelation 10:8-11 “ And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” It is common among orthodox reformed theologians to interpret this passage, as a commission from he Lord to John to preach is the revealed will of God. Romans 12: 4-8 “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching. Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.” Here we see a clear teaching of the ordinary offices that are given for the well being of the church. It would be poor hermeneutics to read into this text a list of regular offices, and then slip in one extraordinary special office. And if the Lord is giving an example of an extraordinary office here, why just this one? Why not tongues? Why not the gift of healing? And why if this is truly the gift of immediate prophecy is it given in increments, “according to the proportion of faith”? If immediate prophecy is direct revelation, how can it be done “according to the proportion of faith”? If it is true revelation it must be 100% true, clear, and concise. There is no middle ground when immediate prophecy is given. When it says, “let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.” It is speaking about mediate prophecy and scriptural reason. In this verse the word prophesy means exactly what Vine says it does, and that is “Speak forth the mind and council of God.” There are other scriptures that I could use to display the mediate use of prophecy but I think it would be redundant. The point of this exercise is to show that the words prophecy and prophesy can and do mean something other than just immediate revelation. If I have shed any light on the topic at hand I hope I have established three things. 1. That the revelatory gifts have ceased with the close of the apostolic era, and the completion of the canon of scripture. 2. That immediate prophecy was a foundational revelatory gift. 3. That post-canonical prophecy can and does mean mediate revelation, and is the simple proclamation of the revealed will of God. It must be understood that we have all we need for life and godliness. To say that we believe in immediate prophecy tells those around us that the Word of God contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is NOT the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him, but there is still a need for something more. The Word is all we need, by the power of the Spirit. Blessings, JOwen

Subject: To John (Spiritual Gifts) From: Eric To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:37:11 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi John, Last week I posted that I would respond to your post pertaining to your views on the non-cessationists. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to do so. Things are not going well for me, and I do not have the time or the energy to respond adequately to your post. I know this comes as a great disappointment to you, as you were really looking forward to my legendary exegetical skill and insight. :) Take care and God bless.

Subject: Re: To Eric (Spiritual Gifts) From: John To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 19:11:53 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, Sorry things are not going well for you. : ( It is OK if you don't respond on the cessation of certain gifts, I'll get by. As a matter of fact, just the other day, God spoke to me and told me that all revelatory gifts have indeed ceased. : ) (He also told me Arminianism is correct, there WILL be a 1000 year earthly reign, the NIVB is the most accurate Bible, and Baptism is by immersion -- go figure, I had it all wrong). I think there is room for some discussion on just what spiritual gifts are as the Bible describes them, not as Pentecostals/Charismatics distort it. Anyway, I'll see what I can put together (if only for the e-audience). You'll have more opportunities to debate this issue, allow me to give you some fodder. Take care, John

Subject: Jimmy, please exegete... From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:16:09 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: 1 Cor. 9:11-14 in view of your statements below to 'a Pharisee.'

