Go To Home Page
Messiah

Key: = Posted Today and Yesterday



'Theology Discussion Group'

Travel to the Highway home page and read our many fine articles and view the links to other sites by clicking on the blue The Highway logo in the upper right hand corner of this page.

« Forum Guidelines »

Total Messages Loaded: 279


Rod -:- A Theological Newscast -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 10:08:25 (PST)
_
stan -:- Re: Me Pappy ... -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:02:17 (PST)
_ Brother Bret` -:- Re: A Theological Newscast -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:28:55 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- IMPORTANT Annoucement -:- Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 20:05:12 (PST)

george -:- Daniel 9:26-27 -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 16:27:29 (PST)

Rod -:- Dispensational and Reformed -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:40:42 (PST)
_
John Stevenson -:- Re: Dispensational and Reformed -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 22:15:19 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Dispensational and Reformed -:- Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:27:32 (PST)
___ John Stevenson -:- Re: Dispensational and Reformed -:- Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 14:42:51 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Dispensational and Reformed -:- Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 16:56:01 (PST)

george -:- Daniel 9:24-27 -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 19:18:59 (PST)
_
postrib -:- Re: Daniel 9:24-27 -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 20:56:27 (PST)
__ george -:- Re: Daniel 9:24-27 -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 05:39:35 (PST)
___ John Stevenson -:- Re: Daniel 9:24-27 -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:17:05 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Daniel 9:24-27 -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:04:23 (PST)
_____ John P. -:- -:- 'Church unknown in OT' - dispensationalists -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:24:58 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: 'Church unknown in OT' - dispensationalists -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:45:17 (PST)
__ John Stevenson -:- Re: Daniel 9:24-27 -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 22:54:14 (PST)

Rod -:- What if He isn't willing? -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 14:58:54 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Could part of the problem be... -:- Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:24:06 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Could part of the problem be... -:- Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:57:31 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: What if He isn't willing????? -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 20:26:46 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: What if He isn't willing? -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 21:03:20 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Hey ....... -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 18:58:25 (PST)
__ Tom -:- How old? -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 13:19:24 (PST)
___ stan -:- Re: Uhhhhh... -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 13:59:38 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Uhhhhh... -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 14:45:01 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Uhhhhh... -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 21:55:53 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Hey ....... -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 19:52:37 (PST)

Tom -:- Re-Agree or disagree? -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:11:07 (PST)

Tom -:- Agree or Disagree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 13:53:12 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Quotation and some elaboration -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:25:00 (PST)
_ John Stevenson -:- Agree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 19:26:51 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Disagree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 21:15:24 (PST)
___ John Stevenson -:- Still Agree -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 08:04:06 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Still Agree -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 20:15:01 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Still Agree -:- Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:52:22 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Disagree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 22:15:29 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Disagree -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 08:33:05 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Disagree -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:26:49 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Disagree -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 11:55:51 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: Disagree -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:33:28 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: Disagree -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:00:56 (PST)
________ Rod -:- I did say that more than once... -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:45:26 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re: I did say that more than once... -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:17:48 (PST)
__________ Rod -:- Re: I did say that more than once... -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:52:23 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: Disagree -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:10:14 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Agree or Disagree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 17:37:12 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Disagree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 15:19:05 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Agree or Disagree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 14:42:27 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Agree or Disagree -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 22:35:04 (PST)

Jimmy -:- Good Works? -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 18:02:42 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Good Works? -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 20:43:17 (PST)
__ Jimmy -:- Re: Good Works??? -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:51:41 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Good Works???? -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 16:41:15 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Good Works? -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 20:17:46 (PST)
__ Jimmy -:- Re: Good Works? -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:47:38 (PST)
___ John Stevenson -:- Re: Good Works? -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:19:24 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Good Works? -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:13:36 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- -:- Re: Good Works? -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 15:34:08 (PST)
___ Rod -:- no change -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:45:31 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: no change -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 20:58:32 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: no change -:- Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:17:52 (PST)

Rod -:- Pardon my ignorance -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:39:54 (PST)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Pardon my ignorance -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:28:53 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Pardon my ignorance -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 11:07:30 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Pardon my ignorance -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:09:19 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Pardon my ignorance -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:31:18 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Pardon my ignorance -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 15:27:25 (PST)

stan -:- For Your Possible Interest... -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 13:29:41 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Hey, stan! (Off topic) -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:28:01 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Hey, stan! (Off topic) -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 17:45:05 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Hey, stan! (Off topic) -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 18:00:39 (PST)

saved -:- Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 08:42:09 (PST)
_
John Stevnenson -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:02:36 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:08:53 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:02:27 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:21:06 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:22:33 (PST)
____ saved -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 15:12:15 (PST)
__ John Stevenson -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:09:33 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:07:16 (PST)
____ saved -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 15:22:31 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:02:06 (PST)
______ saved -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:29:34 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 19:32:58 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 10:35:06 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Election and the Body of Christ -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 09:44:53 (PST)

Bro. Charles -:- Rev. 10:8-11 -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 09:51:54 (PST)
_
postrib -:- The Little Book Is Daniel -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 18:40:13 (PST)
__ John Stevenson -:- Re: The Little Book Is Daniel -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 20:32:21 (PST)
_ John Stevenson -:- -:- Re: Rev. 10:8-11 -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:50:13 (PST)
__ Bro. Charles -:- Re; on Rev. -:- Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 15:38:52 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:12:06 (PST)
_
Chris -:- Re: Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 19:43:32 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 21:00:24 (PST)
_ Chris -:- Re: Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 19:41:47 (PST)
__ Five Sola -:- Re: Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 06:42:31 (PST)
___ Chris -:- Re: Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:50:07 (PST)
____ Five Sola -:- Re: Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 19:48:37 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re: Concern About Modest Apparel -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 20:32:09 (PST)
_ Anne -:- You are SO right! -:- Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:50:45 (PST)

Five Sola -:- qoute on trinity -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 18:24:58 (PST)
_
Chrysostomos -:- Rod -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 22:28:04 (PST)
__ Rod -:- ''Rod''??? nt -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:10:23 (PST)
___ Chrysostomos -:- Yeah, well... -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 23:54:21 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: qoute on trinity -:- Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 10:06:13 (PST)
__ Five Sola -:- Re: qoute on trinity -:- Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 14:27:43 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: qoute on trinity -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 19:42:18 (PST)

saved -:- -:- The Old Gospel vrs the New -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:51:55 (PST)

Chrysostomos -:- Rod -:- Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 21:32:47 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Rod -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 09:11:00 (PST)
__ Chrysostomos -:- I'm afraid you've missed it, Rod... -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 20:50:28 (PST)
___ Chrysostomos -:- PS -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 22:00:02 (PST)
____ laz -:- Pins and Needles... -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:11:33 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:34:34 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 16:36:04 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 17:36:31 (PST)
________ Chrysostomos -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 23:50:35 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 08:59:21 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 19:37:14 (PST)
_________ Rod -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 22:47:03 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 22:23:42 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re: Pins and Needles... -:- Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 07:46:59 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Will the real Chrysostomos -:- Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:07:31 (PST)
_____ Chrysostomos -:- This is odd Rodd -:- Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 22:56:01 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Prayer on your behalf... -:- Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:53:26 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Rod -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 10:22:18 (PST)
___ Chrysostomos -:- Re: Rod -:- Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 22:14:53 (PST)
___ John Stevenson -:- Re: Rod -:- Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 08:08:57 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Rod -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:41:16 (PST)

Mark -:- Homosexuallity/Idol worship -:- Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 16:19:21 (PST)
_
John Stevenson -:- Re: Homosexuallity/Idol worship -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 12:16:45 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Homosexuallity/Idol worship -:- Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 17:08:52 (PST)

Tom -:- Women revisited -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:59:14 (PST)
_
Brother Bret -:- -:- Re: Women revisited -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 21:31:17 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Women revisited -:- Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 08:46:16 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Women revisited -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 15:35:26 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Women revisited -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 14:26:52 (PST)
__ John Stevenson -:- Re: Women revisited -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 17:06:54 (PST)

saved -:- The Everlasting Righteousness -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:59:55 (PST)

Chris -:- Forsaking the Assembling together -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:56:39 (PST)
_
John Stevenson -:- -:- Re: Forsaking the Assembling together -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:00:44 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Forsaking the Assembling together -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:10:44 (PST)
__ John Stevenson -:- -:- Date of Hebrews? -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:07:01 (PST)
___ saved -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 08:23:25 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:53:53 (PST)
_____ Five Sola -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:39:19 (PST)
______ Brother Bret -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 20:43:43 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 09:09:52 (PST)
________ John Stevenson -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:25:18 (PST)
_________ Rod -:- John, I vote for Elmo! :^) nt -:- Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:47:35 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:31:12 (PST)
_____ John Stevenson -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 16:59:01 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: Date of Hebrews? -:- Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 20:43:41 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- A MESSAGE ABOUT THESE FORUMS -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:07:47 (PST)

Tom -:- Salvation -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 14:22:16 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Salvation -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:32:26 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Salvation -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 14:24:44 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Salvation -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:32:18 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Salvation -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 21:20:27 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Salvation -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 15:39:04 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Salvation -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 00:05:41 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Salvation -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:34:25 (PST)
____ Rod -:- addendum -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 14:21:29 (PST)
__ scott lewis -:- Re: Salvation -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 21:33:02 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Salvation -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:00:50 (PST)

laz -:- Women's Rights and God -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 18:20:20 (PST)
_
Webservant -:- -:- Re: Women's Rights and God -:- Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 11:13:30 (PST)
_ Anne -:- What I don't understand.... -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:51:43 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: What I don't understand.... -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:13:59 (PST)
__ Rod -:- We're all proud creatures, aren't we? nt -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:38:18 (PST)
_ Stan -:- Re: I checked with ... -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 20:07:53 (PST)

ephraim -:- arminianism -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 18:13:58 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: arminianism -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:29:04 (PST)
__ JohnS -:- Re: arminianism -:- Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 12:20:36 (PST)
__ FredW -:- salvation and knowledge -:- Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:45:44 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: salvation and knowledge -:- Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:25:05 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: salvation and knowledge -:- Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 08:35:18 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: arminianism -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 20:51:24 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: arminianism -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 19:41:39 (PST)

Chris -:- Was John the Baptist, Elijah? -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:01:30 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Was John the Baptist, Elijah?? -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 15:17:50 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Was John the Baptist, Elijah???? -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 10:47:21 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Weeeellll ... -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 21:23:08 (PST)

Sherry -:- Woman Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 15:56:19 (PST)
_
Cristina -:- Re: Woman Minister -:- Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 17:02:47 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Cracks me up ... -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 21:15:46 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Woman Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:02:32 (PST)
__ lurker -:- Re: Woman Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:48:30 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Woman Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:52:36 (PST)
_ laz -:- Oh really? -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 17:23:06 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Woman Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 17:18:05 (PST)
_ Anne -:- What'd you ask for, then???? -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 16:54:18 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re: What'd you ask for, then? -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:33:23 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Chris, I'm very pleased that -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:40:22 (PST)
___ Anne -:- Sorry! You're right, of course. -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:37:31 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Well done, Anne! nt -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:42:36 (PST)

Sherry -:- Woman Being Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:23:38 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 16:17:15 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 14:29:52 (PST)
__ Reformed SBC -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:23:10 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 00:46:56 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 08:34:55 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:32:12 (PST)
___ Five Sola -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 20:52:05 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:13:15 (PST)
_____ Five Sola -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:32:10 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:48:21 (PST)
_______ Reformed SBC -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 18:53:05 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 21:55:32 (PST)
_____ SavedByGrace -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:23:41 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:06:58 (PST)
_______ SavedByGrace -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 13:33:38 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 16:50:56 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 08:57:40 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 14:35:42 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 20:22:34 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 00:18:20 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Woman Being Minister -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 13:30:21 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Women are forbidden to be ministers. -:- Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 11:40:26 (PST)

Five Sola -:- Theonomy -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:13:18 (PST)
_
stan -:- Re: Theonomy -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 07:38:18 (PST)
__ Five Sola -:- Re: Theonomy -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 13:03:39 (PST)

Tom -:- Doctrine -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:52:03 (PST)
_
John Stevenson -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:18:06 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 23:43:03 (PST)
_ Cristina -:- -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:11:40 (PST)
__ James Lush -:- -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:56:58 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 14:30:43 (PST)
_ scott lewis -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 13:16:02 (PST)
__ Reformed SBC -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:56:26 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 17:41:52 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 17:07:53 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 23:37:41 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 23:52:29 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Doctrine -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 13:05:19 (PST)

Tom -:- Cloning Revisited -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 00:03:36 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Cloning Revisited -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:47:43 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Cloning Revisited -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 13:09:20 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Cloning Revisited -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 17:34:16 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Cloning Revisited -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 23:45:07 (PST)
____ saved -:- Re: Cloning Revisited -:- Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 19:15:05 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re: article fyi -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 15:03:11 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: article fyi -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 17:12:33 (PST)
_______ stan -:- Re: article fyi -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 20:11:18 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: article fyi -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 20:34:42 (PST)
_________ stan -:- Re: article fyi -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 21:41:29 (PST)

Sherry -:- May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 13:16:20 (PST)
_
John Stevenson -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:27:38 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 19:36:58 (PST)
__ Sherry -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:55:23 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 18:52:08 (PST)
____ Sherry -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 21:27:39 (PST)
_____ Brother Bret -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 13:59:01 (PST)
______ Sherry -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:30:54 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 10:36:48 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:23:42 (PST)
________ Sherry -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 14:38:40 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 19:49:41 (PST)
_ one of the monitors -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 14:02:19 (PST)
__ Sherry -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 17:35:22 (PST)
___ one of the monitors -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 19:21:31 (PST)
____ Sherry -:- Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join -:- Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 14:26:11 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- How Much Gospel Is Gospel? -:- Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 20:58:57 (PST)
_
Five Sola -:- Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel? -:- Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 06:27:18 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel?? -:- Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 01:25:03 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel?? -:- Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 19:25:37 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel? -:- Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 22:26:35 (PST)

Theo -:- Read any good books lately? -:- Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 18:45:51 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Read any good books lately? -:- Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:14:41 (PST)
__ Reformed SBC -:- Re: Read any good books lately? -:- Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 17:43:15 (PST)
___ Theo -:- To Pligrim and Reformed SBC -:- Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 18:56:08 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Read any good books lately? -:- Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 19:24:14 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Read any good books lately? -:- Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 20:50:03 (PST)
___ Theo -:- To Five Sola and Bret -:- Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 21:16:44 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- New Search Engine -:- Thurs, Mar 01, 2001 at 22:00:13 (PST)

saved -:- Recent Earthquakes & the Last Days -:- Thurs, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:01:29 (PST)
_
Five Sola -:- Re: Recent Earthquakes & the Last Days -:- Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 17:55:24 (PST)


Hotboards.Com Counter


Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



Subject: A Theological Newscast
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 10:08:25 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Last night a local station broadcast a segment of news which 'explained' why crime was so bad here on the U.S southwestern border. It seems that there is a lot of pottery and similar wares coming into El Paso and surrounding areas from Mexico which contain high levels of lead. Couple that with the fact that evil leaded gasoline was used by autos for decades and there is lead contamination which is affecting many in this region. It seems a study was done some few years ago which purported to find a link between those who had brain damage from lead in their systems and those committing crimes. I'm sorry to tell you all that we've been wrong all along about total depravity, it seems. The trouble with mankind then, it would naturally follow, for all these thousands of years is because we've eaten from lead laden pottery and driven cars using leaded gas. Of course, there would naturally be a few areas where people aren't bad at all and there would be no crime, since their dishes had no lead and they couldn't afford cars or roads for them. These must exist, but science hasn't discovered them yet. I'm sorry to lay on the sarcasm so thick, but that was the connection made by the news story. It was their lead, with the reporter holding a clay pot and standing by a gas pump and asking, 'What is the link with these items and crime?' (paraphrased). I think they should have ended with, 'Are you unleaded or are you a mean, low-down scumbag?' The reporter did say near the end: 'Of course, this is only a theory, but....' [Disclaimer: For anyone who doesn't understand — I'm not downgrading lead poisoning or making light of its tragic effects, let me state that right now. What I am against is this type of irresponsible reporting which explains why man is bad.]

Subject: Re: Me Pappy ...
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:02:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
was right when he kept telling me to get the lead out! ;-) They seem to become silly as they try to be so intellectual!

Subject: Re: A Theological Newscast
From: Brother Bret`
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:28:55 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Preach on Brother Rod. The 'world' once again in rare form :^ ). BB

Subject: IMPORTANT Annoucement
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 20:05:12 (PST)
Email Address: webmeister@the-highway.com

Message:
All,
Please take note!!!
The Highway has a new internet address (URL). We now have our own domain name as of last week so please make the necessary changes in your 'favorites/bookmarks'. The new address is now: http://www.the-highway.com One of the major reasons for moving The Highway to this new location was the desire to have all the facilities we sponsor at one place. This not only makes the administration responsibilities much easier, but it also provides for more security. There are still a few things that need to be done at our new home, but for the most part all is ready for 'occupancy'! If you are currently registered to have automatic updates sent to you whenever there are additions to The Highway in those pages you have chosen to be notified of, you will need to either:
  • modify the URL for those selections in your personal folder at 'Mindit' or
  • delete those selections and register again at the Update page on the new site.
I would recommend you do the latter as there are new categories now that take into consideration the new format of the Calvinism and the Reformed Faith section. Another item is the addition of a new Search Engine. This is a goodie!! This one actually works so that you can search for phrases or words or multiple words and/or phrases. You can choose the 'Advanced Search' to customize your search. More, you can also search for your word/phrase on the Internet as well, using AltaVista or Google right from the Search page itself and never have to leave The Highway. And lastly, using the drop down menu in the Search box, you can now choose to search the main section of The Highway or the Theology Forum Archives. Now, I have a request to make to everyone. We need your help. No, I'm not going to make a plea for money.. LOL.. but what we need from everyone is to pass the word to others who you know visit The Highway and ask them to change their favorites/bookmarks to reflect the new address. Further, and just as important; there are currently over 750 web sites that have a link to The Highway. Some are to specific articles, and others to the website in general. We would ask you to please send an e-mail to the webmaster of those sites and ask them to change their links accordingly. And please ask your friends to do the same. Currently, The Highway is averaging 144,000 hits per month. That's a lot of people! The 'gospelcom.net' address will still be online for a short time yet, to facilitate this transition. So although this is true, we still ask that you begin using the 'www.the-highway.com' address from now on. Lastly is the matter of these forums. The present forums will continue for at least another week, perhaps more. We are in the process of setting up a brand new program for these forums now. As you can imagine, this demands a goodly amount of time and effort on our part and we are working diligently to finalize this last part of The Highway. The new forums will be totally different from what you are used to seeing here. Yes, I realize that there will be some who will moan and even groan :-), having to familiarize themselves with the new format. But I can assure you that these new forums will provide considerable more features, security and ease of use. I am confident that the vast majority of our visitors will welcome the change. Again, we thank you all for your support and participation which so many have shown over the past five years we have been online. We also covet your prayers so that God will continue to bless The Highway and make it a blessing to the thousands of people that visit and enjoy all that The Highway has to offer. If you have any comments, suggestions, questions and yes, even criticisms, please use the e-mail address above.
Again the new address is:http://www.the-highway.com
In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Daniel 9:26-27
From: george
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 16:27:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All, No one address the verses in Daniel as possibly being Jesus and not the antichrist. Also, is it possible that Daniel and the Old Testament were symbolically as well as literally fulfilled at Christ's first coming? george ps, excluding passages which specifically speak of the new earth and new heaven.

Subject: Dispensational and Reformed
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:40:42 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: I meant to make the title longer, but the forum wouldn't allow it. :^) When I first came here, Pilgrim and I entered into an informal 'compact' not to debate Dispensationalism (both too old and tired :^)! ). I still think that is the best policy and I don't intend to do it, particularly with respect to eschatology. But I am writing this to clear up some misconceptions I've seen (and maybe to state some of my own! :^) ). First, let me say that I will try to look at the Big Picture and not to specifics and let me say that it isn't my intention to deliberately misstate the Reformed position or belittle anyone. I'd ask in return that you consider that some designations of Dispensationalists and our beliefs might be offensive also. I'm not here to 'convert' anyone to this position anymore than I am to any other position. ________________________________ It seems to me that the major division between the Reformed (hereafter 'Ref.) and the Dispensational (hereafter 'Disp.') adherents is this: 'Does national Israel have an integral part in the plan of God in the future?' 'You' would say 'No, the Church has replaced Israel for all time in God's economy due to their national rejection of Messiah at His first coming.' While 'we' would say, 'God isn't through with national Israel as His chosen people according to his eternal covenant, but has suspended them from their position for a time and will bring them back to the forefront at the end of the 'times of the Gentiles.' It seems necessary that the Ref. would be somewhat Preteristic in that such a position requires that many, if not most, prophecies concerning Israel would have to had already been fulfilled, while Disp. thought would necessitate that, since Israel has a future, many, if not most, await final fulfillment. As for the OT revelation of the Church of Jesus Christ, the 'one new man,' there are several places which seem to me and to others of my 'ilk' to reveal it, but only relatively vaguely with the aid of hindsight and retrospect. I won't speak for all Disp. people, but only for myself, though I think most would agree with me on this: The Church is prophesied and revealed in part in such OT books as Ruth and Hosea, to name just two, but without the subsequent events of history and the coming of the Lord Jesus as a propitiation, and as Prophet, Priest, and King, it is difficult to see precisely where it all relates. But to declare that Disp. see the Church as unrevealed, or especially 'unplanned,' is a gross misrepresentation. It insinuates strongly that God is so small that He had to make it up as He went and no true Christian of any bent may believe that. Those of us who acknowledge sovereign grace and the attributes of God staunchly maintain that He is not surprised ever and knew and had mapped out all things from the beginning of eternity. Literally everything is going according to His eternal plan. ______________________ I am forcing myself to stop here. I would like very much to say some other things, but where would I stop? I reiterate that it's not my intention to offend anyone. It's definitely not my intention to enter into a debate over such a detailed and intricate topic which would snarl us all, I think. I believe the best way to approach this subject is to study extensive writings on it, not to debate small protions and promote more misunderstandings. I have tried to, and hope I have succeeded in, presenting the disparity in a nutshell and just given the basics. If you hate Disp. and want to debate it, you've got the wrong boy. If you have questions about details, I may or may not want to get into it--as I say, I realize this is a Ref. board and these are very intricate systems of belief which don't lend themselves to short presentations as are required on such forums.

Subject: Re: Dispensational and Reformed
From: John Stevenson
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 22:15:19 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
I certainly do not wish to misrepresent you or anyone else. And it is true that there are many divergencies among those who hold Dispensationalism. At the same time, I will continue to maintain that quite a number of popular Dispensationalists do hold that the church was completely hidden prior to this age. 'When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic Kingdom. In the knowledge of God, not yet disclosed, lay the rejection of the kingdom (and King), the long period of the mystery-form of the kingdom, the world-wide preaching of the cross, and the out calling of the Church.' (Schofield Reference Bible, Footnotes under Matthew 4). To be fair, Schofield does go on to allow that God knew what He was going to eventually do and that He had the church age 'locked up in his secret counsels.' As to 'hating Dispensationalists,' it would be a case of biting myself, for I graduated from a Dispensational Bible College and long held to that system of theology, even though I have since abandoned it. John

Subject: Re: Dispensational and Reformed
From: Rod
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:27:32 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
John, Let me make it clear that I was speaking, as I wrote in the above post, 'to all.' There are many here who are 'less than friendly' to the Disp. view of Scriptures, though I personally have been treated fairly and well and feel welcome. I have many I consider friends, brothers and sisters, among those who disagree with the Disp. interpretation. I hope as we two get to know one another better, it will be so with us. In addressing you personally, John, I would have to say that your quotation of Schofield, especially the addition of this statement, ''To be fair, Schofield does go on to allow that God knew what He was going to eventually do and that He had the church age 'locked up in his secret counsels,''' necessitates a modification of your original position (below). You indicated that the Disp. have the notion that the Church Age was 'unplanned,' and John P. declared flatly, 'the church is an accident.' Neither of your quoted statements from the Moody folks or the Schofield Bible uphold those designations. It cannot be derived from those quotes that God stumbled onto the idea of the Church because He was surprised that Messiah was rejected. We all agree here that He knew they would nationally reject the Lord Jesus and that that was His 'determinate counsel.' What can be legitimately concluded from the quotes is that the focal point of God's plan was and is national Israel, according to the Disp. interpretation of Scripture. As I understand the Ref. view, it still is Israel which is the focal point, but the Ref. take Israel today, ''the Israel of God,'' to be the Church, which permanently replaces national Israel in God's plan. The Disp. view, as you correctly point out, has God disengaging the clutch on the machinery of His plan for national Israel, while He makes them jealous by the Gentiles as He calls out a people to His name. Then, the Church is taken out of the world and the machinery of the plan for national Israel is set in motion once again and the prophecies are fulfilled. (I set forth these simple explanations, not for challenges to debate the merits of the two interpretations, but to define what I consider to be the major disagreement between the two views for any here untaught in the Disp. interpretation.)

Subject: Re: Dispensational and Reformed
From: John Stevenson
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 14:42:51 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
Rod, Your point is well-stated and I also hope to have such conversations remain friendly. I understand that there are a variety of views within Dispensationalsim, so to speak of what some Dispensationalists believe will not always apply to others. The following distinctives therefore are generalities: DISTINCTION: Plan & Purpose of God. Dispensationalism teaches that God has two separate plans and two separate and distinct peoples through whom He works - Israel and the Church. Covenant Theology says that God has always had ONE unified people. In the Old Testament that was Israel, but even then not all Israel was Israel, but only those who entered into covenant relationship of faith in God. DISTINCTION: Various Economies throughout the Ages. Dispensationalists use as their hermeneutic various periods of time which they label 'Dispensations' in which God periodically tests a groups of people. They always fail the test and are judged as a result. Covenant Theologians often use the various covenants as their hermeneutical principle. Each covenant which God makes with men grows out and expands upon the preceding covenant. God's grace is evident in each of the covenants. DISTINCTION: The Law. Dispensationalism says that the Mosaic Law is done away in Christ - that the Christian is only obligated to follow the commands given in the New Testament. Covenant Theology sees the Ceremonial Law as being fulfilled in Christ, but the Moral Law as contained in the Ten Commandments are still in force in every age (although the form of the Sabbath is usually seen to have changed). DISTINCTION: The Nature of the Church. Dispensationalism sees the church as a parenthesis, a temporary situation lying between God's two dealings with Israel. Covenant Theology sees the church as the culmination of all God's people, the very body of Christ and the fullness of God. DISTINCTION: Church in the Old Testament. Dispensationalism usually teaches that the church is neither found nor mentioned in the Old Testament. Covenant Theology states that the Old Testament DID look forward to a time when Gentiles would enter into the Covenant. DISTINCTION: Old Testament Promises. Dispensationalism says that all of the promises given in the Old Testament must be fulfilled to a future political nation of Israel. Covenant Theology sees these promises being fulfilled to the Church as the 'Spiritual Israel' and people of God. DISTINCTION: Two Comings of Christ Versus One. Dispensationalism teaches that Christ will return to the earth is a secret 'Rapture' in which all believers will be removed from the earth. This is later followed by the 'Second Coming of Christ' which is a distinct and separate event. There are some Dispensationalists who hold to a post-tribulational view (I was one for a time); my personal opinion is that these are on the road to Covenant Theology and just don't know it [grin]. Covenant Theology teaches that there is ONE future coming of Christ in which 'every eye shall see Him' and 'every knee shall bow.' It should be noted that Covenant Theologians are divided in their holding of the various Millenial Views.

Subject: Re: Dispensational and Reformed
From: Rod
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 16:56:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, John, Basically, I would say that your distinctions are mostly sound, but there are a number of things with which I would, as a Disp., dispute as being true of the genre. I won't go into these because, as I've steadfastly maintained, I don't want to debate the merits of the two views. One thing I must point out is this: Though you have something specific in mind, when you say this, 'Covenant Theology sees the church as the culmination of all God's people, the very body of Christ and the fullness of God,' I have never heard any true Christian of any stripe deny in the face of Scripture that the Church is the 'body of Christ.' Such would be blasphemous and indicative that one isn't knowledgeable of the Bible in any way. There is no distinction at that point among real Christians. I would point out also that the OT sees Israel as 'the wife of God' in various Scriptures and Israel is described also as 'my son.' Such appellations are not applied in the NT, but the Church is described as 'the body of Christ' and 'the bride of Christ.' Also, it is interesting that the Ref. speak of the 'Church age' in which there is supposedly a continuation of the covenant(s) made with Israel, but there are notable qualifications and distinctions. This has always stricken me as somewhat 'dispensational' (with a small 'd') and points out that others recognize that God deals with different people differently in differing times. At this point I long to go on with several other observations, but I bow out. This thing will get "too big to chew" before long. :^)

Subject: Daniel 9:24-27
From: george
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 19:18:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All, Would it be possible that we are now in the 70th week now? That sin for the elect was at least positionally taken care of at the cross? Also, could verses 26-27 be referring to our Lord Jesus? I.H.G., george

Subject: Re: Daniel 9:24-27
From: postrib
To: george
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 20:56:27 (PST)
Email Address: postrib@yahoo.com

Message:
Hi. > ...Would it be possible that we are now in the 70th week now?... I believe we're still in the 69 'weeks.' The prophecies of Daniel 9-12 are based upon the prayer of Daniel to be given understanding of when Jerusalem would be restored in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Daniel 9:2). So the foundation of the passage is based upon the understanding of the number of the years, which is 70. In response to his prayer, Daniel is given the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. In verse 24 'weeks' is the Hebrew word for 'seven' (shebuah), which has for its root the Hebrew word for 'complete' (shaba). So 'weeks' could mean 'completions,' which could be years. It’s as if God is saying he will give Israel the 70 years it lost in the Babylonian captivity, but within that 70 years they must fulfill all righteousness. This of course was not done (and could not be done) before Christ. After Christ, the only commandment to restore Israel (Daniel 9:25) came in 1947 when the UN passed a resolution calling for the re-establishment of the state of Israel, something which had not existed since 70 AD. So from the commandment to restore Israel, there may be 7 years, and 62 years (Daniel 9:25). In the 69th year Christ will come and fulfill all righteousness in a physical kingdom by the 70th year (Daniel 9:24), just as he fulfilled it in the spiritual at his 1st coming. Daniel 9:26 contains two of the seals which I believe have kept Daniel 9:25-27 sealed for millenia, and these are the identification of 'Messiah' and 'cut off.' 62 years after the resolution to restore Israel a false Messiah that will have arisen to rule Israel will be 'covenanted' or 'treatied' by the Antichrist, for the Hebrew word for 'cut off' can also mean 'to make a covenant,' or treaty. This treaty is mentioned in the next verse, and in Daniel 11:23, where it's referred to as a 'league.' Daniel 9:27 contains the third seal which I believe has kept Daniel 9:25-27 sealed, and that is the identification of 'one week.' In this verse it refers to the 'seven weeks' mentioned in Daniel 9:25, where it said there would be two periods of time before Christ came, one lasting 62 years and one lasting 7 years. The 62 years were subsequently mentioned in Daniel 11:26, and now Daniel 11:27 subsequently mentions the 7 years, albeit in a sealed manner, for 7 years can be referred to as a single 7. The Antichrist will make a 7 year treaty with a false Messiah ruling Israel, but somewhere in the midst of the 7 years the Antichrist will break the treaty and commit the abomination of desolation. May the Lord bless you. http://www.geocities.com/postrib/

Subject: Re: Daniel 9:24-27
From: george
To: postrib
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 05:39:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Postrib, Why is the 69 weeks times 7 years constant except for the 70 week? Could not Christ's first Advent have fulfilled the whole of Daniel? I.H.S., george

Subject: Re: Daniel 9:24-27
From: John Stevenson
To: george
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:17:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Why is the 69 weeks times 7 years constant except for the 70 week? Could not Christ's first Advent have fulfilled the whole of Daniel?
---
The Dispensationalists commonly teach that God 'halted his stopwatch' with the advent of the church age and that this created a giant parenthesis between the 69th and 70th week. But the New Testament teaches that the church is a lot more than an unplanned parenthesis - it is the culmination of God's plan from the ages. I agree - there is no evidence that we are to understand such a gap.

Subject: Re: Daniel 9:24-27
From: Rod
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:04:23 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
John, I don't intend to get into this discussion, but I have to make the comment that absolutely no one I've ever heard or read refers to the Church Age as 'unplanned.' That would be a preposterous position and an affront to the Lord God. If someone is teaching that, he should immediately cease teaching altogether. I know of no one who is, personally. If this is your impression of Dispensationalism, then you've been exposed to a side of Dispensationalism I haven't. Whom can you quote who teaches this, that God lacked a plan for the Church?

Subject: 'Church unknown in OT' - dispensationalists
From: John P.
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:24:58 (PST)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Rod, What John S. was saying was that dispensationalism teaches that the Old Testament has absolutely nothing to say about the church age because the church - in God's revealed will - was unplanned. If a dispensationalist were to ask an an Old Testament believer, 'What is to come next,' they would think the OT believer would say, 'The Messiah and His everlasting temporal kingdom like that of the dispensationalist millenium.' (essentially :) ). However, because the Jews rejected Christ (which was contrary to the plan revealed in the OT, according to dispensationalists), a *long* 'unplanned' dispensation of grace was parenthetically added to the history of the world until God resumes His mercies towards Israel and, as it were, gets back to doing what He scheduled in the OT. A quote would be from an 'orthodox' (to dispensationalists) dispensationalist handbook of theology: 'The Moody Handbook of Theology.' Here's a quote from this source, page 522: 'Dispensationalism is nowhere more distinctive than in its doctrine of the church. Dispensationalists hold that the church is entirely distinct from Israel as an entity. This is argued from several points. (1) The church was a mystery, unknown in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:1-9; Col. 1:26). (2) The church is composed of Jews and Gentiles; the Gentiles being fellow-heirs with Jews without having to become Jewish proselytes--something that was not true in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:6). This issue was resolved in Acts 15 when the Judaizers attempted to put Gentiels under the law. (3) The church did not begin until Acts 2. It is the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit that unites believers with Christ and one another, making up the church (1 Cor. 12:13). That work was still future in Acts 1:5, but in Acts 11:15 it is clear that it began in Acts 2, establishing the birth of the church. Dispensationalists also believe that the church will conclude its existence upon the earth at the rapture, prior to the Tribulation (1 Thess. 4:16). (4) The church is consistently distinguished from Israel in the New Testament (1 Cor. 10:32).' I agree, it's a fairy tale, but - nonetheless - it is what mainline dispensationalist seminaries call 'orthodoxy.' What John S. was saying was this: As to God's revealed plan, the present day dispensation (according to dispensationalists) would have been avoided had not the Jews rejected Christ. In this sense, the church is an accident, and not the culmination of God's plan for His people. It was a wholly unknown to the OT saints - even if one of them understood OT prophecy perfectly. (Sorry I wrote this in a sloppy manner - time restraints again; also I won't be responding) John P. . .

Subject: Re: 'Church unknown in OT' - dispensationalists
From: Rod
To: John P.
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:45:17 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
John P., As a Dispensationalist, I would have to say that you are right and wrong. I will start a new thread with some observations.