Subject: Re: Jimmy, please exegete... From: Jimmy To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 11:53:41 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, 1Cor. 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 1Cor. 9:12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 1Cor. 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 1Cor. 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. If we are to use the word 'ordained' in the way that you want to use that word, wouldn't that mean that Paul disobeyed God's 'ordained' way of support? I don't think so :o) Acts 20:33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Acts 20:34Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 2 Thess. 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you. Paul said that he was the pattern to be followed, and that we were to 'mark' those that followed his example. Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Phil 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Phil 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) Paul is the example for all 'preachers'. Paul and the other disciples of the New Testament are the patterns that we are to compare all that would preach the word of God to. People are asked to believe, by today's professional preachers, that there is no difference between a disciple of the New Testament and themselves, in spite of the fact that their existence is completely different from the pattern preachers of the New Testament. Today's professional preachers are not like the disciples of the New Testament, they are like the Pharisees of the New Testament. The 'Pharisee' led 'churches' separate the doctrine from the teacher but in Christianity the teacher is a part of the doctrine. A Christian disciple is to be the doctrine in practice, he is to be a living epistle, the living doctrine. If the person preaching the word to you is not living the NT then their words are useless, the word of God is so designed as to need living men to back it up. 2 Thess. 3:7-10 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Paul's talking about 'preachers' here, if they don't work, and that means so-called secular work, then they don't eat. Isn't it ridiculous to pretend along with the professionals that they are like the pattern people of the New Testament? Isn't that joining in, with them, in their hypocrisy? Phil. 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Imagine how many professional preachers would be put out of work if Christians demanded that their teachers and leaders had to be like Paul and the other New Testament patterns for Christian leaders. 2 Cor. 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. Listening to false prophets will eventually bring you into bondage to them. They will 'take of you,' they will 'exalt' themselves over you. Beware of the professional preachers because it is in their best interest to keep you as a sheep good for shearing. It is in their best interest to keep you in inoffensive mediocrity and not challenging their words, position or way of life. The passage of Scripture that you are using is much loved by the 'Pharisees' since they use it to keep from having to follow Paul's example. 1 Cor. 9:11-14 has been used by the Roman Catholic Church to support their clergy system. To forbid their 'priests' and 'bishops,' from doing any real work. The Protestants have used it to support their notion that the Chruch of God is suppose to be organized like the business of the world. The 'Pharisees' use this passage of Scripture to turn Christianity into an employer with thousands upon thousands of employees. Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. pharisees in all times have made money from religion One of the signs of a 'Pharisees' is the fact that they make money from religion. Here Jesus reproaches the Pharisees for using religion to gain financial profits. Paul, and those with him worked for a living. Paul was a tent maker by trade, not a professional preacher. Today, preaching is a trade, a profession, a way to make money. Christianity was never meant to be a money making business, a career. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making money from religion, today every aspect of Christianity has been turned into a profession a way to make money. 1 Cor. 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. With this verse of Scripture, written through Paul who was a tent maker by trade, not a professional preachers, today's class of professional preachers try to justify making a trade out of Christianity. Salaries are what the hired professionals try to justify with this verse. With these words the paid professionals of organized Christianity try to justify themselves. With these words they try to justify living off of Christianity. With these words they try to justify turning it into a means of livelihood. With these words they try to justify making it into a professional career. With these words the professional class in organized Christianity justifies turning Christianity into an employer, and themselves into employees with fixed salaries. Living of the Gospel does not mean what they want it to mean. These words do not mean that God's servants are to be salaried employees of an organizational Christianity. They do not mean that Christianity is to be a profession, an occupation that can be followed as a means of livelihood or for gain. Living of the gospel does not mean receiving a salary for services renders, a salary for serving God. It does not mean that a servant of God should receive a definite amount of money, a pre-determined salary. It does not mean that God's servants are to work for hire. Living off of a salary is not to be found in God's Word. Today's system of paid, professional, service in the work of God was unknown in Paul's day. In God's word we read of no servant of God asking for, or receiving a salary for their services. Free-will gifts and not salaries are what Paul meant when he spoke of living of the Gospel. Free-will gifts may be received by a servant of God, but no stipulations can be made in connection with such gifts. No definite period of time is set as in a weekly paycheck. No definite amount of money is negotiated as in a salary. No definite responsibility and duties are sit as in a hired position. A reason, given for salaries is that if people have a settled income that they can trust in they will have more time for the work of God and will therefore do it better. But in serving God there is need for an unsettled income. There is a need to trust God and not an organization. There is a need to trust God and not a steady income, because it makes a close relationship with God absolutely necessary. A disciple who has faith in God is not influenced by any financial interest. He who supplies the money has the authority. Professional preachers receive a salary from an organization, and they have to account for what they do to that organization. Professional preachers are supported by an organization and their work is controlled by that organization. They also must do their works to be seen of men, to be seen of their employer if they are to continued to get their salary. Luke 16¨13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Serving Mammon, being a professional Christian, is the opposite of serving God being a disciple of Christ. A servant of God's is not to be governed by financial needs. If they are, then they are no longer servants of God, but servants of money, hirelings working for pay. 1Tim. 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. Who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit, a money-making business, a means of lifelihood. Those who think that godliness (acting piously or reverently toward God) is a means to financial gain, have been robbed of the truth. They are conceited and understands nothing. Paul wrote these words to warn Christians about 'preachers' who have been robbed of the truth and see their relationship to God as a way to make money. Today's system of making a career out of Christianity goes against the teachings of the Bible because It makes Christianity into a means of gain. It makes service to God into a profession, a career, a way to make money, a gaining from godliness. Living off of a salary is 'gain through godliness.' Sincerely, Jimmy P.S. I'm out of time for today, I see that there are other posts to me, I'll try to answer them but I'm not sure that I will be able to get to all of them.

Subject: Re: Jimmy, please exegete... From: 'That Pharisee' To: Jimmy Date Posted: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:42:20 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jimmy: There really isn't much more to say, than what has been said. Scripture and sound exegesis has been shared for you and the 'audience.' I would like to ask if there has been anything that has happened to you or involving you, in your past, that has caused you to take the attitude you have taken, as well as all the Scriptures you have taken out of context to try to support your incorrect position. I am indeed a pastor (a Pharisee as you like to incorrectly call it). When I first got to this church, they could not afford to 'pay' me for serving full time. I knew this coming in, and I worked full time while pastoring. They provided a small income and my housing. Since then, they have increased the income to me and I reduced the hours at my 'secular' job. I agree that a 'pastor' should not be paid $1.9 million :-), or so that he can have a Lexus or Mercedes instead of a Honda Accord (the Bible does say that they were all in one 'accord' hehe). The pastor's main function is supposed to be the study of the word of God and prayer (Acts 6). And those that labor in the word are to receive double honor. And today, with the many cults, catholics, arminians and modern churches, the pastor/elder needs be in the word of God and prayermore then ever! And that is why I must now take my leave :-). It is my hope and prayer, that you will study God's word expositorily in context, and not just punch holes here and there to try to support your personal belief system and/or agenda. That Pharisee Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Contradicting the Word of the Apostle From: Rod To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:27:24 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: This will be my last post to you until and unless you show some sign of dealing with all the Word of God on an equal basis. To pick and choose and use passages our of context and out of the context of the Bible for your own agenda is abominable. I won't exegete the passage, either, since you refused. I will point out one or two things for the benefit of the 'audience' if there is any. First, when Paul says, 'If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap you carnal things?' (verse 11), it is obvious that the things of this life are to be 'reaped' for the benefit of the body from those who benefit from the spirtual truth. 'Reaping' refers to 'harvesting' and living off that harvest, as a farmer does. Second, you cannot cop out and say that Paul worked for his keep and that he didn't mean what he said. Paul clearly identifies himself as an exception to the rule he has laid out previously, regarding himself as very different from even the other Apostles, an 'abortion,' one 'born out of due time' (1 Cor. 15:8). Verse 18 makes it clear that living from the gospel and not being burdened by supporting himself is 'my right,' but that he chooses, as one paying a debt to God by delivering the gospel to both Jews and Greeks free of charge (Rom.1:14). There is nothing in this passage to demand that same voluntary forfeiture of right by others.

Subject: An Observation: 'Audience' From: An Observer To: All Individuals Date Posted: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 09:42:40 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The following phrase caught my attention: 'I will point out one or two things for the benefit of the 'audience' if there is any.' The reason it did so is because, it is important to remember that the messages and discussions that go on here always have an audience. The Internet reaches around the globe...And it may well be that the heavenly host are also watching, to see what kind of witness we might be for Christ...Perhaps even Satan and his legion watch and hope for the turning away from the spirit of godly discussion. Just a thought for all participants. An Observer.

Subject: Re: An Observation: 'Audience' From: Rod To: An Observer Date Posted: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:44:26 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Glad to see you're observing. I didn't know if anyone was following these things or not, since there was so little activity in posting. May God grant that we speak and treat the truth at all times as it pleases His observation, His precepts.