Subject: Re: Daniel 9:24-27
From: John Stevenson
To: postrib
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 22:54:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
[I believe we're still in the 69 'weeks.'] I would suggest another possibility - that the 70th week took place soon after the 69th week and that the prophecy has been completely fulfilled. [...within that 70 years they must fulfill all righteousness. This of course was not done (and could not be done) before Christ] I agree. And so, the 70th week took place after Christ came and fulfilled all righteousness. [[After Christ, the only commandment to restore Israel (Daniel 9:25) came in 1947 when the UN passed a resolution calling for the re-establishment of the state of Israel, something which had not existed since 70 AD]] The fulfillment of this prophecy took place soon after Daniel's day when the Persian monarch Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild both the Temple and the city. [In the 69th year Christ will come and fulfill all righteousness in a physical kingdom by the 70th year (Daniel 9:24)] I suggest that Christ DID come in the 69th week, just as the prophecy predicted. [the identification of 'Messiah' and 'cut off] He was 'cut off' when He went to the cross. And He was identified as the Messiah throughout His ministry, but especially at His trial when He was condemned on this particular charge. [[62 years after the resolution to restore Israel a false Messiah that will have arisen to rule Israel will be 'covenanted' or 'treatied' by the Antichrist, for the Hebrew word for 'cut off' can also mean 'to make a covenant,' or treaty. This treaty is mentioned in the next verse, and in Daniel 11:23, where it's referred to as a 'league.']] An interesting theory. You are correct that the term 'to cut' often is used in Hebrew as shorthand for the making of a covenant. The problem here is that it is used in the Niphal stem, making it passive. I have checked and have not found a place where the Hebrew ever uses this kind of shorthand in the passive when speaking of the 'cutting of a covenant.' At the same time, it is interesting that the 'cutting off' of Messiah is indeed the sacrifice that sealed the New Covenant. [[somewhere in the midst of the 7 years the Antichrist will break the treaty and commit the abomination of desolation]] Hmmm... An invasion of Israel that results in this 'anti-christ' entering the Temple of God and profaning it amidst a slaughter of the Jewish nation? Sounds a bit like what happened in A.D. 70. John

Subject: What if He isn't willing?
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 14:58:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
It seems as if everyone I know either has a serious health problem or is very close to someone who does. I know that's probably partly exaggeration and the feeling is partly because I'm approaching geezerhood, the age when one and his family members have aging problems, as do close friends. But the other night a Kenneth Copeland TV ad came on and before I could find the mute button, I heard him spewing some of his usual 'health and wealth' heresy. Sadly, many who aren't in the Copeland corner are nevertheless in error about such things. One of the often forgotten heroes of the faith is the leper who addressed the Lord Jesus worshipfully with the words, 'Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean' (Matt. 8:3). Of course, the next verse tells us the Lord Jesus' answer was 'I will; be thou clean.' It's a marvelous picture of not only healing, but also the necessary 'touching' for cleansing by the Savior of one who is sin-sick and in need of salvation, something leprosy represented in various types in the OT. Without going into the latter aspect, but concentrating on the former, I wonder how many of us as Christians (even 'good' Christians) can actually say with conviction, 'If You will, you can heal me (or my loved one, etc.)? What if He isn't willing? This man, instead of presumpuously demanding to be healed, came in an attitude of worship. He knew the Lord Jesus had the power, but He understood what so many of us do not, that the will of God is paramount in this and all other issues. He had a loathsome and disgusting disease, a death sentence in his flesh, but he was enabled to come with an attitude of supplication and acceptance of God's will. That's very exciting! Trusting in God to work 'all things' for good for His own is a greater gift than the physical healing and the avoidance of severe and excruciating trial. The supreme example of that fact is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who said, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done' (Luke 22:42). May God grant all of us the realization of God's sovereign grace in all aspects of our lives and the assurance that even our suffering, our severe testing, is working for His own glory and our ultimate benefit.

Subject: Could part of the problem be...
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:24:06 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
....the way the God is presented to children these days? Scripture advises us to 'train up a child, etc.' and perhaps this isn't being done quite as well as it could be. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure how else God should be presented to little kids. I just watched my first Veggie Tale sing along video last week (which is hysterically funny, BTW), and one song that caused me to frown slightly was the one about 'God is Bigger Than the Boogy Man.' Now, naturally, this is accurate....at least, there aren't any boogy men but if there were God would be bigger than 'em! The thrust of the song is that 'God takes care of me.' Once again, this is true so far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. By stressing that God is 'watching over me' and 'whatever happens, God can handle it,' aren't children being taught that what we consider 'good' and what God considers 'good' are the same, while in truth, they may be, and likely are, two very different things? Take being eaten by a bear. Now, we none of us want to be eaten by a bear. I believe I can make this unequivocal statement without fear of refutation. However, being in Christ does NOT mean we are now in no danger of being eaten by a bear; rather the opposite, in fact! Surely a Christian's attitude should be that while we would really, really prefer not to be eaten by a bear, if it would advance God's kingdom, then a bear's dinner we shall be, and that's fine with us. Are we interested in us or are we interested in Him? Surely this is where the rubber meets the road, in a Christian's travel along the narrow path. The Old Adam in us is fixated upon what is best for us, while the New Adam is shrugging that off in favor of what is in God's best interest, unpleasant though it might be. I grant you, however, this might be a bit advanced for preschoolers. It seems that most Christians never move beyond the 'God is bigger than the boogy man' stage, more's the pity. Ciao! Anne

Subject: Re: Could part of the problem be...
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:57:31 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Boy, Anne, you make some excellent points, sister! It's been a long time since I dealt with the situation of presenting God realistically to a child, but I know that you are now personally involved with it and that it is really personal and meaningful to you. It's obvious that you have pondered long on it and have reached some excellent conclusions. I'd have to agree that the way God is presented to these 'wee people' is mostly done pretty terribly. It has to be done simply, but it is, indeed, born of faulty and/or undeveloped theology, founded on a too simple (and erroneous) theological base by those who produce the material. Someone talented and educated in proper theological precepts (such as yourself) should get into the game so that our small loved ones are taught good theology. Maybe you can find a way to make Hodge and Warfield palatable to a toddler! LOL. (As a side note, Anne, Clint Net is down. If you want to e-mail me, you'll have to use the rodpow1 address.)

Subject: Re: What if He isn't willing?
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 20:26:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,
Well said brother! And I'll risk it and say, 'Amen! and Amen!' hehe. And if I may be so presumptuous? I would direct your attention here:

The Great Physician
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: What if He isn't willing?
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 21:03:20 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, This was most excellent, brother! Thank you for dealing with the 'touching' aspect of the Lord Jesus who alone can cleanse and release man from his sin, though as most don't realize, that could not be affected without inestimable cost. (And thank you for spelling 'presumptuously' correctly :^)--I didn't catch my error until edit permissible time had expired. Man, I'm a poor typist!)

Subject: Re: Hey .......
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 18:58:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
you are kind of flying in the face of them guys you mention - them that have faith in what God is going to do ;-) Amen! (would say amen and amen, but don't want to be identified with them other guys ;-) I think of another account - centurian - had the same attitude - he knew what God could do, but didn't presume to know what He would do. Wish I had learned that sooner :-) By the way - welcome to almost geeeeezzzzerrhood! stan

Subject: How old?
From: Tom
To: stan
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 13:19:24 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Hehe, how old does one have to be to be a geezer? Tom

Subject: Re: Uhhhhh...
From: stan
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 13:59:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
don't really remember - you might have to ask what's his name.

Subject: Re: Uhhhhh...
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 14:45:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, I think 'what's his name' would be Pilgrim, but not because he's old, you understand! It's because it's his board and he is very learned. ;^)

Subject: Re: Uhhhhh...
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 21:55:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, I think 'what's his name' would be Pilgrim, but not because he's old, you understand! It's because it's his board and he is very learned. ;^)
---
Eh? what's that you say, sonny?

Subject: Re: Hey .......
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 19:52:37 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, stan, The Lord Jesus paid that centurian a wonderful compliment: 'I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel' (Matt. 8:10). Then the Lord turned around and demonstrated the man's faith to the Israelites by not going with him to heal the servant, but merely promising that it was so, in stark contrast to his delings with Israel. I wish I'd learned it all sooner too, brother, much sooner! :^)

Subject: Re-Agree or disagree?
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:11:07 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I am not sure if this was touched upon in any of the other messages in my previous thread. If it was, sorry I missed it. Like I said before my pastor believes that when theologians use terms like 'Sola Scriptura, etc.., they are deniing what part of the Reformation was fought about. 'Getting the gospel out the common people.' As I think about what he said, I think he is in error about history. If my understanding of history is correct. The common people just before the Reformation period, did not have access to the scriptures. They had to depend on the preaching ministry to get any spiritual insight. People like William Tyndale, made translations of the scriptures and put it in the hands of every day common folk. This is the meaning behind 'getting the gospel into the hands of the everyday common people'. William Tyndale was burned at the steak, for this very cause. The Reformers were the ones that coined phrases like 'Sola Scriptura', etc..., and they made sure that those people who heard these terms understood what they meant. Is his understanding of the history correct? Tom

Subject: Agree or Disagree
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 13:53:12 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
This morning among other things my pastor spoke on the five Sola's. Only he put them in language (not Latin) that anyone can understand. At the end of the worship service, I told him how much I appreciated him talking about the Sola's. I mentioned them in their Latin forms, and he told me that he is not in favour of using the Latin terms, even though theologians use them. He thinks they are in error by doing this, because part of the reason for the Reformation was to get the gospel out to common folk. Has he got a valid point? Tom

Subject: Quotation and some elaboration
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:25:00 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
''EVERY CHURCH SHOULD BE A THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL.'' This was said by the founder of a seminary. While I've never read any more commentary on that statement, only heard it quoted, I think it is fundamentally sound. Obviously, we don't want to have our church meetings to be solely and merely academic gatherings, but, as Pilgrim and laz have so aptly pointed out, education is a vital and necessary part of our preaching and teaching. As laz mentioned, the Bible repeatedly has its participants rehearsing the history of Israel, reinforcing what God has done in and through His people (see Acts 7 for a prime, but not isolated, example). A vast number of our English words are derived from other languages. The term 'theology' itself is derived from the Greek, meaning to speak about God, and by extention, to study about God. Every Christian should do that according to his abilities, as God gives him ability and the desire to grow in knowledge of the Savior. It is obviously possible to carry things too far and to go beyond the average churchgoing Christian's ability to understand and grasp. Similarly, no one should use an obscure or potentially indiscernible reference without using explanatory remarks about it, but the congregation can be elevated progressively over time by the style and delivery of the teacher/preacher. I understand and applaud the desire to make things understandable and to have a 'popular' style (not the seeking of favor, but the seeking of being understood by all), but I have been amazed that I have spoken plain, everyday English in many cases from the pulpit and been misunderstood terribly. I have had people indicate to me, 'You said, thus and so.' Well, I said no such thing; they heard it that way, for whatever reason. That could be because I wasn't clear in my presentation; because they weren't listening closely; because they had a mindset which prevented their hearing the actual statement; or because of other factors. Using 'the language of the people' can also be overdone. If you want to reach a teenage audience, do you avoid traditional speech and use 'rap' techniques? I know that's ridiculous, but it just shows that a reasonable approach is necessary. A moderate amount of traditional theological terms, with adequate elaboration, isn't going to tax the intelligence and understanding of the average person. Furthermore, a man submitted to God and His leadership, who is committed to being as interesting and enlightening as he can be as God enables, will not be over the head of the assembly or perceived by the real Christian as endeavoring to be abstruse. [Abstruse: adj. meaning 'concealed; difficult to understand' :^)]

Subject: Agree
From: John Stevenson
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 19:26:51 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
I think that he does. Part of the Reformation was to stop having the Mass in Latin, but to have it instead in the language of the people. I think that there are too many theologians today who like to use Latin because it sounds more impressive. As your pastor so correctly noted, it does not speak to the language of the people. Sounds like you have a terrific pastor. Be sure that you tell him so - pastors often go for a long way without too much encouragement. John

Subject: Disagree
From: Pilgrim
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 21:15:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,
I think I am going to have to disagree with both you and Tom's pastor on this one! As Five Sola mentioned, there is far too much 'dumbing down' of Christianity in general and especially in the areas of the gospel and theology. In the days of the Reformation, there were public debates over theological issues. The common man wasn't as ignorant as many today would like to portray them. In Puritan times, the average 'pew sitter' was far more literate and able to articulate the doctrines of Scripture than most modern-day pastors. I will never forget visiting a Presbyterian church which was located very close to Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts. There could not be found one item in the entire church; which was accessible to the general public, that even hinted at what the doctrinal beliefs of the congregation were. There was no Westminster Confession of Faith, no Shorter Catechism, not even a tract. So, after the service I asked one of the elders why this was so and why nothing of the distinctives of that church; e.g., the Reformation, Calvinism, etc. were to be found. He replied that they think that all of those things only serve to confuse people, so they don't display anything of that nature there. In fact, he said that they had a policy of not using even the name Calvinism, because it tended to turn people off... !!! I realize it is fashionable (ecclesiatically correct) today to boast of being just a simple Christian rather than identifying yourself with a reference to your theological beliefs; e.g, I am a Presbyterian, or a Congregationalist, a Baptist, etc. But for a pastor to deliberately avoid using those terms which are indicative of the Church's heritage and upon which it was reborn I think is sad at best. In my mind it is promoting ignorance and alienating the people of God from their inheritance, which many shed their blood for so that they could worship in peace; without fear of being burned at the stake for their faith. Lastly, avoiding the use of such terminology as the 'five Solas' under the guise of bringing doctrinal truths to the congregation in the vernacular is simply a paltry excuse for keeping people in darkness. In years gone by, I remember the joy when someone from the congregation would come to me and ask for an explanation of Original Sin, or supralapsarianism, or vicarious substitutionary atonement because they had read it somewhere and wanted to know more. Would it be so academia to begin a sermon by saying that your intention that morning was to expound on the grandeur of 'Sola Scriptura', based upon 2Tim 3:16 or some other relevant passage of Scripture? And then spend the next 30 to 60 minutes opening the Word of God and explaining what it means and how it is to be applied? Aside from the fact that the NIV has many inherent and grave errors in it, one of the most odious is its removal of the grand terminology which the older translations used. One of the most glaring omissions is the word, propitiation which has been replaced with 'blood atonement'! What great truths have been erased with an attempt to translate (read: interpret) the Scriptures into the 'vernacular'!!
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Still Agree
From: John Stevenson
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 08:04:06 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@yahoo.com

Message:
Pilgrim, your points are well-stated and I do not disagree in principle about educating the people of God. I have a feeling that this would be obvious if we spent any 'real time' together in a Bible Study setting. At the same time, I've learned the hard way that a typical church service is made up of people of all different levels of spiritual growth and understanding. It is possible to preach to many levels at the same time without 'dumbing down' the content simply by sticking to terms that everyone can understand or at least limiting new terms and then giving detailed explanations of those that might be unfamiliar. You make an excellent point in the word 'propitiation.' I dare say that there might be some in this very forum who do not understand that term. Were I teaching from a passage that mentioned it (just the other night as I took a group through Romans 3), I would take the time to explain the term - I'm forced to do this because I prefer to use the NAS and it uses the old word. I have no doubt that when you preach and come to this theological term, you take the time to explain the meaning of it. And you probably do so in terms that all will understand. I am simply advocating the same thing. John

Subject: Re: Still Agree
From: Pilgrim
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 20:15:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,
From what I have been able to gather from what you wrote, we are in agreement. :-) Knowing the 'level' of one's hearers goes a long way in determining how one is to present the truth and the 'speed' at which one can go to accomplish the desired goal. While I strongly advocate the use of 'technical' phraseology at all times, I also believe that the use thereof must be annexed with the appropriate amount of explanation. Repetition is one of the 'tools' which can facilitate in the learning process. Not only can and should one iterate that which is to be learned by others, but it should be done so in various ways; giving different perspectives so as to provide all people with the opportunity to comprehend the point being made. Also, the preaching/teaching of a series is but another method of 'repetition' which again reinforces the learning process. Hey, it works for me! hehehe. Stretching one's mind is most always a precarious venture and one risks provoking another's antagonism for doing so! LOL. Yet, those who are truly hungry realize that the pangs that accompany that hunger are only satisfied when the pain of learning is seen as 'growing pains' and thus part of the process God has designed as He conforms us into the likeness of the Lord Christ. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Still Agree
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:52:22 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
You can say that again! Growing pains... OUCH ! Tom

Subject: Re: Disagree
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 22:15:29 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Pilgrim Are you saying that it is wrong to say in the place of the words 'Sola Scriptura', 'the word of God alone'? Although I like to use the terms that were used by the Reformers, I don't understand what is wrong with saying something equivalent, as long as it means the same. I have used the Reformer's terms on a few occasions and I have gotten a puzzled look. However, when I use the equivalent terms, I get a look of understanding. Regardless of whether or not they agree with me or not. As I write this, it reminds me of the tape series by RC Sproul called 'Foundations' 'An Overview of Systematic Theology'. In the series he uses all the old terms. However, he said when talking to other people about theology, it may not be helpful to use terms like these. In fact, it may be helpful to use your emagination to put it in a manner that is understandable to your audience. It also occured to me, that what my pastor said was only partly true. For I have heard him use some of these old terms in sermons. However, he has always clarified what they mean with the equivalent words. It seems to me that he uses the old language terms only to show the terms the Reformer's used. But as I indicated in my first post, he doesn't think it is nessasary to use them in this day and age. By the way, I agree with you about the NIV. Tom

Subject: Re: Disagree
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 08:33:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
You originally asked about a specific situation; that being a sermon preached by your Pastor. And I tried to focus my reply on that specific situation. Therefore, I maintain that your Pastor is making a big mistake and I disagree with his choice to not use 'big words' or 'old phraseology' so as not to speak over the heads of his congregation or for some other well-meant intent (according to his assessment). The 'sheep' are always a hungry bunch! :-) And it is the responsibility of an undershepherd to feed them. A constant diet of infant pabulum will be counter productive and can even cause death in rare cases. The admonitions against both 'teachers' (Hos 4.6)and 'laity' (Heb 5:12) alike throughout the Scriptures should be enough to motivate all to increase in the 'renewal of their mind'. I find it rather 'novel' that the term 'Sola Scriptura' is deemed too high a phrase for the average Christian to comprehend, when it is the responsibility and should be the desire of every person who stands at the pulpit to EDUCATE his hearers. If in fact, this were a brand new congregation, there MIGHT be some validity to avoiding this term, even though I personally would have no qualms whatsoever in using it or any other theological phrase or word. You just simply 'translate' it into the vernacular after speaking it... eh?... hahaha! One who makes a practice of doing this 'avoidance' routine is really doing a serious disservice to his people. What good book could you possibly recommend to a sincere brother or sister to read where no 'high language' or terminology is used? What book on 'Sola Scriptura' could you recommend to someone to read that would expound upon 'Sola Scriptura' without using any technical terms or even having 'Sola Scriptura' as part of the title of the book itself? Okay... I'm on a roll here... ROFLOL! But one last illustration. What would school be like if no teacher used any terminology specific to the subject(s) that he/she taught? I dare say, that education as we know it today would not exist. We would all be trying to communicate with 'gah gah' and 'goo goo'.... :-)!! Maybe we should change the names of some of the books of the Bible too eh? Ecclesiastes, now there's a mouthful to say, never mind trying to remember where to find it, for most people. Maybe we should change it to 'X-Files' since that is something your average person can relate too unfortunately and put it at the very beginning of the Bible so it can always be found? :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Disagree
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:26:49 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim When we use the words like Sola Scriptura what are we trying to convey? Although I do use this term myself(when I remember it,lol) the meaning of the words are more important than the words themselves. When we look in the Bible, we know it teaches the concept of Sola Scriptura. But it does not use this term itself. I am not saying that it is wrong to use these terms. But isn't it better to use the words of the scriptures instead? I realize that these terms were coined to fight things such as Roman Catholic teaching. So they are very helpful in that way. But I don't think it is dumbing down, when we use alternative words. Especially when they are straight from scripture. Tom

Subject: Re: Disagree
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 11:55:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
What you just said is exactly the philosophy embraced the translators of the NIV; 'The word(s) themselves aren't important; it's the meaning that counts!' This is what underlies the Dynamic Equivalence theory of translation. I cannot stress it strongly enough, that such a philosophy is at complete variance with the doctrine of 'verbal plenary inspiration', despite the fact that many if not most of those who were instrumental in the production of the NIV would profess to hold to verbal plenary inspiration. You simply cannot render a 'meaning' without words!! A 'meaning' is nothing more than an explanation of 'word(s)'. In all languages words are used to convey meaning. Thus technical words and phrases are employed as shortcuts in communication. This is true for ANY word or phrase used for the purpose of conveying thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc. Take many of the words found in Scripture, and you are forced to study the Scriptures as a whole to discern its intended MEANING. For example, 'justification'. To read this word and then assume its meaning is that which is understood in contemporary minds would prove fatal; the result being heresy. Thus the necessity of yet another 'technical/theological' term the analogy of faith, i.e., the comparing of the whole of Scripture to discern the correct understanding of a word of phrase read in any particular place. There, you see, I just did what I have maintained should be done with 'terms'. I stated the term (the analogy of faith) and then went on to use and explain this term to you, thus giving you a new and/or better understanding of something. :-) Rod's pointing out that the word 'Trinity' in the Scriptures is very apropos!! Learning for some people is a difficult and painful process. It is my contention, that modern man is woefully lacking in the exercise of the brain today in the area of THINKING, that if you ask the average person to exercise that 'muscle' wedged between their ears; aka 'think', that they will immediately contract a 'Charlie horse' and cry out in pain! hahaha.. What children used to discuss in regard to the Scriptures and theological matters some 200 years ago, most adults are incapable of today. They can quote you statistics in detail of their favourite hockey team, the physical measurements of some model, the amenities of their 'dream car', etc... but they know virtually nothing about God, Christ, salvation, etc. And I'm referring to professing Christians!!! To paraphrase the apostle Peter: 'Either grow in grace, or groan in disgrace!'
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Disagree
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:33:28 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, Brother, when we use the word 'Trinity,' what are we trying to convey? I'm certain you know it isn't in the Scriptures. :^)

Subject: Re: Disagree
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:00:56 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod I think you misunderstood my point. I am not saying that using words that are not found in scripture are wrong. In fact, I use them all the time. I am just saying that it isn't always nessasary to use them. I think the words one uses, should depend on the audience. I know some people personally, who have low IQ's, who as far as I can tell love the Lord, and are dillegent in studying their Bibles. However, some terms go right over their head. Yes, using the language of the day, will not gaurantee that it will not go over their head. However, there is more of a chance, that they will understand, if words are used that are common in everyday language. The word 'Trinity', is a word that is used in everyday church life, when speaking about God. I however don't like what paraphrased editions of the Bible try to do. I believe all too often the translaters bring their particular understanding of the text into the passage. Rather than letting the Holy Spirit show the believer the meaning. These various versions of the Bible, are more interpretation, than translation. Not long ago, I think it was you that said something to the effect of. I don't like using words like Calvinism. I prefer saying things like 'the doctrines of grace'. Maybe I misunderstood why you said that, but I thought you said it for some of the same reasons that I gave. Tom

Subject: I did say that more than once...
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:45:26 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I do think of myself as a 'Calvinist,' but I don't meet the complete set of criteria on a few counts according to many here. (That's not a criticism or said with rancor, just a recognition.) My view of 'covenantal theology' differs from most of the forum members and my eschatology is different. That disqualifies me in their eyes, a big reason I'm careful about using the term. Also, Arminians and others who are ignorant of my stance tend to overstate the case, accusing me of being a blind follower of a man rather than a follwer of the God-Man. Thus, I see 'Calvinist/Calvinism' in a different light than the 'solas' and terms such as 'soteriology,' etc.. I think there is a difference. After laying the proper framework, I would refer to myself as a 'Calvinist,' but I think 'sovereign gracer' and 'five pointer' (neither of which are in the Bible, LOL) are more expressive for casual purposes. However, I think it does no harm and much good for a preacher/teacher to say (for example), 'In the case of sola scriptura, or relying on the authority of the inspired Word of God alone for guidance in spiritual matters.' That is perfectly natural and acceptable. It doesn't have to be avoided, neither should it be. A person who understands the clarification understands the whole of the sentence. One capable of understanding 'relying on the authority of the inspired Word of God alone for guidance...' can make the connection with no difficulty. One who has intelligence below that level will need special, individual instruction in the concept, if he is able to receive it at all. I submit that most all the folks in the assembly can master that concept with little difficulty, particularly since one preaching on it wouldn't just make that bald statement and leave it at that, but reinforce it with other, similar clarifying pronouncements, the essence of good teaching.

Subject: Re: I did say that more than once...
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:17:48 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Rod From what you wrote, I would concider you a Calvinist. But I wouldn't concider you Reformed. To be a Calvinist (if I understand it correctly) is to believe in what we know as TULIP. However, to be Reformed, there is a lot more than that to believe in. I guess, I would concider mysef a Calvinist, but not Reformed. Tom

Subject: Re: I did say that more than once...
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:52:23 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, You are correct, of course, I am not 'reformed' and have not claimed to be. But there have been statements in the past here which equate 'Reformed' and 'Calvinistic.' That is one of the reasons for my qualification on the topic.

Subject: Re: Disagree
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 07:10:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think it's a huge mistake, and one all too common today, to minimize the importance of history....afterall, we have a 'historical' faith...not a comptemporary one. Redemption can only be properly understood when it's placed in context...that being HISTORICAL. The Bible is all about HISTORY...historical facts. Christianity is just another word for the redemptive history (which is just another word for world history). Furthermore, we are forever being admonished to 'remember'....what God did way back when in Eden, Ur, Egypt, Canaan,... Calvary. Even the Lord's Supper imperative draws our hearts and minds BACK in history as we recall our Savior's broken body and shed blood. Why is that? If we are a people of history...we ought not let so much of it slip through our grasps on account of apathy or laziness. We shouldn't deny our kids our blessed and historical heritage. As they say, those who forget history are bound to repeat it. We see that now in modern evangelicalism which is starting to resemble apostacizing OT Israel and their penchant for foreign gods. The Church is slowly being assimilated into the Borg...I mean, the culture at large. Contempt for history (and the teachings of our enlightened spiritual forefathers) is part of the reason. Therefore, I'm gonna have to agree with Pilgrim that history is far too important to conceded to a lowest common denominator culture. To me, our history is sort of like a birthright...let's not be like Esau and despise this blessed 'birthright'! History helps keeps us on track and focused as a people. I want my kinds to know WHY 'Bible Alone' is so important and WHEN and WHERE that doctrine was established and defended. Learning a few latin terms never hurt anyone...besides, aren't we supposed to worship God with ALL OUR MINDS too? Ramblin' Laz

Subject: Re: Agree or Disagree
From: saved
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 17:37:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, I think your pastor has a good point there, but I would not make it a 'bone of contention'. I would just be thankful to the Lord to find a good church where they are mentioned at all (in any language)... saved

Subject: Disagree
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 15:19:05 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, Once in a Bible study, I used the term 'eschatology' and someone acted as if I had uttered a paragraph in Russian or something akin to it. As I told him (them), it behooves us to know the basic terms of theology and people of average intelligence can easily learn them and apply them. Often, as in the case of the 'solas' the Latin can be more easily remembered because it is more distinctive than the English words. I think your pastor is selling people short, to be blunt, but I hope not offensive.

Subject: Re: Agree or Disagree
From: Five Sola
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 14:42:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, (at first I thought you were addressing me in the post. :-) ) He does have a point..partly. One of the many goals of the reformation was to get the gospel out to the people. Now when we consider that the literacy rate was lower than it is now and Latin was the langauge of the scholars...we have to wonder why they choose to do this. I can't answer to the specifics (some more versed in history will have to) but I do know that the approach of the Reformers in the gospel and teaching was not to dumb down the material (as today) but to educate the people so they could understand it. When I talk with people I use the latin phrases, I immediately translate it for them since most people do not know Latin. In my experiences, many people will remember the latin phrases, not always but many times. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Agree or Disagree
From: Tom
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 22:35:04 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Five Sola Actually although I definately wasn't addressing you when I wrote that post, I did think of you;-). When I think about this topic, I must confess that although I have studied theology for a number of years now. Even though I have tried to memorize many of the theological terms. I often can't remember the term, when I want to use it. I end up instead, just using equivalent terms. If there was a way that I could remember these terms as needed, I would try it. However I suspect that I am not the only one, who has trouble remembering terms. That is why, I would rather make sure I know what they mean, and how to apply them. I get more concerned when someone doesn't want to study theology, than I do about whether or not they know the terms that are used. Call me simple minded, but I try to use what God gave me. Tom

Subject: Good Works?
From: Jimmy
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 18:02:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, in a post under 'pins and needles' you wrote: ' The 'will' does not nor cannot act independently of the mind or emotions of the soul. Man ALWAYS does that which he thinks and feels at any given moment, in any given set of circumstances. The WHOLE man was corrupted as a consequence of the Fall; mind, emotions and will. Since fallen man no longer thinks of God, nor knows Him as He is, nor does man have holy desires toward God or anything that is good, he therefore only DOES that which is ungodly and evil. Voila! the Doctrine of Total Depravity, albeit in a very brief summation! :-)' If I understand your argument correctly, I must assume that people that do 'good deeds' are not totally depraved? Since I doubt that you have a positive view of humanity outside of Calvinism, I do not believe that to be your view :o) Therefore, I must conclude that you definition of doing a good thing is different from the accepted view? For example, is it a good thing to save the life of a child at the risk of losing ones own live? If so, does that mean that one that saves the life of a child at the risk of there own is not 'totally depraved', or does it mean that anyone that does risk their life to save another is therefore 'regenerated'? You say that the 'fallen man' only does that which is 'ungodly and evil', is it therefore evil for the 'fallen man' to risk his life to save a child, or, does the fact that a person risks their life to save another show that they are no longer a 'fallen man' but are among the ranks of the 'regenerated' ? Indeed, if we use this formula, actually do 'judge a tree by its fruit,' then we must conclude that those that do, following this example, risk their own lives in order to save the life of a child, are the true offspring of God and not those that hold one doctrine over another. Sincerely Jimmy

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: Pilgrim
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 20:43:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Jimmy,
What you first concluded about what I believe is correct; that any person who is capable of doing a 'good work' is not totally depraved. For to do a good work, one must first possess a true knowledge of God (mind). Secondly, one must have a pure motive for doing it; the love of God (emotive). And thirdly, one must have the ability to accomplish that which the mind and emotions determine (will). Only someone who has been regenerated (re-created) by the Spirit of God has those three essential qualities. One who has been 'made alive' is driven to Christ and is thereby reconciled to God and adopted as a 'son' and made an heir of all things. This person is constantly being renewed in 'righteousness, true holiness, and knowledge' (Eph 4:24, Col 3:10). But then you become unfortunately confused by equating what things an unregenerate man does with what a regenerate man does and call it a 'good work'. The forfeiting of one's life for another, whether the person is regenerate or not, although able to pull at the heart strings, cannot be judged a 'good work' in and of itself. On the human plane, men may do and actually do marvelous acts of a sacrificial nature. They may be much involved in philanthropic enterprises. On the whole, most people often can and do show forth acts of kindness, etc. But all these things and more simply are not in and of themselves qualified to be 'good works'! I think Augustine's comment about these things is very much a right description of these acts done by the unregenerate of the world. He called them 'the splendid vices of the heathen'. Am I obligated to thank my unregenerate neighbour for pushing my car out of a snow bank? Should I be thankful to my unregenerate employer for giving me an unsolicited promotion and raise? Surely! For they are without question acts which were done out of kindness and selflessness in many cases, relatively speaking! But when these acts are brought to the light of God's nature and law, they are unworthy to be called good and they are in fact deemed 'filthy rags' by God. The truth is, even the best works done by true Christians are in and of themselves unacceptable before God. But they are accepted due to the merits of Christ applied to them. Even the most 'saintly', selfless, sacrificial acts wrought by the redeemed can only bring forth a heart-felt confession, 'we are but unprofitable servants'! (Lk 17:10). Lastly, it is those who do know and practice right doctrine who are best able to do 'good works'. For how else can one know what is commanded of him/her to do which is pleasing to the LORD? It is in the knowing of the truth that one is set free from the bondage of sin and made able to do that which is right. (Psa 110:3; Joh 8:31,32; Col 1:9,10; Rom 6; 8:7:16; Eph 2:10; Phil 2:12,13; 1Tim 4:16; 2Tim 3:16,14; et al).
In His Grace, Pilgrim Prov 16:2 'All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.'

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: Jimmy
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:51:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, You wrote: 'But then you become unfortunately confused by equating what things an unregenerate man does with what a regenerate man does and call it a 'good work'. The forfeiting of one's life for another, whether the person is regenerate or not, although able to pull at the heart strings, cannot be judged a 'good work' in and of itself.' Apparently you do not believe that a tree is to be judged by its fruit, you turn this about and teach that the fruit is to be judged by the tree? John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Self-sacrifice, no matter who does it, is not evil. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that any one plays any part in their own salvation. The very concept of 'salvation' means that a person is incapable of doing anything at all to save themselves. But it does not follow from this that a person as you say 'only DOES that which is ungodly and evil' Not only is the doctrine of 'total depravity' not Scripture, it is also unnecessary for the doctrine of 'irresistible grace.' A human being can do nothing to save themselves, they have absolutely nothing to do with their own salvation. Jesus Christ saves, He does it all, period. No one can refuse Him, He is, after all, the King of Kings the Lord of all creation. It is absurd to believe that anyone can stand against His will. Salvation has nothing to do with whether or not a person does good deeds or not, it only has to do with the will of God. The Biblical definition of sin is: 1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. James 4:17 Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin. Sin is transgression of God's law, and knowing what is right to do but not doing it. Paul wrote that it was possible for a Gentile that did not know the law to do 'BY NATURE the things contained in the law' but that certainly does not mean that they could be saved by the law! Rom.2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Credibility is lost when statements like ' Since fallen man no longer thinks of God, nor knows Him as He is, nor does man have holy desires toward God or anything that is good, he therefore only DOES that which is ungodly and evil.' are made. It's simply not so. Furthermore it implies that salvation is based upon doing good or evil when it is in reality based totally and only upon the will of Almighty God. Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: Pilgrim
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 16:41:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Jimmy,
It is obvious that you reject the doctrine of 'Total Depravity' and all the Scriptures that teach it. :-( Let me say initially, that if you deny this fundamental doctrine, then you of necessity deny 'Sola Gratia'.. i.e., salvation is by grace Alone! Now, I realize that you will retort that you DO believe that salvation is by grace alone and that you said so in your reply to me. But regardless of your confession to believe it, the fact remains that you cannot consistently hold to it with a denial of its foundation, 'Total Depravity'. For if man is not spiritually DEAD, and is therefore capable of doing any good whatsoever and does in fact do 'good', then what you are left with in the matter of salvation is 'Synergism'.. God working WITH man unto salvation. That's just the way it is. :-) Now, here is what you wrote:
Apparently you do not believe that a tree is to be judged by its fruit, you turn this about and teach that the fruit is to be judged by the tree?
This is no rebuttal to what I said. And quoting a few verses which teach that a tree is known by it's fruits and that one of the greatest acts of love a man can do is to sacrifice his life for another does not prove that my statement is false either. In fact it begs the question: What makes a 'good work' a 'good work'??!! Let's let the Word of God speak here shall we?:
Ps 14:1 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.' Job 15:14 'What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? 15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water? Mark 10:18 'And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Rom 3:10 'As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.'
But doesn't the Bible command us to do 'good works'? Indeed, but it is ONLY those who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God who are capable of doing good works, for they are the fruit of GOD!!
Eph 2:10 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' Matt 5:16 'Let your [believers] light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
The problem is as I stated before; you fail to rightly distinguish between those things done by unregenerate men which are 'relatively good' and those deeds done by regenerate men which are "accepted as good". The deeds which unregenerate men do, which many times benefit others, are not 'good' in God's eyes, for they are not done in consequence of a soul that has been made spiritual. Deeds of the flesh are by nature evil for they are done by one who is at enmity with God. Let me now make a few comments on your use of Rom 2:14 which your are wanting to use as evidence that unregenerate men can do 'good works'. The problem with using this text as a 'proof text' for your contention is that it is taken out of context, and thus you are left with only a pretext. The two verses which precede verse 14 are most instructive:
Rom 2:12 'For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Immediately it must be said that Paul is NOT teaching a justification by works, but in fact he is showing that since NO ONE has or can keep the law of God, then all shall perish. The Gentile, who did not have the Law of God written on stone (Decalogue) had the law written on their hearts (imago dei; the image of God) and yet transgressed the law. The Jews, however, had an advantage over the Gentiles for they were not only made in the image of God as the Gentiles, but they had the Law of God delivered unto them by Moses and the Prophets over centuries. The end result, says Paul, is that they ALL will be judged as LAW BREAKERS regardless whether they are Gentile or Jew: Rom 3:20 'Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. . .23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;' So yes, all men are judged by their 'fruit'; whether they are in Christ or not. For as the Lord Christ clearly said:
Matt 12:33 'Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.'
Thus if a man has not been 'made good' through regeneration, then ALL his 'fruit' is therefore corrupt; bad, evil.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: Tom
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 20:17:46 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Jimmy I understand how you could misunderstand what Pilgrim was saying. He is not saying that man will not do any acts of kindness such as the ones you have mentioned. He is equating Total Depravity with choosing God. Mans rightiousness is as filthy rags. They do not have any desire to please God. Perhaps the following may help you to understand: Total Depravity The definition of the word 'depravity' is the state of being depraved. To be depraved is to be 'corrupted. Wicked, especially morally.' So, the phrase 'Total Depravity' means Total Corruption. Or Total Wickedness. Now, when the Calvinist speaks of Total Depravity, he most certainly does not mean that every man on the face of the earth is Totally and Completely as corrupt, wicked, and sinful as it is possible for him to be. That should be obvious enough, for not everyone is a mass murderer, or even a bank robber. No, that is not it, but rather, that every single individual's whole person is corrupted by sin. In other words, every person's mind, soul, body, desires, etc. have been corrupted by the power of sin. All of his faculties have been touched by sin. To illustrate this, I want you to consider the case of Lazarus. We all know the story. Lazarus, Jesus' dear friend, had died in Bethany. When Jesus finally came to Bethany, Lazarus had been dead for 4 days. After praying, Jesus said, 'Lazarus, come forth!' and Lazarus came out of the tomb bound hand and foot, and his face was covered with grave clothes. Jesus had resurrected Lazarus. (John 11:1-44) Now, let's think a minute about how Lazarus was BEFORE Christ resurrected him. Lazarus was DEAD. There was no life in him whatsoever. He was useful for nothing at all physically. He was bound hand and foot....he couldn't go anywhere at all. He had grave clothes over his face....he couldn't see anything. He was dead, so he most certainly had no feelings. His mind couldn't function, so he couldn't understand anything. His ears could no longer hear....he had no desires.... his heart was dead....Everything. Lazarus was DEAD. And the only way he could ever see again, hear again, feel again, think again, have desires again, move again, etc., was if Jesus Christ performed a miracle. Only a miracle could save him from the clutches of death. Now, this is the way man is SPIRITUALLY. Lazarus was dead PHYSICALLY, but he paints a perfect picture of one who is dead SPIRITUALLY. Man is spiritually dead. He brought this upon himself in the garden of Eden. God said to Adam that, 'In the day you eat it (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) you shall surely die.' God was speaking of a SPIRITUAL death (obviously, for we know that Adam didn't die PHYSICALLY that same day). But Adam did eat of the fruit, and so he and all his descendants died spiritually. Ephesians 2:1 speaks of this spiritual death. Speaking to Christians, the Apostle Paul says, 'And you He made alive who were deadin trespasses and sins...' Now, let's think about what it means to be spiritually dead. Think of Lazarus. His heart was dead. It's the same with man spiritually, and that is the reason God promises to give a new heart to His people when He converts them. God says in Ezekiel 36:26 that, 'I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.' Again, Lazarus' eyes couldn't see....It's the same with man spiritually. John 3:5 says, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God.' Lazarus' hands wouldn't work....he couldn't do anything. It's the same with man spiritually. Man cannot do anything that is spiritually good. Romans 3:12 says, '...There is none who DOES good, no, not one.' Lazarus's feet didn't work. He couldn't GO anywhere. Again, it is the same with the natural man, spiritually. Jesus said in John 6:65 that, 'Therefore I have said to you that no one can COME to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.' Lazarus's mind didn't work. He couldn't THINK and UNDERSTAND anything. Man cannot understand spiritual concepts. The gospel doesn't make sense to the carnal mind. Romans 3:11 says, 'There is none who UNDERSTANDS' And 1st Corinthians 2:14 says, 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.' (And man is dead spiritually) Finally, Lazarus' will was destroyed. Not only was it impossible for him to go anywhere, being dead, he didn't even have the desire or willingness to do so. In the same way, man in his natural state is not only unable to find God, he is UNWILLING to even SEEK him. Romans 3:11 says, 'there is none who seeks after God.' Notice the word 'none'. Man is so totally dead toward God that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a single person who had the will or desire to seek after the true God. Spiritually dead man's will has been rendered ineffective. He never has the will to seek God or come to Christ. Of course, after God sovereignly changes a person's heart and gives him the new birth, he becomes willing to seek after God, but not before. If God doesn't give life, the dead sinner remains unresponsive to the gospel. So, we can obviously see that man is DEAD in sin, just as Lazarus was DEAD physically, and therefore he must be given the miracle of spiritual life. Ephesians 2:5-6 says, 'Even when we were dead in trespasses, (God) made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,' Before God gives us life, we can't see things of God (John 3:5), we can't do good works (Romans 3:12), we can't come to Christ for salvation (John 6:65), we can't understand the things of God (Romans 3:11), our hearts are hearts of stone (Ezekiel 36:26), and our desires are so dead that we will not seek or call after God. (Romans 3:11) Man is dead in sin, and the ONLY way for him to 'come alive' and call on Jesus Christ for salvation is if, just like with Lazarus, there is a miracle. The only way is if God calls him out of his death and into life. This is called regeneration or the new birth. A spiritually dead sinner's wicked heart must be changed through a spiritual rebirth before he will become willing to come to Jesus for salvation. The man cannot give himself this new life. Can a dead man help himself? Can a blind man see how to come to Christ? Can a man without understanding understand the gospel to believe it? Can a man with no willingness to seek after God seek God? No. Man cannot help himself. His only hope is in God. The only hope is that God works a miracle.