Subject: Hearty AMEN!!! (nt) From: laz To: An Observer Date Posted: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:32:51 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Deacon/servant From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 09:17:23 (PDT) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Some people believe (not me) that the word 'deacon' in 1 Timothy chapter three, should in context be better be rendered 'servant'. Although this isn't my understanding, I would like someone who has more knowledge of this subject, show me why this is incorrect. For instance they say regarding 1 Timothy 3:13, using the Strong Concordance, the word USE is reference number 1247. The word OFFICE has the same reference number 1247. Lastly, the word Deacon also is referenced 1247. It appears that the words 'used the office of deacon well' could have been summed up more clearly by using the word 'servant' as it was in the other verses found in Matthew, Mark, John, and Romans. The words of Acts 6:3 'the multitude of disciples', is not the Greek word for the 'church',and the last two words of verse 3 are 'this business', referring to ministering to the Hellenists' widows. So the seven were not deacons, they were servants. If this is correct can one really make the case for a man or a woman being chosen as a deacon in the Church? Tom Tom

Subject: Re: Deacon/servant From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 22:50:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Although I do enjoy reading the Greek New Testament and have enjoyed my many years of study of the Greek language, I have seen all too often people trying to subvert the plain teaching of Scripture by its misuse. Usually, those who try and do this are depending upon others not knowing the original languages and thus inculcate and intimidate them resulting in unnecessary doubts. Could this be the case here? :-) Aside from this innovative use of the Greek words, and the tenuous use of Strong's Concordance, I strongly urge you to simply accept what is plainly taught in Paul's first Epistle to Timothy regarding the office of Deacon: 1Tim 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Tersely put, men and men ONLY are qualified and are to be considered for the OFFICE of Deacon. It just doesn't matter about all these other questions which someone has raised for the sole purpose of circumventing and contradicting God's explicit prohibition against women occupying the offices of Elder and Deacon in the church. Remember also one of the fundamental principles of biblical interpretation [Hermeneutics 101]; The Epistles interpret the Gospels. And NEVER FORGET CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!  In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Deacon/servant From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 17:49:05 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim You said: Aside from this innovative use of the Greek words, and the tenuous use of Strong's Concordance, I strongly urge you to simply accept what is plainly taught in Paul's first Epistle to Timothy regarding the office of Deacon: I understand what you are talking about, but for my own study of this issue, I would like to find out more about this issue. This person whom I am talking to, is a fairly regular poster on this forum. On most occasions he agrees with you, but after studying this issue(according to him) he had to change his previous oppinion about it. Like I said before, I am leaning strongly towards the view that you take on the issue, but there are some questions that I still would like to find out. One of them being whether or not we can concider Stephen and the other six deacons? Even in the verses of the choosing of the seven, it does not use the word deacon. Also, though there is no mention of any woman being chosen for the office of deacon. Still Paul does refer to at least one of them as a deacon. Though in my eyes, this does not prove that Paul was using it, for the office of deacon. One other question I have is, although I am almost 100% sure that the scripture's prohibit woman in the office of elder. I am not quite as sure about the office of deacon, since the descriptions of a deacon don't call for a woman to teach or have authority over a man (that I am aware of). Tom