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: Jimmy
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 12:47:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, You wrote: 'I understand how you could misunderstand what Pilgrim was saying. He is not saying that man will not do any acts of kindness such as the ones you have mentioned. He is equating Total Depravity with choosing God. Mans rightiousness is as filthy rags. They do not have any desire to please God.' I really don't think that I have misunderstood Pilgrim at all :o) Perhaps it is you that do not understand what Pilgrim is teaching. You wrote or quoted someone else: 'Man is spiritually dead. He brought this upon himself in the garden of Eden. God said to Adam that, 'In the day you eat it (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) you shall surely die.' God was speaking of a SPIRITUAL death (obviously, for we know that Adam didn't die PHYSICALLY that same day).' Actually Adam was told that 'dying you shall die' the literally translation. Which means that Adam received the sentence of death. A sentence that was implemented that very day by his separation from the 'tree of life.' In Genesis the penalty placed upon Adam for his sin is very detailed and ends with, the death sentence, which God defined as a return to the dust (Gen. 3:19). The language here obviously denotes a physical death. Death passed upon all people through Adam. He was separated from the Garden to keep him from the Tree of Life from the source of immortality and that made death certain. Death passed upon all people through Adam. His expulsion from the Garden with its Tree of Life removed him from the source of immortality and made death certain. This is also true of his offspring. The Bible teaches that 'death' is the separation of the spirit from the body. At death the spirit returns to God who gave it and the body returns to the earth from which it came. Ec. 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. This is the same as Gen. 3:19 where God tells us that death is a return to the dust. The Bible does describe men as being dead, and dead in sins, because they are certain to die, because they are under the sentence of death. The figure of prolepsis is employed in Gen. 20: 3: 'God said to Abimelech, Thou art a dead man, for Sarah, Abraham's wife.' 'The Egyptians said, We be all dead men' (Exod. 12:33). 'All my father's house were dead men before the king' (2 Sam. 29.28). Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: John Stevenson
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:19:24 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
[Actually Adam was told that 'dying you shall die' the literally translation. Which means that Adam received the sentence of death]
---
While this is indeed a literal rendering of the Hebrew, we ought also to recognize that this sort of repetition is merely a normal figure of speech in Hebrew when you want to EMPHASIZE anything. Even though the Hebrew says, 'Dying you shall die,' this is a Hebraistic phrase that means, 'You shall certainly die.'

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: Rod
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:13:36 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
And the effect was direct and immediate. They didn't just 'begin to die,' but actually did die, '...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

Subject: Re: Good Works?
From: Brother Bret
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 15:34:08 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Dear Jimmie: In all that you have said, what then does Rom.3:10-18 mean? And how about verses and passages such as Eph.4:18-19; 1Cor.2:14; Jer.17:9 as well as Is.64:6 that was already mentioned. As Pilgrim has mentioned numerous times, there is a difference between TOTAL Depravity and UTTER Depravity. Total Depravity (or as some prefer to call it Total INABILITY) means that we are bad off 'enough' but as bad off as we could be. Look forward to your exegesis of these passages if you would.....Brother Bret Lovitz Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: no change
From: Rod
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 13:45:31 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Back spouting the same old errors are you, Jimmy? When you say this: ''The Bible teaches that 'death' is the separation of the spirit from the body. At death the spirit returns to God who gave it and the body returns to the earth from which it came'' and then follow up with this, ''The Bible does describe men as being dead, and dead in sins, because they are certain to die, because they are under the sentence of death. The figure of prolepsis is employed in Gen. 20: 3: 'God said to Abimelech, Thou art a dead man, for Sarah, Abraham's wife.' 'The Egyptians said, We be all dead men' (Exod. 12:33). 'All my father's house were dead men before the king' (2 Sam. 29.28),'' you present a warped picture of God's view of death. Whether you do this intentionally to mislead or through ignorance is not precisely clear at this point, but, based on your past performance here, I have my suspicions. To any with spiritual eyes and ears, it is clear that the Apostle Paul views death as something ongoing for men 'in the flesh': 'And you [believers] hath he made alive, who WERE DEAD in trespasses and sins [not physically] (Eph. 2:1). Paul continues, speaking of the being dead in trespasses and sins, 'in which in times past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom also we all had our manner of life in times past in the lusts of our flesh and of the mind, and were BY NATURE the children of wrath, even as others' (verses 2 and 3). Then Paul goes on to identify 'life' as being in Christ (verse 5), just as verses 2-3 identifies 'death' as being under control of Satan. Therefore, death is the spiritual separation from God, just as Adam and Eve were separated from Him after disobedience, a fact attested to by Rom. 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.' Such a person, not being rescued from the penalty of sin is dead to God, though he yet awaits physical death. The lost and dead person's spirit doesn't, as you attest, return to God, but awaits judgment in captivity (Luke 16:19-31), as God's Word attests, 'And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment' (Heb. 9:27). The only remedy for that certain judgment unto eternal punishment is to be 'in Christ.' For one who is thus saved by God, Rom. 8 verifies that he is neither condemned by, nor separated from, Him and His Son forever. Such is life given by God.

Subject: Re: no change
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 20:58:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
AMEN, Rod....and besides...what did Jesus say about letting 'the DEAD bury their DEAD' to the young man who needed to bury his father? blessings, laz p.s. and of course we have the resurrection of Lazarus...a DEAD guy...being symbolic of regeneration whereby the spiritually 'dead' (the unregenerate) are given 'life'. I'd like to ask Jimmy what is the difference between the soul/spirit of the regenerate vs the unregenerate.

Subject: Re: no change
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:17:52 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Brother laz, You've just demonstrated that it's amazin' what open consideration of the whole Word in concert with itself can reveal. :^) May God grant us all that desire and ability by the Spirit to search out His meaning and revelations to His own.

Subject: Pardon my ignorance
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:39:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
As many of you know, I've never claimed to be a theologian. But I have to admit that I've gone all my 30 plus years of Christian life without ever hearing the term 'Preterist' until not long prior to the time I came here. As I indicated below, my first experience was with what is called here a 'hyper' variety. It shocks me that I had not heard of this term/stance, since it seems familiar to some here. I was somewhat confused that at least a few here claimed the position without seemingly espousing the extreme claims of the 'hyper' I encountered on another board. I never went into it, as it really didn't come up conveniently until the recent thread begun by saved. Can someone give me a concise definition of 'preterist' (preterism'?) and some indication of its origin?

Subject: Re: Pardon my ignorance
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 07:28:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Okay Rod your pardoned! :^{) Now as to definitions, here we go first of all preterist: Noun: A theologian who believes that the prophecies of the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled. Such as I am a partial preterist, not unlike R.C. Sproul or Ken Gentry holding to the position that many of the prophecies of Revelation are done. Now as to some of what saved said it was taken from a hyper and thus heretical view, no preterist that I know of holds such views. See this article by Ken Gentry Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon http://presterjohn.cjb.net

Subject: Re: Pardon my ignorance
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 11:07:30 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks, P.J., I have done enough research since posting this that I came across that definition, but I cannot find any origins of the position. I'm particulary interested in how long the 'hyper' variety has been in existence. Whether or not the 'hypers' are numerous, I know not, but they are pretty vocal on the websites.

Subject: Re: Pardon my ignorance
From: saved
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:09:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Here is what they teach... it is a shock, all right!: Commenting on Eph 2:13...'But now..'
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- 'Paul is saying 'now' as in the 'present tense' in HIS day! Back in the First Century. That is no longer happening. There is no longer an 'election process' happening from among the Jews and Gentiles. There are no longer any such 'races' as Jew and Gentile. Christ forever terminated those physical distinctions in 70 AD, via the Roman army. Go back and reread the New Testament from a strictly historical perspective. I think you might get a bit of a shock! So many Scriptures are misapplied to our own situation today, when they have no application WHATSOEVER to us! That would include Romans 11 (the entire chapter). You are correct in determining that Gal. 6:16 is referring to Spiritual Israel (the Christians - and specifically the First Century Christians in this case). Go back and reread Rom. 11:25,26 with this in mind. 'All Israel' in verse 26 is a reference to Spiritual Israel - and the last of the 'faithful remnant' who were not saved at the time of the writing of Romans, but who WOULD eventually acknowledge Christ as their Messiah and Saviour - not long before the termination of the Physical Nation in 70 AD. They were still enemies of the fledgling Church (Rom. 11:28) but they WOULD convert to Christianity before the destruction of the Old Covenant Nation of Israel in 70 AD. ALL of this is First Century in context. Read it in that light and watch the 'big light bulb' come on!!'...etc.
---

---

---

---

---

---
- wow... see what I mean!? so that makes you and me a 'heretic' for believeing that God is calling and saving people today I guess... saved

Subject: Re: Pardon my ignorance
From: Rod
To: saved
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:31:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Yep. Unbelievable, isn't it? Of course Rom. 8:28 identifies the called/elect as 'them that love God' without qualification of time and John 17:20-26 reaffirms that conclusion, just to mention a little Scriptural refutation.

Subject: Re: Pardon my ignorance
From: saved
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 15:27:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I was going to suggest RC Sproul, but i see stan beat me to it..:-) saved

Subject: For Your Possible Interest...
From: stan
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 13:29:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Some might be interested - or maybe not ;-) stan Discount Christian Software News 3/23/2001 1-888-967-3763 1-760-722-6180 http://www.discountchristian.com R.C. Sproul Digital Library CD-ROM $59.95 Blowout Sale Print value of all the books by R.C. Sproul contained in this CD-ROM is over $500. They can all be yours right now in easy to access electronic format for only $59.95. R.C. Sproul Digital Library Retail: $139.99 DCS Price: $59.95 http://www.christian-software.com/sproul.htm

Subject: Hey, stan! (Off topic)
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:28:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I was going to post and ask if you still were speaking to us, and, lo, there you were! :^)

Subject: Re: Hey, stan! (Off topic)
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 17:45:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just finished my vow of silence ;-) NOT! You must do psychic!

Subject: Re: Hey, stan! (Off topic)
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 18:00:39 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Nope, haven't done physics since high school sports. :^)

Subject: Election and the Body of Christ
From: saved
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 08:42:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In another forum, I was told that 'the doctrine of election only refered to those living at the time of the early Christian church'.. The Bride of Christ, and the body of Christ only refers to the 'first century believers'. All believers today are 'friends of the Bride' so to speak, and not really members of the Body of Christ. Romans 8:28-30 is all 'past tense' and so not for us today, etc. Has anyone heard of this view before? Just wondering the best way to answer this false doctrine. Thanks in advance.

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: John Stevnenson
To: saved
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:02:36 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@yahoo.com

Message:
Where do people come up with such things? This point obviously ignores the 'chosen (elected) people' from the Older Testament. Likewise, we would have to assume that NONE of the Bible is to be applied to us today. John

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Rod
To: John Stevnenson
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:08:53 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Amazing how such folks can ignore the obvious, isn't it, John?

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Rod
To: saved
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:02:27 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I was first exposed to this heresy a year or more ago. Person claimed to be a 'Preterist.' I believe the absurdity he espoused included the declaration that the Lord Jesus Christ had already returned at about the end of the time of the Apostlic era. Like so many heretics, he claimed that this truth had been discovered or 'rediscovered' only recently, as I recall.

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:21:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I was first exposed to this heresy a year or more ago. Person claimed to be a 'Preterist.' I believe the absurdity he espoused included the declaration that the Lord Jesus Christ had already returned at about the end of the time of the Apostlic era. Like so many heretics, he claimed that this truth had been discovered or 'rediscovered' only recently, as I recall.
---
Rod, For a brief, but I think adequate refutation of the 'Hyper-Preterist' heresy, see: Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:22:33 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks, Pilgrim, As the author identifies it, it is 'brief,' but it is cogent.

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: saved
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 15:12:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks to rod (and Pilgrim for the link)! Yes, rod, right on, as usual! This writer said he held the 'Preterist View'...so I will look at the link posted by Pilgrim! thanks to all for the excellent help and advice here! (I had no idea that the Preterist was so far off!) to all - please beware of them. saved

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: John Stevenson
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 12:09:33 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
[Person claimed to be a 'Preterist.' I believe the absurdity he espoused included the declaration that the Lord Jesus Christ had already returned at about the end of the time of the Apostlic era]
---
A full-blown Preterist does indeed view that ALL of the prophecies of Scripture have been fulfilled; thus there is no future return of Christ and no future judgment. I've still not heard any of them state that believers today are not among the elect; indeed, most of them would agree with us on this point. More popular today is a 'Partial Preterism' that says many of the prophecies of the book of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century, but we still await the culmination of this age and the Second Coming of Christ. RC Sproul would be a popular adherant of this view. Incidentally, even if you do not agree with these folks, it is worthwhile to listen to them as they have done their homework in comparing the events surrounding the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 with the symbols of Revelation. At the very least, you might note that the author draws from those events for some of his symbolism (or visa versa). John

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Rod
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 14:07:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
John, Thank you for the suggestions, but I heard enough of this tripe from that person. You wrote, 'A full-blown Preterist does indeed view that ALL of the prophecies of Scripture have been fulfilled; thus there is no future return of Christ and no future judgment.' I suppose this person was 'full blown' as that is exactly what he proclaimed. As for this, 'I've still not heard any of them state that believers today are not among the elect; indeed, most of them would agree with us on this point,' that was precisely his stand; he was very much opposed to my views of election/predestination. 'Incidentally, even if you do not agree with these folks, it is worthwhile to listen to them as they have done their homework in comparing the events surrounding the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 with the symbols of Revelation. At the very least, you might note that the author draws from those events for some of his symbolism (or visa versa).' Sorry, just because someone 'has done his homework' (as has Chrystostomos on semi-Pelgaianism, for example) doesn't mean I want to be bombarded with his error.