Subject: Re: Deacon/servant From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 06:24:26 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, John was kind enough to iterate what Paul wrote concerning the qualifications for the office of Deacon, which I initially included in my first reply to you in this thread. And Ruth also iterated another point which I have recently made to you also; that being the matter of hermeneutics. Paul, being under the direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, could not contradict himself and speak of women 'deacons' on the one hand and then command that Deacons be 'the husband of one wife, etc.' on the other hand. You also mentioned 'Still Paul does refer to at least one of them as a deacon.' Again, what I have just said applies here also; there is NO CONTRADICTION in Paul's writings AND the issue of hermeneutics demands that 'The universal interpret the local'. I.e., the passages in and to Timothy concerning the offices of Elder and Deacon were written SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of laying down God's will for those two offices and those who are qualified to occupy them. ALL other less specific passages and/or statements, inferences, elusions, etc. MUST be subordinate and be understood in light of the specific and didactic passages. And to be honest, this is just good old plain common sense and a universal principle that is applied in everyday life. Why discard it when reading Scripture? :-) You wrote: '. . . but there are some questions that I still would like to find out. One of them being whether or not we can concider Stephen and the other six deacons? Even in the verses of the choosing of the seven, it does not use the word deacon.' The issue as to whether or not Stephen and the other MEN were 'Deacons' in the same sense as what is described in the Pastoral Epistles is easily answered and understood when one takes into account the reality of the progressive development and maturity of the Church. There were no 'congregations' or established 'churches' as we know them today at the time of the ascension of Christ and that great day of the Pentecost. And it was quite some time before the churches actually matured to the place where they were organized in polity. This is why Paul was inspired to write the Pastoral Epistles to young Timothy and Titus; to set down specific guidelines and polity for the infant church. Thus, Stephen and the others were not office bearers 'officially', but they were indeed foundational and forerunners of those who would later be 'ordained' as Deacons. Were they 'Deacons'? Yes! without question they were, but their position and role was like that of fledgeling birds just setting out to flight on their newly acquired feathered wings. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Deacon/servant From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 15:16:47 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, I don't want to attempt to answer for Pilgrim (he's much more eloquent than I :-) ) but I wanted to offer some things that help me settle the issue for myself. In my church about 2 years ago we were studying 'the Church' in sunday school. Of course the issue of the leaders in the church came up. The issu of women deacons was raised since some saw that there were some examples of women deaconess (servants). None were challenging the position of the church but just like you (i think) wondering how to answer a skeptic or liberal out there who will raise the same question. While the teacher said that the official position of deacon in the church is reserved for men only, he did give some 'flexibility' or at least acknowledgement to women deaconess if, AND ONLY IF, that was a pure servant role and in no way a role of leadership or authority. Now, I and him discussed this for a while (we came to agreement at the end) that he problem with this is in the use of the label deacon in its present usage. In the Presbyterian system the Deacons do not have as much leadership/authority as the elders (even though that is not entirely correct), but in the Baptist system the Deacons are the elders in a sense, so in that church government it would be absolutely out of the question. But there is even more to prohibit or caution women from the deaconate. Most people will automatically look to a Deacon with more respect and as a leader in the church (and rightly so) so to bestow the title to a women in the church would easily confuse alot of issues and I would think it is best not to get into that area. (I hope my ramblings made sense) :-) Five Sola ps. I hope in my post I did not offend any of the women posters for that was not my intent. Sometimes my mouth gets ahead of my mind and I say things that would best be kept silent. :-)

Subject: Re: Deacon/servant From: John To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 23:22:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>One other question I have is, although I am almost 100% sure that the scripture's prohibit woman in the office of elder. I am not quite as sure about the office of deacon, since the descriptions of a deacon don't call for a woman to teach or have authority over a man (that I am aware of). 1Tim 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.' If a deacon were to be a woman, then her wife must be faithful in all things and she must be the husband of one wife, ruling her children and house well. Obviously, the wife (woman) is not in view here. The man is the one who is judged based on how he rules over the house, wife, and children--the woman is not the head of the household. Nor can we assume the writer meant a woman could be married to a woman. john

Subject: Re: Deacon/servant From: Ruth To: John Date Posted: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 09:48:56 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, I have to agree with John 100%. Paul is very clear here that he is talking to and about men. He would not contradict himself where he otherwise is explicit that women be silent in church (and in church matters) and ask their husbands any questions they have. I have to leave your other questions for Pilgrim to reply to. In His Hands, Ruth

Subject: Re: Deacon/servant From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 19:42:00 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks I really appreciate everyone's imput into this topic. I must admitt that when I said 'that I am aware of...' I knew of the scripture verses that talked about being the husband of one wife..., and I never meant to make it sound like I was disregarding any verses. Although what you said (especially John) is what my understanding is on the subject, I have been wrong on what seemed to me to be the plain scripture meaning before. I want to be certain that isn't the case in this particular topic. For instance John 3:16, before I studied that issue indepth, my understanding on that passage was more in line with Arminianism with a twist, than the Calvinist understanding of the verse. Tom