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: saved
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 15:22:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, I am with you on this. I think John S. is not giving good advice here - just from my recent 'encounter'.. Doing 'homework' is not the same thing as being taught of the Lord. This person seemed 'so enlightened' - as if he just had 'new revelations from God'.. I told him, 'Sorry friend, but your teaching sounds like a cult to me'...etc. Then he told me 'I was the one in error' etc.etc. saved

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Rod
To: saved
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:02:06 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
saved, What was the name/handle he used? In my old age my memory is failing, but if I heard it, I might be able to tell if it's the same guy.

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: saved
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 16:29:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sure, your memory is 'failing you'..:-)... You knew right off the bat that this person was Preterist! His name is John McPherson... today, when discussing Free Will, he said: ===================================== 'When God confronted Cain concerning the wickedness which existed in his heart in terms of hatred of his brother (Gen. 6) what is God's specific instruction to Cain? I don't happen to have a Bible handy at the moment, but God's statement goes something like this, 'If you do good, will you not be accepted? And if you desire to do evil - sin lies at the door and its desire is for you. But you must rule over it.' Cain evidently had the potential to over-rule the promptings and bais of the 'sin nature' within him and do THAT WHICH WAS PLEASING TO GOD!! Re-examine that one carefully, exegetically and contextually... That's the proper starting point for establishing the validity (or lack therof) in the 'TULIP' doctrinal paradigm. Quite frankly - although I am in agreement with Calvin's thinking and teaching on the subject of 'eternal security' (I believe it is valid, Biblically) - I do not believe his treatment of the Scriptures in terms of 'election' and 'predestination' is accurate, contextually. Nor is the exegetical approach of all those who arrived at the same conclusions (including Spurgeon - ye gads!! He's taking on the BIG BOYS!!). I trust that our continued examination of the great Truths surrounding this doctrine will yield greater clarity in terms of proper understanding of God's Word in this area! .......... ========================== Well, what do you think? A 'Calvinist' that thinks Cain could have made the 'right choice'..and could have been 'pleasing to God?'..!? I guess when you no longer believe in election, every thing else goes out with it, sad to say, and 'free will' comes back into play...

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Rod
To: saved
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 19:32:58 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
On the board I was on, this guy had some sort of handle, so I don't know if it was the same person or not. He didn't seem as likely to give (supposed) Scriptural support as the man you're dealing with, but he could have gotten deeper into it in a year and a half or so.

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Tom
To: saved
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 10:35:06 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Saved Not completely sure on this, but it sounds a little like what the JW's believe. They believe that only 144.000 in the history of the world will be saved. But I don't know what they believe concerning the verses you mentioned. Tom

Subject: Re: Election and the Body of Christ
From: Brother Bret
To: saved
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 09:44:53 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hey Brother: No, I have never heard that before personally. Perhaps Pilgrim and some of the others have? Seems to me that if those verses you referenced are for the 'past' how many more things do we throw out? It seems to me that such a positions by them would end up in none of the word of God being for us today. 2 Pet.3:9 perhaps addresses this somewhat. God is longsuffering waiting for all of His sheep (brethren, beloved, usward) to come to repentence :^). Brother Bret

Subject: Rev. 10:8-11
From: Bro. Charles
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 09:51:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am just looking to se if I could find out what the little book is supposed to be. I was looking at the verse the other day and I think I know, but I was wanting to get feed back from my fellow brethren on the subject Thanks , Brother Charles

Subject: The Little Book Is Daniel
From: postrib
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 18:40:13 (PST)
Email Address: postrib@yahoo.com

Message:
Hi. I believe the little book is the book of Daniel. Compare Daniel 12:6-7 and Revelation 10:5-7. May the Lord bless you. http://www.geocities.com/postrib/

Subject: Re: The Little Book Is Daniel
From: John Stevenson
To: postrib
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 20:32:21 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
[[I believe the little book is the book of Daniel. Compare Daniel 12:6-7 and Revelation 10:5-7]]
---
At the very least, the two passages make an interesting comparison, though I don't know that there is enough given to make that specific identification. What I find interesting is the stance of the angels - the one in Daniel stands astride the River (the Euphrates?) while the one in Revelation stands with one foot on the land and the other in the sea. The first points to a symbol of what was in that day the political center of the earth. The second demonstrates how that political center had changed in the past 500 years. By the way, do you therefore think that John had to eat all 12 chapters of the book of Daniel? Or are we talking symbolism? John

Subject: Re: Rev. 10:8-11
From: John Stevenson
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:50:13 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
<> Perhaps it is the same as the scroll that was shown to Ezekiel in Ezekiel 2:9-10 that was written on the front and the back with lamentationa, mourning and woe. Evidently, it contained a warning of God's coming judgments against Israel. Ezekiel was given the scroll, not to read it or to study it or to put it on his bookshelf. He was to EAT it (Ezekiel 3:1-3). He was to fill his body with its message. And then he was to go to Israel and to give them that message. John is told the same thing. He is also to take the book and is to eat it. It will become a part of him. And then he will be sent to speak the message to many people and nations and tongues and kings. There is a lesson here. Before you can effectively teach God's truth, that truth must first become a part of your life. I like the words of Howard Hendrix when he said, 'If your Christianity doesn't work at home, it doesn't work at all. Don't export it!' Other Notes on Revelation www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theo-pc1.html

Subject: Re; on Rev.
From: Bro. Charles
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 29, 2001 at 15:38:52 (PST)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com

Message:
'He is also to take the book and is to eat it. It will become a part of him.' This is true and also is one of the reasons I thought what I did about the little book. First thing I saw was it says in vs. 9 'Take and eat; and it will make your stomach bitter, but it will be as sweet as honey in your mouth' I thought that the little book was our bible (or the word of God in general), for when we 'eat'(receive it) we are joyous to learn something new of the Lord(as honey in our mouths) But later It could convict our lives,(Bitter in our stomach) and vs. 11 kind of goes with that. This is my thoughts of it , I did see other commentaries that say that it is the revelations that where given to John.

Subject: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:12:06 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ: I want to share with you a great concern that I have regarding the body of Christ in general and various local churches including some folks in our own regarding the issue of modest apparel. 1Tim. 2:9-10 says: 'In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold or pearls, or costly array. But which becometh women professing godliness, with good works.' We live in a society today, where just about anything goes when it comes to the clothing that is worn. Many churches don't like talking about this verse of scripture. But it is in the word of God! Both men and women who are true Christians are to dress in such a way, that it does not bring attention to oneself or could could cause a person to lust after them or stumble. We may be under Christian liberty to wear certain things, but if it is not modest (appropriate-translated good behavior in 3:2{KJV})then it is a violation of the command in 1Tim.2:9-10. One thing that really concerns me is that many of the Christians do not seem to be concerned about this area of life. Now in the context of this passage of Scripture, it is mainly talking about how to dress in the local church assembly. Although there should be the same concern outside the local church as well. The word of God says the church is to be holy. It says that the church is the temple of God. It concerns me greatly to see people who have supposedly been saved for years, that will come to church services some times in immodest apparel. Tight Clothing, Shorts, Low Cut Blouses, etc. On one hand I do not want to mandate areas of the Christian life that should not be mandated. But I am equally concerned about why I would even have the need to. How much should be said from the pulpit, or dealt with in the bylaws or membership agreements? If you are a pastor, I would appreciate your input as well, and what if anything you do in your local churches. But I also want to hear from lay-ministers and other lay-people about this. Please understand my heart. I love God's people, and all people in general. But I also love the Lord. May our Sovereign Lord give us all the desire to want to follow Him, not cause others to lust or stumble, and be obedient to Him by His grace in all things. I do hope many of you will reply. In Christ's Service, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Chris
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 19:43:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret......According to Verse 8, it is not a command....It was Pauls desire and of course the Lords, that they would dress that way because of the consequences it could bring upon themselves and others, but it was not and is not a 'THOU SHALT OR SHALT NOT'....Even in the New King James.....it uses the word desire and in the greek it means 'to be willing' Bro Chris

Subject: Re: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Prestor John
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 21:00:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Bro Bret: I can appreciate what you are saying in regards to modest dress. I too go to a church where the younger women (teenagers) dress in provocative wear. Now that is not all teenagers, but some, the thing is this what is the definition of modest? Is it the clothes or is it the attitude? The reason I ask this is because of what's considered provocative now a days as opposed to say my Father's day. (And just for those who want some time reference my Father was born in 1905.) Back then seeing a woman's bare ankle was a major turn on. Now women walk down the street clothed in what was once considered underwear and people think nothing of it. Of course most of this is foisted upon us by a society that seems to want us in a permanent state of sexual arousal or as C.S. Lewis put it:' There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because of course a man with an obsession is a man with very little sales resistance' Which seems to be the point with most women's fashions and fashion magazines. But not only that but just the whole bombardment of the airways with 30 second images of impossibly slim androgynous figures that tantalize us from the video god (aka television) or unnaturally built women who through the best surgery money can buy portray a characterization of what a woman is and then tell us we have to attain to that image. However, the whole point of this is the mind, our minds are what's being programmed here, a woman can have something on that makes the Amish look fancy but if my mind isn't programmed towards modesty then its a moot point, I'll see what I want to see. Its not only women that need modesty here but men too. We need to have the mind of Christ first, then we can change our apparel from the inside out. Just some ramblings from a man who should be in bed instead of typing here. :) Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon Armchair theologian, curmudgeon, and esperantist

Subject: Re: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Chris
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 19:41:47 (PST)
Email Address: CEvanglst4@aol.com

Message:
Brethren, Modest Apparel..........How can we see a Church or Christians in General Sensitive enough to the Needs and Feelings of others to the Point where we will not want to offend anyone, ranging from making a Weaker Christian or Any Christian to Stumble and Sin or bringing Reproach upon the Name of the Lord by the reactions inwardly or outwardly of Unbelievers......Instead of Getting Christians to conform to a set of rules and regulations, what could transpire in their lives?...........Its Spiritual Growth.......By becoming Spiritually Mature, we will Grow in Love for the Brethren and all people and become sensitive to their situations and feelings and will make Choices to be less offensive in all things we do or say........It is the responsibility of all Christians to Pray and Diligently seek the Lord in Reading and Studying the Bible and be renewed in the Spirit of our minds and become More Like Christ Jesus.......It is the Responsibility of Church Leaders to Instruct the Sheep by Preaching and Teaching, admonishing and counseling them in the ways of the Lord and through that they will Grow Spiritually Mature.....We are also to set the example for them to follow, not necessarily Lord over them rules and regulations, whether in the By-Laws or Membership agreements.....I will say this though......For LEADERS, they should already be Spiritually Mature and Wise and staying above reproach in all matters of Lifestyle and Communitcation.......It is of the upmost importance for the Spiritual Life of the Church(Locally and as a Whole) Chris

Subject: Re: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Five Sola
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 06:42:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris, You do have a point. We must address spiritual growth so that immodest clothing will disappear from the closets of christians. And I understand your concern not to get to legalistic in this area (I grew up in a setting similiar(sp?) to that. BUT we must remember the 'weaker brother' issue (which I think is misinterpreted and mis-applied many times) does not permit doing things that lead to sin in others or tempts them in that way. If the elders that Anne mention are having to stare at the ceiling because of the ladies/girls inappropriateness of clothing they should be confronted on that. With a gentle and loving tone of course, maybe even with the parents involved so all can see how that clothing is not right for this setting (if at all) and how it is causing temptation to people in the congregation (names excluded). This is vital part of the maturing of 'weaker' brothers. If the new or immature christians are not shown the areas they need to improve in then they will be on milk their intire christian lives. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Chris
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:50:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Modest Apparel Cont...........Brethren, I agree with the Passage of Scripture in 1Timothy 2:9-10 wholeheartedly........but my concern about this is how to approach this to where the change in done within a person and not just without....... Going to the Beach, Christian Music, Bible Translations, Movies, TV Programs, etc are another issue.......The Question is are we letting the Holy Spirit change us by the Preaching and Teaching, Praying and Admonishing, instructing and even sometimes Rebuking(correcting)of and with the Word of God, or are we trying to get people to conform to a set of rules and regulations in order to change them whether they are in the bylaws or membership agreement of the Local Churches........I will say this, it is questionable in some areas.........Going to the Beach, Christian Music styles, Bible translations, etc....are gray areas that tend to be more dealt in the area of Personal Standards and Preferrences........I will admit, I listen to Christian Rock and Country.......but I am Mature enough to be able to discern the Good with the Bad.......And what really bothers me is the Hypocracy, that Christian Country is ok, but not Christian Rock......So it is a matter of Spiritual Growth........Growing in the Grace and Knowledge of our Savoir, the Lord Jesus Christ...Scripturally this is an area of Christian Liberty.....Just as long as we dont use this liberty to sin or cause another to stumble and sin........Again I will say, that if each and every Christian will grow towards Spiritually Maturity, we would be more considerate of each other and do things more out of Love than for Prideful and selfish reasons......For instance.......if we know that there is someone who has a problem, say with Christian Rock, and we are around them, we should not play it and cause them to offend, but if it doesnt cause one to offend, then we should not Judge that person for what he or she allows.....but be reminded that we dont condemn ourselves with what we allow.....for what is not of Faith is SIN......! So Bret and All, I do agree with you.......please dont get me wrong......but see to approach the matter differently......How does that Song go 'In His Time' Also, just to reaffirm what I said earlier in this post, there are things that are clear commands and should be followed and there are things that are not clear.....modest apparel is a clear command, but what is Modest apparel and does it depend on the culture...which are different of course..... Brethren, another area to consider too......Why does Church Membership have to be required in order for an individual to use his or hers talents or Spiritual Gifts given by the Lord......If they Profess to be a Christian and line up fundamentally with the doctrines of Christ....why do we say that they have to conform to membership rules and regulations in order to edify other Christians with their talents and gifts?........I do believe we do more harm at times in these areas than Good....Now we cant judge ones intentions.....but just for noting,, even our Good intentions could be wrong.... Now I know that we are going to have disagreements on this issue or issues, but there are areas we can agree to disagree..... Chris

Subject: Re: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Five Sola
To: Chris
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 19:48:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris, First, I want to say yes, change must happen in the heart but that does not excuse sin. We are given a set of commandments (10commandments) to obey, among other things. We are required to give that obedience to God whether our heart is mature enough or not. So sometimes we will obey outwardly but inwardly still be in rebellion (this ultimately is still disobedience and greater sin). But we do not have the right to disobey due to our immaturity. Now that being said. We must not allow the 'immature' christian to go around and cause temptation and possible stumblings among other christians (possibly other 'immature' christians). Yes, we must do it with tact, we must use christian love to correct the behavior, but we MUST do it. I am not saying we install a dress code according to the strictest of standards (my preference would be women in dress always) that would be a legalism, but we have the right and duty to go to those who may be unaware of their tempting and explain how what they are wearing is causing others to sin and that they must not do that. I won't even touch the membership issue (nor the music issue) for various reasons. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Concern About Modest Apparel
From: Chris
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 20:32:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola....I never said that these issues should not be dealt with, nor was giving excuse to sin....please, I would never do that, all I am saying is that through spiritual growth christians will be more sensitive to others and less offensive as they grow and not to force people to change by making them conform to issues that are not commands but could be Personal Standards and Preferences and things that would be associated with 'Christian Liberty'.....I have in another post suggested the reading of 1 Corinthians chapter 8 and Galatians chapter 5...Also as I just posted alil while ago...1 Timothy 2:8-10 is not a command, it was Pauls desire and of course would be the Lords....even the New King James uses the english word 'desire'...If I have misled anyone to think otherwise concerning the seriousness of unrepentive sin in a professing believers life...I am sorry and would be ashamed of such an error...but I do not believe I have done so... Bro Chris

Subject: You are SO right!
From: Anne
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:50:45 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I wrote to one of the associate pastors about this very issue last summer. The young women of the church would show up at church wearing those skimpy, short sundresses with spaghetti straps, jeans painted on, etc. (I'm in Texas were the summers are very hot) My letter was passed to other people, many of whom agree vehemently. One of the elders wrote me and said he's had to sit in a room of high school kids with his head tilted back, staring at the ceiling, in a conscious effort to not stare at the provocatively dressed girls. The girls mean no harm, mind! We're all agreed on that. This is simply the accepted mode of dress for those in their teens and twenties, especially. But it is NOT modest, nor seemly. Trouble is, to the girls/women's minds, it is the men who have the problem. [sniff] 'They shouldn't be looking!' That elder was working hard to not look, and likely wound up with a stiff neck. Is this kind? We are not accustomed to thinking in terms of being each others' keepers, with a shared responsibility to not cause each other to stumble. These days, if you stumble, well....watch where you're going. Elders being kind enough to give their time to youth groups should be able to sit comfortably and smile in a friendly fashion all around, without constantly having to avert their eyes. I am hoping the pastor will speak to this before the heat sets in this year. Good post! In Him, Anne

Subject: qoute on trinity
From: Five Sola
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 18:24:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I got this qoute sent out in a reformed email forum I belong to. There are times that it seems to go off on the deep end (how do I find THESE groups? :-) ) and I though I would pose it for review and discussion. Does anyone find anything wrong with it? Do any red lights go off as you read it? The begining portion seems to be ok (the portion dealing with the trinity) but I am unsure of the later parts dealing with the covenant.
---

---

---

---

---

---
- The Covenant Springs from the Doctrine of the Trinity The three Persons of the Trinity exist eternally in perfect covenant relation: The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, as the Father speaks (logos) concerning His will. The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son searching and declaring the things of the Father spoken in the Son. The Son stands in fellowship with the Father, eternally shining forth the light of the Father, who eternally expresses Himself in the Son, both knowing one another by the Spirit, who searches and knows the deep things of God and testifies of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Each Person of the Trinity has eternally willed the same thing, but willed as a particular Person, such that there is neither subordination nor disagreement among the Trinity, but eternal the eternal harmony of love and fellowship, such that the three are One. The Father eternally wills to save a people in the Son, who eternally wills to save those given Him by the Father, while the Spirit eternally wills to bear the testimony of the Father’s work in the Son. The Father never wills as the Son or the Spirit, the Son as the Spirit or the Father, nor the Spirit as the Father or the Son. But, each knows fully and perfectly the will of the other two, such that there is only one, perfect and Divine will. God’s Covenant with His people is that by His initiative, the Church will enter fellowship with God through His Trinitarian work of redemption in Jesus Christ. This is His eternal will, the Covenant of Redemption, which is most clearly set forth in Ephesians 1:3-14. This Covenant of Redemption must not be viewed as the means to an end, but the end in itself. The Covenant did not come to pass because of sin, but sin came to exist to serve the Covenant. The end of the Covenant is God’s eternal decree to enter a covenant with His people—a covenant of friendship (John 15:13-15)—not unlike the perfect Triune existence of God. This “dwelling with God” in love at His initiative is set forth in 1 John 4:7-19. This covenant of the Covenant God with His people is central to Scripture, as it is the work of God in Christ. When understood, it impacts how the believer views every aspect of his life: relationship to God, fellowship with saints, marriage and family, worship, employment, and recreation. It is properly understanding the Covenant of God from which proper antithetical living arises. Those foreknown by God and predestined to glorification in Christ are eternally called by God into the very perfection of His eternal fellowship: The fellowship of the Trinity is our fellowship with our Father in heaven and with one another in the Church. All of this requires that as God is eternal, as is His counsel, and that there is, therefore, but one, eternal Covenant of Redemption, as promised in Jeremiah 24:7 and Revelation 21:3. Both of these books look to the fulfillment of God’s promise to the Church in Christ, which is dwelling in sinless communion with God.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Five Sola

Subject: Rod
From: Chrysostomos
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 22:28:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>>The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son... It's always about WHO. Always. If you look into it, you'll see that this was another Roman innovation that should have also been tossed out the window. It wasn't. And it had consequences. Chrysostomos

Subject: ''Rod''??? nt
From: Rod
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:10:23 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: Yeah, well...
From: Chrysostomos
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 23:54:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I suppose I just got used to disputing with you personally. Sorry about that....