Subject: What's Important From: 'A Pharisee' To: Jimmy Date Posted: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 21:57:03 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello Jimmie: I am one of those 'Pharisee's' that you have been writing about. I have been reading your posts with interest as well as the excellent responses you have gotten. As someone has already said, since what you say should be 'so obvious,' you and others like you should be assembling together somewhere so that you are not violating Heb.10:25. But having seen what your priorities are (much like many KJV onlies have a misplaced priority), I would like to know where you stand on the doctrines of salvation and sovereign grace. Do you talk to people about the Lord Christ and what He did for those the Father gave Him and believe? Are you equally as concerned about the modern gospel and reckless faith that has infected the professing body of Christ? And if you would, could you lay out for me how a 'church service' should go? You never did squarely respond to Pilgrim's questions to you about Pastors, Elders, Overseers, and 'those that have rule over you.' From what I recall, you just made a statistical comparison of how many times they were mentioned compared to 'brothers and sisters.' What do those 'few mentioned' Scriptures about Pastor/Elder etc mean? Finally, with all your assumptions about the mere existence of these positions in the church meaning that they think themselves better or more important regardless of their attitude and motives, must mean that you think the husband is better than the wife, the Master better than the slave, and God better than Christ, JUST BECAUSE THEY EXIST??? :-) Look forward to your response..............A Pharisee

Subject: Re: What's Important From: Jimmy To: 'A Pharisee' Date Posted: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:10:52 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello Pharisee, I don't have the time on the weekends to read or post on this forum, that's the reason for the delay in answering your post. You wrote: 'I would like to know where you stand on the doctrines of salvation and sovereign grace. Do you talk to people about the Lord Christ and what He did for those the Father gave Him and believe? Are you equally as concerned about the modern gospel and reckless faith that has infected the professing body of Christ? And if you would, could you lay out for me how a 'church service' should go? 1) Salvation is all of God, He saves who He wills. No one can save themselves. Salvation is made possible by the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2) As for 'the reckless faith that has infected the professing body of Christ'. Yes, I'm very concerned and I believe it is the fault of the 'Pharisees,' that's the reason for by opposition to the man-made churches that have taken the name of Christianity. 3) As for a Scriptural Church service, Paul gives us that in his letters to the Corinthians. You wrote: ' You never did squarely respond to Pilgrim's questions to you about Pastors, Elders, Overseers, and 'those that have rule over you.' From what I recall, you just made a statistical comparison of how many times they were mentioned compared to 'brothers and sisters.' What do those 'few mentioned' Scriptures about Pastor/Elder etc mean?' As I have tried to explain, 'elder/pastor/bishop' all speaking of the same person, is not a vocation, it was never meant to be a profession, a means to make a salary off of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is a relationship and not an "official" trade, not a salaried position. Sincerely, Jimmy P.S. I notice that there are several posts to me, I'll try to answer them as time permits, forgive me if it takes awhile.

Subject: Re: What's Important/Correction From: 'A Pharisee' To: 'A Pharisee' Date Posted: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 22:34:23 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I said: 'Finally, with all your assumptions about the mere existence of these positions in the church meaning that they think themselves better or more important regardless of their attitude and motives, must mean that you think the husband is better than the wife, the Master better than the slave, and God better than Christ, JUST BECAUSE THEY EXIST??? :-)' Rather, your line of thinking would be that everyone else must think that Husband is better than wife, Master better than slave, and God better than Christ, just because the positions exist. Can't change the last one, have made great strides with the second one (although the principle still exists with Employer and employee), and we best not mess with the first one either, eh? :-)

Subject: Re: What's Important/Correction From: Pharisee-lite To: 'A Pharisee' Date Posted: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 19:52:00 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pharisee - me thinks you wasting your time....an answer from Jimbo is not likely forthcoming. In fact, I suspect this lone ranger is also a universalist....it's just a hunch. P-L