Subject: Re: qoute on trinity
From: laz
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 10:06:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FS - I'm no theologian...but I had no issue. Might this part be a point of contention? The Covenant did not come to pass because of sin, but sin came to exist to serve the Covenant. I would agree given that God reacts to NOTHING (His will being eternal)...therefore, sin had to be part of God's plan and Covenant. Blessings, laz

Subject: Re: qoute on trinity
From: Five Sola
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 14:27:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz & Bro. Bret, Thanks for the replies. I really did not have any complaint concerning the qoute, but because of my unfamilarity with covenant theology I was curious if this held water. :-) Since I have not yet recieved any 'scathing' rebukes from Pilgrim or the likes I guess it sounds ok. lol Five Sola

Subject: Re: qoute on trinity
From: Brother Bret
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 19:42:18 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Unless I missed something, it didn't seem out of line with covenant theology, although I am far from qualified to be the spokesperson on it :^ ). It does seem like they are Supralapsarianists, right? BB

Subject: The Old Gospel vrs the New
From: saved
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:51:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This article looks very good! Good messages www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/

Subject: Rod
From: Chrysostomos
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 21:32:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, >>>>>Hi, Chrysostomos, You wrote: ''It seems to me that if one is to decry 'semi-Pelagianism,' then one would necessarily have to critique the commentary of St John Chrysostom--readily available on the internet--since Orthodoxy is, really, the definition of 'semi-Pelagianism.''' Rather than that, what I would propose is this to get directly to the heart of the matter. >>>>Well, Rod, we've been trying to get to the heart of the matter for some time, now, haven't we? >>>>>Let's start with the fact that I have given a simple, direct 'working definition' of semi-Pelagianism. It was, ''Semi-Pelagian refers to the belief that man has some innate good in him in his natural state and can co-operate with God (in fact must do so) in order to get himself saved.'' That seems perfectly consistent with your often stated rejection of total depravity, that man is marred in every aspect of his being by the fact that he is born in sin, not that he is as evil as he can be, but that he is touched and affected in his totality, intellect, spirit, and emotional makeup, by the warping effect of the sin nature. Are we in agreement thus far? I think so. Man does have some innate good in him. It's called the image of God. >>>>Next, I would ask you to give a simple and concise rationale for this statement: 'As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that, obviously, Pelagius was a heretic....' What exactly is the heart and soul of his heresy? Well, he didn't believe that Jesus Christ was God. He believed that he *became* God by living a sinless life. Hence, his soteriology. Orthodox believe that correct soteriology flows from correct Christology. >>>>>What is so obvious about it? Without some agreement on terms, it seems impossible to continue. I hope my above, brief, explanation of his Christology explains the matter. If not, let me know. But, as is probably obvious, it's taking me awhile to respond. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Rod
From: Rod
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 09:11:00 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Chrysostomos, Yes, I did note that it has been awhile. :^) Thanks for taking the time to provide your answers. Frankly, however, I'm shocked that one so intelligent and well-read as yourself would indulge in such fantasy. Why would I say that? It's very simple: Pelagianism is, by your own admission, 'an obvious heresy.' 'Semi-Pelagianism' is by its very name a dressed-up reorganization of that same heresy! It is not new; it is simply modification to accomodate man's sinful and proud nature. It is the same old heresy rearranged to make it more palatable and 'intellectually acceptable.' Semi-Pelagianism is based on the fact that man not only can be, but is, inherently good. It is an heretical direct frontal assault on the Word of God in that the Bible from the third chapter of Genesis until the conclusion of Revelation states and implies with overwhelming regularity that, 'There is none good but one, that is God' (Mark 10:18). The corollary to that is, 'As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 2:10-11). Yet, in denying total depravity, you and the other semi-Pleagians of the world trample under foot this repeated testimony to the character and nature of man. In effect, as your most recent writings here have shown, semi-Pelagianism actually teaches that man doesn't need a Savior, but the good in him allows him to do the things necessary to save himself in cooperation with God by the alleged 'good,' which God says resides only in Himself, but which you willfully attribute to man. In pointing, as you do above, to the 'image of God,' you make the same fatal error: 'Man does have some innate good in him. It's called the image of God.' This statement reflects a total misunderstanding of the Word of God. It also is a denial of the testimony of the inspired Word of God the Spirit through Paul: 'For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). To have a vital need to be conformed to the image of the Son of God, Who is God the Second Person, means that man is not presently in the image of God in the manner you'd desperately like him to be, but is in fact, totally depraved and lost, as you defiantly deny him to be. Man needs not to save himself; he needs salvation. He is sin sick, paralyzed, and bound in his sin nature; he stands in need of being acted upon by God to grant him new life and a new heart, which is good because it is provided by the Spirit of God, to replace the natural ,'carnal,' man in whom resides, as Paul tesifies, 'no good thing' (Rom. 7:18). This is the hideous portrait of the man you deem to have 'good' in him in defiance of the Word of the holy God. You may find a beautiful whore and employ the most skilled make-up artist to adorn her, dressing her curvacious body in the most gorgeous of gowns, but still, inside, all you really have is a woman who has given herself over to and sold out to sin, who is incapable of functioning as God intended a pure woman to in His approved fashion. Such is the picture of fallen man in the Bible. The expression of the unfaithful wife and 'whoring after' false gods is common in relation to the people God selected to be His nation. These who had every advantage, humanly speaking, failed God because they were not good, not saved from their depravity. Only the remnant was saved; those who had received as the gift of God the spiritual ears to hear and were regenerated to come to salvation by grace through faith. Let him who has ears heed what God's Word says.

Subject: I'm afraid you've missed it, Rod...
From: Chrysostomos
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 20:50:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, You expressed the so-called 'Semi-Pelagianism,' at least as it was 'condemned' in the west in the person of St John Cassian, very poorly. So, from my perspective, you've just attacked something that I don't believe and is not taught by either the Orthodox Church now, nor is it taught by any of the Church Fathers--including that pesky John Cassian. In any case, if you'd like to discuss Pelagius, Augustine and John Cassian, then my offer still stands. But, as of yet, we haven't. Had a lot of passionate polemics, though. >>>>>Let him who has ears heed what God's Word says. That's what we've been discussing all this time, isn't it? The meaning of what God's Word says? Chrysostomos

Subject: PS
From: Chrysostomos
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 22:00:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>>'Semi-Pelagianism' is by its very name a dressed-up reorganization of that same heresy! I thought about it and came to the conclusion that this statement also required a response. The response is this: you're wrong. Without delving into original sources (all of which are, fortunately, available on the internet), the fact of the matter is that St John Cassian, the 'founder' of Semi-Pelagianism, argued for nothing like what you've just described. As I mentioned previously, for the Orthodox anyway, correct soteriology is based on correct Christology. Pelagius had bad (very bad) Christology, which led to his bad soteriology. This will also explain why some people have a hard time understanding why all those first milleneum folk were so obsessed with 'terminology' about Christ. So, from my perspective, we're arguing about the wrong thing. We'd do better to determine our Christological 'standpoints.' However, I don't think we'll end up doing that. Your method seems to be dependant upon arguing about soteriology. That, and not Christology--the Person of Christ--seems to be the defining factor. I realize that you might say, 'No, the Word of God (the Bible) is the defining factor.' OK. But the point I would try to make is that, for 2,000 years, every problem has to do with WHO Christ is, not WHAT he did. Problems (heresies) aren't solved by discussing WHAT, but straightening out WHO. Who flows from what, not the other way around. But I suppose we're not going to end up agreeing on that point, so I'm not going to hammer it. Only want you to understand where I'm coming from... I'd hate to write anything that sounds mean or even rude, since we've had so many cordial conversations, but it seems to me that you haven't a clue about semi-Pelagianism, other than what you've heard it expressed to be by your like-minded friends. It's certainly possible that what we have here is a failure to communicate. The only way I see of solving that is to discuss what has been, for over 1,500 years, commonly known as semi-Pelagianism. This is directly connected with the person of St John Cassian and the disputes between Augustine and Pelagius. Again, if you want to discuss this topic, showing me where you think John Cassian went wrong in his reproofs of both Augustine and Pelagius, then fine. I think we'd have the basis of a good discussion. If not, then I think I'll retire. All we'd do is wrestle with whether or not Chrysostomos and Rod agreed or disagreed with Rod's definition of semi-Pelagianism. Not that that would necessarily be an unfruitful discussion, mind you. It's just one that I'm not interested in. I end by acknowledging that I've repeated myself quite a bit here. I apologize. If you'd like to continue in the vein I've suggested, please let me know. If not, I'll take your last post as your final comment on the matter. In Christ our True God, Chrysostomos

Subject: Pins and Needles...
From: laz
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:11:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yikes - I'm on pins and needles....will someone pls elaborate on Chry's 'Christology' that is so germaine to the issue of semi-pelagianism? How does the East's Christology differ from the West's? Inquiring minds wanna know... blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:34:34 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, I'm sure you noticed this incredible statement: ''But the point I would try to make is that, for 2,000 years, every problem has to do with WHO Christ is, not WHAT he did. Problems (heresies) aren't solved by discussing WHAT, but straightening out WHO.' So, be certain, laz, not to get into the actions of the Lord or to consider WHAT He said (speaking in order to instruct is an action; something He repeatedly did), such as the principles included in Matt. 12:31-37. :^)

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 16:36:04 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod Excuse my ignorance, but would I be correct to say that Chrysostomos believes there are two different kind of Semi-Peligianism? One held by the west and one held by the east. If so, what is the difference? Tom

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 17:36:31 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, my friend and brother, I'm not trying to be smart-alecky, but you'll have to ask Chrys that--I'm sure he'll be glad to splain it! :^) The absolute truth is, however, that no matter how you explain it away, if something is 'semi' Pelagian, it is still Pelagian at its root. It still contains the fundamental error and heresy that man is not totally depraved. In this case, as Chrysostomos agreed and has previously attested to in several posts over time, man purportedly has the ability within him in his natural (unsaved, unregenerate) state to do good, i.e., to come to God through Christ for salvation on his own. As Chrysostomos has so often said, Pelagianism is so basically flawed and obviously wrong, that hardly anyone would accept it today, so it is rearranged and made more reasonable sounding by the 'semi's' so as to be acceptable to the pride-filled and unsaved. But as I've tried to point out nearly as often, dressing up and watering down a heresy doesn't eliminate the fact that it still is heresy. It is based on heresy; was fathered by heresy; and heresy it remains. Man is marred in every aspect of his being by original sin and, as I have quoted for Chrys, God's Word testifies over and over that there is no good in fallen man. Pelagius denied that fact of Scripture and so do the semi-Peligians of whatever stripe. It's as simple as that; they hold that denial in common, whether full-fledged Pelagians or semi-Pelagian.

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Chrysostomos
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 23:50:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>>if something is 'semi' Pelagian, it is still Pelagian at its root. Nothing personal Rod, but this seems to be the root of your nonsense. Please do me a favor and clarify this before I go on in thinking that you really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. (I don't mean that meanly, I just can't think of another way to put it) You could start here: where did you get these ideas? Britannica? Gibbon? I mean, there's no Pelagius in the Bible, so you must have some historical basis for your claim. You have to have gotten your understanding of your understanding of this problem from some source other that the Bible. What? Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Pilgrim
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 08:59:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chrysostomos,
Why all this foolishness about definitions of Pelagianism? You are so steeped and sold out to what you deem as important that you are blind to the Scriptures themselves. This is of course the inherent problem of the unregenerate. Although, knowing things about people, e.g, Pelagius and their heresies is valuable; I certainly won't deny that at all. I can also affirm that without knowing the originator's name or the intricacies of the heresy, that I can infallibly recognize it for what it is!! Why? Because the Scriptures, being the light of God, are able to expose those elements of darkness and the evil that controls those who espouse them. I suppose there are two methods that people can utilize to be able to recognize error when it comes. 1) The first is exposing yourself to as much of the wrong stuff as you can and learning all about it. 2) Learn the real thing so well, that anything else is easily recognized as being a phoney. For me, I think #2 is the way to go but with a smattering of #1 thrown in for good measure. So where is all this going? It doesn't matter if Rod or I or anyone else is familiar with all the 'ins and outs' of Pelagius. What is true is that ANYONE or ANY DOCTRINE which asserts that man by nature has ANY natural good and/or ANY ability to do good is not of God!! It's that simple. Joh 3:6 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' The 'Orthodox' churches hold to this doctrine of Pelagius in one form or another; this can't be denied. Oh, you may have put your own little 'slant' on it to dress it up pretty for the folks out there, but the 'smell' you can't hide!! :-) It has the distinct odour of rotting flesh! You love this smell and its source. You hate (you might euphemistically say, disagree) that which I (we) believe; the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which we hold to be the doctrines of God as taught in His infallible Word. Which Word, we maintain is discernible and comprehendable to ALL who are given of the Spirit. Have a nice day :-).
Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 19:37:14 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Rod Yes I understand what Semi-Pelagians believe. When I think about what you said, whether or not you were smart-alecky or not, I would deserve it;-). I should not have adressed this to you, as you so rightly said. I have heard some Semi-Pelagians who say they believe in Total Depravity. But in actuality, when they explain what they believe Total Depravity means. It is evident that they believe that man didn't die physically and spiritually. They believe man only became sick spiritually. They don't believe that this effected man's will. Tom

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 22:47:03 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, This is the very thing that Chrysostomos has done, disbelieving the express Word of the Spirit of God. What does Gen. 2:17 say? 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely have a few problems with your spiritual health, but you will be able to overcome them because you have good still residing within'--The RSV (Reversed Semi-Pelagian Version). God says in actually, 'ye shalt surely die.' A dead man isn't merely sick.

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 22:23:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
Just for the sake of argument, let's accept this premise which you say these 'semi-Pelagian/Arminians' you know, profess; 'They believe man only became sick spiritually. They don't believe that this effected man's will.' Trying to maintain that the 'will' was not affected by the fall while admitting that all the other faculties of man were affected by the fall, still amounts to our doctrine of Total Depravity!! This is no escape, but rather it amounts to doctrinal suicide for them. Why? Because the 'will' is not some autonomous entity which governs the soul, but contrariwise, the 'will' is that faculty of man which is governed by the intellect and emotions. Thus, whatever a man thinks, whatever a man feels, that is what the 'will' does. Let me give you a silly but nevertheless example of what their position would be like in a real-life situation:
A man stands on the corner of a busy street and carefully peers in both directions; first to the left, and then again to the right. He perceives a fast approaching semi-tractor trailer. His mind instantaneously concludes that if he were to step off the curb into the path of the oncoming 18 wheeler, he would be surely killed. His emotions send forth sensations of fear due to the picture of being splattered all over the street. However, his will 'decides' that it is more important to get to the other side of the street and 'chooses' to ignore what his mind has perceived and his emotions have expressed. And thus with horror, the man's legs begin to step off the curb and proceed to walk right into the path of the oncoming truck. SPLAT!!
This may seem utterly absurd; and indeed it is, not because of the illustration itself, but because of the underlying 'doctrine' that the semi-Pelagians/Arminians insist is the biblical teaching concerning Original Sin (Total Depravity). The 'will' does not nor cannot act independently of the mind or emotions of the soul. Man ALWAYS does that which he thinks and feels at any given moment, in any given set of circumstances. The WHOLE man was corrupted as a consequence of the Fall; mind, emotions and will. Since fallen man no longer thinks of God, nor knows Him as He is, nor does man have holy desires toward God or anything that is good, he therefore only DOES that which is ungodly and evil. Voila! the Doctrine of Total Depravity, albeit in a very brief summation! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Pins and Needles...
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 07:46:59 (PST)
Email Address: Tom

Message:
Pilgrim I agree that what they believe is absurb. At the very least they should be able to admitt that they don't actually believe in 'Total Depravity'. If I am not mistaken, I think they believe this because they believe that if the will is effected, it would make man a robot. They also believe that if God somehow makes man able to come to Jesus. Then God would be violating man's will. Of course, we don't see it that way, as Eph.2:3-6 explains. (Sorry if my wording, is bad, I am a little tired ;-) Tom

Subject: Will the real Chrysostomos
From: Rod
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:07:31 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
please stand up?! I hate to point out the obvious, Christopher, but your postings are a bundle of inconsistencies. Consider just this glaring one. Chrysostomos-''All we'd do [if we continued] is wrestle with whether or not Chrysostomos and Rod agreed or disagreed with Rod's definition of semi-Pelagianism.'' Must I point out to you that you've already agreed with it in your opening post in this thread? The thread you initiated. Chrysostomos, quoting Rod's previous post of a few weeks back-''Let's start with the fact that I have given a simple, direct 'working definition' of semi-Pelagianism. It was, 'Semi-Pelagian refers to the belief that man has some innate good in him in his natural state and can co-operate with God (in fact must do so) in order to get himself saved.' That seems perfectly consistent with your often stated rejection of total depravity, that man is marred in every aspect of his being by the fact that he is born in sin, not that he is as evil as he can be, but that he is touched and affected in his totality, intellect, spirit, and emotional makeup, by the warping effect of the sin nature. Are we in agreement thus far?'' Chrysostomos--''I think so. Man does have some innate good in him. It's called the image of God.'' You agreed with the working definition, and then, in this post, you indicate I don't have a clue about 'semi-Pelagianism!' Ridiculous and illogical, except to enhance your tactics of debate. I won't go on with the other inconsistencies, but will say that I am praying for your salvation and deliverance from these heresies. No, Chrysostomos, I don't care to discuss the writing of any these men you suggest. As you indicate, and I reiterate, my one basis and foundation of the truth is the Scriptures, not any non-inspired writing of any other person or any pronouncement of a religious organization. It is not an academic exercise to discover the truth of God, but a matter of the Spirit of God revealing His truth through His inspired Word: 'Fatih cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. 10:17). It encompasses Christology and soteriology, as well as the other aspects of theology, but it doesn't carve them up with surgical precision and set one against the other. The Word is harmonious, gloriously so. In the OT, the call of the prophets is often, 'Now hear the word of the LORD!' That is both an invitation and a command. I pray that you will accept the invitation and obey the command.