Subject: NEW ARTICLE on The Highway From: Pilgrim To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 09:15:34 (PDT) Email Address: thehighway@gospelcom.net Message: Although several new articles have been added to The Highway lately, one in particular needs to be announced here. I say this because of a topic of discussion that went on in the forum regarding the continuation of the 'sign gifts' and the mention of Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones as being Charismatic. The article itself is further enlightening as the author, Ronald Cooke, offers a very good interpretation of 1Cor 13:10, and the first part of the text, 'But when that which is perfect is come. . .' in sharper focus. All will admit that this is a very difficult passage to grasp. And the myriad differences of interpretations testifies to its difficulty. I think Mr. Cooke's insights are worthy of mention and to warrant my personal recommendation as a 'good read'. ENJOY!. Click the link below to read the article: Tongues — Nonsense and Martin Lloyd-Jones In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Pilgrim, Pharisee's Churches From: Jimmy To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 12:16:49 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Continued from 'Becoming all things to all men' below. You wrote: ' Nor do you offer, since you have changed the all to most, any example of one of these groups that evidently you do recognize as existing that clearly manifest the true church of God. Since you didn't like being singled out as being the ONLY true Christian as opposed to every person who professes faith in Christ, perhaps you will now reply with specific illustrations from one of these 'exempt' groups as to how they are manifesting the biblical model?' I know of no manifestation of the New Testament church, I used the word 'most' because there may be places where people have come together in the way prescribed by God but I don't know of any. Nor have I ever claimed that there are no Christians in today's pseudo churches, on the contrary, that's the only way these 'churches' can exist, by holding Christians captive. That's where they get their life, that's how they can continue. You wrote: Lastly, I have consistently asked you, as I have done yet again here, for biblical texts, examples etc. that would support and illustrate your extremist charges and claims. Signs of a 'Pharisee.' 1) 'Pharisees' love religious titles (Matt. 23:7). One of the signs of a 'Pharisee' is the use of religious titles. 'Pharisees' separate themselves from the people of God by using religious titles. Religious titles are appellations that exalt some above others. Religious titles are used to exalt the leaders of organized Christianity above the rest of its members. Religious tiles are used to divide the professionals from the amateurs. Titles like pastor, minister, reverend, evangelist, the appellations that signify rank, office, or position in organized Christianity. There have always been certain people who covet religious titles. They like to attach titles to their names to show other people how important they are. To show what religious position they have obtained. To show what authority they have gained over others. To show how much respect and reverence is due them. In Matt. 23:7 Jesus forbid the use of religious titles by His Disciples. He forbid the use of reverential titles, Jesus forbid the use of instructional titles, headship titles, procreative titles and leadership titles. 2) 'Pharisees' love chief seats in the synagogues, and the places of honor at banquet. (Matt. 23:7). Another sign of a 'Pharisee' is their love of the chief seats. Chief seats were seats of honor which were prepared for the elders of the synagogue and for the doctors of the Law. The chief seats were placed in front of a ark, which contained the law, in the uppermost part of the synagogue, at the 'Jerusalem end.' Those who occupied them sat with their faces to the people. Those seats, like today, were considered positions of honor. Synagogues have no Scriptural basis for there existence, today's 'churches' copy the synagogue system and not the New Testament pattern given for God's Church. 3) 'Pharisees' do their works to be seen of men. (Matt. 23:5). Matt. 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 'Take heed that ye do not your alms (R.V. 'that ye do not your righteousness') before men to be seen of them.' Righteousness, not alms is the correct translation. Righteousness is 'good works.' Today's 'Pharisees', by the very nature of the positions they have created must do their works to be seen of men, they must declare themselves to be righteous before man. 'Pharisees' must appear righteous before their followers. Today's 'Pharisees' must do their works in order to be thought righteous by man, so that they will be elevated to positions of authority by men, and receive payment from men. 4) 'Pharisees' control the Synagogues/Churches. (John 12:42). John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. 3John 1:9. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. This was the beginning of the end of the New Testament Church. In 3 John 9, we read of a church being taken over by one man, one man being elevated above the rest of the members. Diotrephes who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, to govern according to his own will. Diotrephes, a man of ambition, evidently had pre-eminence and occupied a high place in this 'church'. Today, Diotrephes has become the pattern and not the exception. 'Pharisees' control the 'churches.' 5) 'Pharisees' are highly esteemed. (Luke 16:15) 6) 'Pharisees' placed Traditions above the Word of God. (Mark 7:7-13). 7) 'Pharisees' are money lovers, who made religion into a means of profit. (Luke 16:14). 8) 'Pharisees' are hypocrites. (Matt. 23:25). 9) 'Pharisees' hindered people from entering the Kingdom of God. (Matt 23:13). This is going to get way to long if I continue, I'm more than willing to discuss any of these points in detail with you if you think it necessary. I do want to say something about the invisible versus the visible church. Matt. 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Matt. 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. The doctrine of the invisible church equals invisible light. The 'Pharisee' led 'churches,' of today justify the obvious disunity of Christians by teaching that the 'real church' is invisible. That the 'real church' can only be seen by God. The 'true church' is some kind of 'invisible light' that people are not meant to see. The reformers, in order to justify so many fractions gave us the notion that the Church is invisible, known only to God, the true 'church' is hidden, and the saints are concealed. So much for the 'light of the world.' The theological distinction between the 'church' visible and the 'church' invisible is used by today's 'Pharisees' to defend denominationalism. This doctrine of the 'invisible church' makes it nearly impossible to discuss the New Testament idea of the Christian Church as communities of Christ living within but separate from the communities of the world. According to the doctrine of the 'invisible church' no visible communities, like those of the New Testament, can exist. These 'churches' dodge any responsibility to be like the Church of the New Testament by teaching that they are not really 'the Church' because 'the true church' is 'invisible.' Yet these 'churches' claim to represent Jesus Christ to the world. These 'churches' profess to speak in the Name of Jesus, to make pronouncements in His Name, to raise money in His Name. Today's 'Pharisees' speak as if their 'churches' are in fact 'The Church' that exists invisibly. Employees of each 'church' or group of 'churches' believe that they are the 'Church' and that what they believe, and what they do, constitutes the 'true' Christian faith. The Church of God is never divided, the Church of God is never corrupted. The Church of God cannot be divided by man, the Church of God cannot be corrupted by man, but The Church of God can be hidden by man. The Church of God is a Spiritual reality that can go unmanifested on the earth. The Church of God cannot be extinguished but it can be hidden as a candle under a bushel. The people of God can keep the Church of God from being manifested but they cannot change or destroy it. The unity of the Church of God has been made by the Holy Spirit, and it has never been broken. Although the members of this spirit union may or may not manifest their unity. John 17:21 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. Invisible unity cannot be seen by the world. Spiritual unity must have physical unity to be manifested to the world. We can hide the truth of Christ from the world. We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father sent the Son, if we are divided. We cannot expect the world to believe Jesus' claims are true, and that Christianity is true, unless the world sees some reality of the oneness of Christians. And that oneness can only be manifested when we follow the pattern of the New Testament Church as given to us in God's Word. Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Pilgrim, Pharisee's Churches From: Rod To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 13:55:31 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Jimmy, I won't reply to all your message--and I don't mean to butt in on yours and Pilgrim's thread/discussion--but several things you've said in relation to this subject in various posts do prompt me to speak up. In one post below, you mentioned the 'persectution' of the church involving the shedding of the Christians' blood. That may well be, but it seems your focus is all wrong. It isn't the shedding of the blood by the followers of Christ which is the important thing; it is the shed blood of the Lord Jesus. It seems you are emphasizing what men do or don't do to the detriment of what God accomplishes and desires to do in His will. Witness this statement of yours at the conclusion of the above post: 'We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father sent the Son, if we are divided. We cannot expect the world to believe Jesus' claims are true, and that Christianity is true, unless the world sees some reality of the oneness of Christians.' In that summing-up you equate men's belief unto salvation in the Lord Jesus with the proportional efforts of men, not the will and design of God. Several people have hinted broadly at it, but I don't think anyone has specifically quoted this verse: 'Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution' (2 Tim.3:12). The 'all' in that verse is the true Chruch. Will their persecution be extremely dramatic as viewed by others in every case (even the majority of cases)? Does it show plainly to society when one is ridiculed at work, loses friends, is forced out of a job, or is overlooked for promotion because of a Christian stance? Does God expect to give all his followers extreme witness due to their widely publicized stand in the face of persecution to the point of the shedding of blood? Doesn't the actual shedding of blood and even martydom become 'commonplace' and the public (even fellow Christians) become somewhat hardened by its often occurence? It is undeniably true that we are to stand for God and the Lord Jesus. It is true that the stance may at times be very costly, even to the point of physical suffering or death. But I suggest to you that this is not the rule; that the persecution will be most often less cruel and somewhat more subtle. I also suggest to you that the test is not how much you suffer, but how and for what motive: '...and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing' (1 Cor. 13:3). And along those same lines, the test of the Lord Jesus for witness to the entire world is not suffering, but, 'By this shall