Subject: This is odd Rodd
From: Chrysostomos
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 22:56:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Allowing for the fact that we might simply be misunderstanding one another, I offer the following. Let's say this were a politics or history forum. And I (or you) accused you (or me) of being 'semi-Alexander Hamiltonian.' Now, it seems to me that if we were both honest, sincere people, we would have the obligation of figuring out exactly what Alexander Hamilton thought about whatever it was that was in dispute and then assessing how such a thing as 'semi-Alexander Hamiltonianism was arrived at in order to best understand each other's thoughts on the matter. This doesn't seem to strange to me. However, it seems to me that, on this board anyway, 'semi-Pelagianism' is a buzzword that really has nothing to do with historical reality. It also seems to me that the word 'Discussion' at the top of this page is rather a misnomer. On this topic, at least, you and P seem more interested in writing hellfireandbrimstone sermons. As far as your accusations of inconsitancy are concerned: there are none. This is why the historical context is so important. But since your not interested in it, then further discussion would be pointless. Still something I don't understand, coming from a person so interested in history. Not saying that to be mean at all, I just don't understand you at all. And, since you've tried and I've tried, we should probably just leave it there. Please pray for me as I will for you. Chrysostomos

Subject: Prayer on your behalf...
From: Rod
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:53:26 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
has been offered up many times over the last year or so, as I've told you before, Chrys. It has been pretty frequent in the last week or so since you started posting again. You may remember that I promised awhile back to always tell you the truth? What you refer to as 'hellfireandbrimstone sermons' is giving you the truth that you are lost in in great need of the truth of God for salvation. May God bring you in grace to faith in Himself, the God of the Bilbe (Who is not the God you present) and deliver you from being the person described in Heb. 6:4-8.

Subject: Re: Rod
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 10:22:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,
A hearty Amen! Being created in the image of God does not connote some form of 'goodness' is resident in the soul. Indeed it was in Adam before the Fall. But after the transgression, that image was ruined. Now, by this we don't mean that the image was REMOVED..... but so 'defaced' that it is virtually unrecognizable. In practical terms this means that the desire and ability to know God and to do that which He requires is no longer there. When we thus speak of 'Total Depravity' many confuse this and understand us to teach a doctrine of 'Utter Depravity', i.e., that man is as bad as he possibly could be. But this is not true! Man is certainly capable of 'deprovement'. Thus perhaps it would be more helpful to speak of the Scriptures teaching on Original Sin (which has been done by many for hundreds of years) as 'Total Inability'. The problem is a MORAL inability and not a physical impotence. Your illustration of the prostitute paints a correct picture to be sure, but perhaps it can be twisted by those who oppose the doctrine of Original Sin as taught in God's Word to escape the reality of man's fallen condition. I think the description written by Isaiah in 64:6 is most graphic and illustrative of man's natural condition:
Isa 64:6 'But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
The phrase 'filthy rags', highlighted in red in the original Hebrew is a word that literally translated is: 'used menstrual cloth'. Doubtless many would find this disgusting, as probably did the translators, thus the phrase 'filthy rags' was used instead. But this surely leaves no room for an 'end run' to try and escape the truth, that ALL our acts, which we think our at least even acceptable in our estimation are disgusting in God's sight and rejected as filth. Man's greatest need is not 'reformation' but 'recreation'!! We are 'dead' in trespasses and sins and need to be 'born again'. . 'quickened'. . . 'made alive'. . . 'resurrected'! And it is God alone Who has the power to do this. And by grace, this is exactly what He does to those whom He has predestined to be redeemed in the Lord Christ.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Rod
From: Chrysostomos
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 22, 2001 at 22:14:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>Man's greatest need is not 'reformation' but 'recreation'!! We are 'dead' in trespasses and sins and need to be 'born again'. . 'quickened'. . . 'made alive'. . . 'resurrected'! And it is God alone Who has the power to do this. And by grace, this is exactly what He does to those whom He has predestined to be redeemed in the Lord Christ. I agree, wholeheartedly. But these statements do not justify your comments regarding total depravity. This is not suprising, however. It makes sense if one understands that you don't believe God to really want *all* men to come to a knowledge of the truth. In any case, what the Orthodox Church teaches and what I believe is not that man merely requires 'reformation.' Where do you get these ideas? You ought to at least know enough about Orthodoxy from my participation on these boards (if you are so intellectually lazy as to use them as your only understanding of the Church) that what your are railing against is a very straw man. In any case, what you believe is not found prior to Augustine and is directly refuted by Cassian. If you refuse to deal with the sources of these disputes (not a very difficult thing to do), then I have to say that I'm not going to continue with you (not that I think you're concerned about that). Please either respond with something substantive or continue as you please without my participation. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Rod
From: John Stevenson
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 20, 2001 at 08:08:57 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
<<>> The phrase "filthy rags," in the original Hebrew is a bit problematic. A number of translators do have the word being translated as "used menstrual cloth." But the Hebrew is not so simple. This is a hapax legomenon - a phrase used only here in the Old Testament. There are several possible translations. (1) "Clothing of witness" - This would perhaps be a euphemism - a polite way of describing the new wife's garment following her wedding night. The problem is that the term "witness" usually carries a feminine ending when it is in the plural while here it is masculine. (2) "Clothing of departure" - likewise a euphemism for the menstral clothing. In either case, a man's reaction to such a symbol is to say, "Yuck!" [grin] John

Subject: Re: Rod
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:41:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, I remember when I discovered the meaning of 'filthy rags' as you have accurately rendered it. I was shocked as well as enlightened. I almost never point out this meaning when I discuss that verse because it's so gross, but normally ask readers and hearers to research the word on their own, knowing very few will. God looks upon our 'righteousnesses' we wish to present Him in our ignorance and pride, viewing these acts with horror and disgust. I feature Him turning away and retching, to use a human analogy. Semi-Pelagianism is a 'works salvation,' a presentation to God of these very rags which are a revulsion to God. It amazes me that almost no one makes the connection that the important thing is not the 'semi' in 'semi-Pelagianism,' but the heart of the expression, which is the fact that it is still 'Pelagian' in nature, still a true heresy in the same manner that a Lexus is still an automobile, just the same basic thing as a Model T! That is testimony to the fact that God must give us the ability to see and hear with faith in regeneration and salvation. Otherwise, the old man who is dead in trespasses and sin still thinks the disgusting is beautiful and acceptable to God, proving his lost status.

Subject: Homosexuallity/Idol worship
From: Mark
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 16:19:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I was having a discussion with a group of people over the issue of homosexuality. Several people argued that when the OT referes to this it is speaking in tersm of some type of idol worship mixing with homosexuality. They state that the Hebrew cleary shows this. Since I know nothing or at least neaerly nothing about Hebrew I was reall unable to respond to this accept to point to Romans where Pauld brings up the subjct. Is idol worship what God was refering to in the OT?

Subject: Re: Homosexuallity/Idol worship
From: John Stevenson
To: Mark
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 12:16:45 (PST)
Email Address: johnstevenson2@yahoo.com

Message:
<<>> The Hebrew shows nothing of the sort. It IS true that homosexual practices were often a part of Canaanite idolatry, but that is not to say that the injunctions against such practices in the Old Testament were limited to that idolatry.

Subject: Re: Homosexuallity/Idol worship
From: Pilgrim
To: Mark
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 17:08:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I was having a discussion with a group of people over the issue of homosexuality. Several people argued that when the OT referes to this it is speaking in tersm of some type of idol worship mixing with homosexuality. They state that the Hebrew cleary shows this. Since I know nothing or at least neaerly nothing about Hebrew I was reall unable to respond to this accept to point to Romans where Pauld brings up the subjct. Is idol worship what God was refering to in the OT?
---
Mark, I too have read stuff like that on some 'Christian' pro-homosexuality sites. It's pure GARBAGE! There is not one shred of validity to that assertion. The O.T. clearly condemns ALL types of homosexuality as an 'abomination'. And the N.T. is even clearer. No need for me to point you to all the passages where this is spoken of as I'm sure you are familiar with them just as well as I am! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Women revisited
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:59:14 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
We have established the fact (among other things) that the Bible shows that women should not have authority over a man. Would I be correct to say that women shouldn't be bosses then, with men under them? Would that also mean that women can not go up the ladder in the work place? If I take that to its conclusion, it would seem that women should not go into higher education, such as Accounting etc.. Seeing that at one point or another this training will place men under them. If what I said is true, I have a little delema. I would be personally effected by this, and I don't think there would be anything I could do about it. Do you understand what I am saying? Tom

Subject: Re: Women revisited
From: Brother Bret
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 21:31:17 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Brother Tom: I would agree that there are some struggles for us men that have woman bosses because of the way the Lord made us, and the roles in the home and church. But the other brethren correctly pointed out that the context of the passages are in the home and church. As for me? Well I work at a Bank about 27 hours a week. And while there have been several changes at our Branch the last few months, I have 3 women over me (Operations Supervisor, one of the Asst. Managers, Branch Manager). Besides, what of single women, single parents that are women, and younger widows? What are they to do? Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Re: Women revisited
From: Rod
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 08:46:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
BB, Just to stir the pot: I have heard MacArthur say (years ago, don't know if it's his current position) that the church should support those widows (and possibly diviorced women, I can't recall) with children at home so that they may be homemakers and not burdened with jobs and outside responsibilities to the detriment of the family.

Subject: Re: Women revisited
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 15:35:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
We have established the fact (among other things) that the Bible shows that women should not have authority over a man. Would I be correct to say that women shouldn't be bosses then, with men under them? Would that also mean that women can not go up the ladder in the work place? If I take that to its conclusion, it would seem that women should not go into higher education, such as Accounting etc.. Seeing that at one point or another this training will place men under them. If what I said is true, I have a little delema. I would be personally effected by this, and I don't think there would be anything I could do about it. Do you understand what I am saying? Tom
---
Tom,
CONTEXT, Context, context! Rather than me answering your question and bailing you out of your alleged 'dilemma', let me ask you this question. What is the 'arena' the milieu that Paul is addressing when he forbids women to have authority over a man in 1 & 2 Tim and Titus? What is it in the Corinthian epistles? What is it in Ephesians where he speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives? Catch my drift there snowbank? hehe
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Women revisited
From: saved
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 14:26:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. It is just a sign of the times, I think. For example, to have a woman for a state governor, or even holding a position in the senate, or even as a president of the United states --wait until 2004, it is a picture of 'wickedness in high places'. Remember, A woman 'rides the beast' in the last days. When so many women hold these positions of authority over men, we are in trouble! saved

Subject: Re: Women revisited
From: John Stevenson
To: saved
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 17:06:54 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
<> Pilgrim's suggestion to remember the context is appropriate, both to the original question as well as to the symbolism in Revelation. Is the woman in Revelation a woman? Or is this a symbol for something else? Are we talking women and seven headed animals? Or are we more correctly understanding these symbols to refer to political entities? A hint: I would suggest that there is a relationship between the woman of Revelation 17-18 and the woman of Revelation 12. John

Subject: The Everlasting Righteousness
From: saved
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:59:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
A good book that I have been reading is called 'The Everlasting Righteousness' (Or, How shall man be just with God?). It is a small paperback (by Horatious Bonar) and is excellent reading! My favorite chapter is Chapter Six. The publisher is Banner of Truth. If there are any here that are still seeking the assurance of an eternal salvation, this is the book to read! saved

Subject: Forsaking the Assembling together
From: Chris
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:56:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi All, I have a question regarding this subject....Is missing a service or Church activities once and awhile breaking the Command of God to not 'Forsake the Assembling Together'....The reason I am asking this question is sometimes because of sickness or tiredness, we may tend to miss a service....so does that make us quilty of breaking Gods Command?...is that sin?...Sometimes in the past or recently, I have missed one or two Wednesday Night Services and I havent been going to Master Mens...because I am either tired or get home late from work...Then I get affraid that either I may get a lecture or be looked down upon because I missed....' Another thing....We dont meet half as much as they did when the Church was New....does that mean we are 'Forsaking the Assembling Together?' I did a word search about Forsake and another English word from the Greek Word was 'Desert' I do believe it has alot to do with the Attitude of the Heart and the reason many 'Forsake' or 'Desert' is because they may not be really Christians.....but for those who are Christians and have legitimate reasons,I dont see in Scripture where they are breaking a Commandment of God...Please Understand, I am not trying to give a reason to miss coming together....but am trying to make sure that this Scripture Means what Gods intended it to mean..... Thanks for Listening,

Subject: Re: Forsaking the Assembling together
From: John Stevenson
To: Chris
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:00:44 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
No, it isn't. The passage says nothing about, 'Thou shalt not miss a church service for any reason.' John Stevenson www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/jts.html

Subject: Re: Forsaking the Assembling together
From: saved
To: Chris
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:10:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Chris, May I recommend reading the book in the above link that I posted, (The Everlasting Righteousness). BTW, Hebrews was one of the early first epistles or the NT, and was no doubt written before Paul's revelation of the mystery of the body of Christ..as revealed in the prison epistles - see Ephesians and Romans. I think that if you understood how we are justified etenally by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone ( for our eternal justification), you would not be so concerned about missing church (even as important as true Christian fellowship is). No, it is not a 'sin' to miss any church service, the way I see it. God bless you. saved

Subject: Date of Hebrews?
From: John Stevenson
To: saved
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:07:01 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
I would suggest that Hebrews was one of the later books, written from Italy at a time when Timothy had come to Italy and had been imprisoned (Compare Hebrews 13:23-24 with 2 Timothy 4:9,13, 21). This suggests a date of writing that takes place AFTER the writing of 2 Timothy and perhaps ever after the death of Paul. John Introduction to Hebrews www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/hb00.html

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: saved
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 08:23:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Greetings, and thanks for the links! That could be, But I was taught that Hebrews was written *before* the prison epistles, because it has so much to say to Israel about 'not going back to Judiasm'..; if it were written later, it's strange it says NOTHING about the body of Christ, election, and the 'middle wall of pertition taken away'..etc. It has more to say directly to the nation of Israel, and it was very important for them to meet together because of the coming storm of persecution that was to come to the early believers & early church members.Also, they were soon to be scattered all over the world. Also, if it were written after the death of Paul, then who wrote it? It is more likely it was written by Paul himself - very early in his ministry...'before' he was taken up into the third heaven! 2 Cor. 12:2. Just my 2-cents worth...:-) Have a nice day! saved

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: Pilgrim
To: saved
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:53:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
saved,
I have to agree with John and Rod. First, God is the one Who inspired the letter to the Hebrews to be written and for a particular reason. Even the Synoptic Gospels, although similar in many places are unique, because their emphasis is unique and thus intended to speak from a particular perspective. Secondly, if you would read the Greek text of the Pauline epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews, you would easily and clearly see that the grammar and syntax is totally different. It would be near impossible to conclude that Paul was the author of both. The enormous difference between them can be likened to the differences between the writings of Luke and that of the apostle John. Lastly, and I don't intend to open Pandora's Box here, but perhaps your dispensational 'glasses' are playing an inordinate part in influencing you here? There is no reason to make the 'nation of Israel' the litmus test for the origination of authorship. Personally, I can't see any of the N.T. authors being overly concerned at all with the preservation of Israel as a permanent or future Theocracy. The overwhelming focus of the Scriptures is upon the salvation and ingathering of God's elect (the Church) and their ultimate and final reconciliation with God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:39:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Also doesn't the writer of Hebrews state that he himself is NOT an apostle but rather fruit of their work. A '2nd generation christian' so to speak? Five Sola

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: Brother Bret
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 20:43:43 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
That's what I think :^ ). 'How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, AND WAS CONFIRMED UNTO US BY THOSE WHO HEARD HIM.' Didn't Paul here Him personally first hand (Gal.1:1,11-12)? What do you think? Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: Rod
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 09:09:52 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Bret,Please excuse me for butting in. All Apostles must have seen and heard the Lord firsthand. Yet Paul's was an exceptional case; he probably didn't hear the Lord Jesus in His earthly ministry (for lack of a better term) and if he did, he didn't heed. The author is speaking of those who heard Him in the flesh with the ears of faith at the hearing. In Gal. 1:15-20, Paul emphasizes that his knowledge of the Lord is the special gift of the Spirit and grace of God: '...immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood' (verse16). Later he did meet with Peter and James in Jerusalem, but not the other Apostles. He would also know that others were writing (both the inspired accounts and others) of the life of the Lord Jesus, as seems evident by his association with Luke, for example. John S. has put forth the hypothesis that Luke wrote the Epistle, based at least in part no doubt on Luke 1:1-2. I find this all to be inconclusive as to the definite author, but I do believe that Paul would not have been inspired or inclined to leave out the direct revelation he received from the Lord to the glory of God had he been the author. The evidence seems to be as much what was not said as what was said. See also my post below to John.

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: John Stevenson
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:25:18 (PST)
Email Address: johnstevenson2@yahoo.com

Message:
<> Actually, the primary lines of evidence that I used were as follows: 1. It was written in Italy. 2. It was written by a companion of Timothy. 3. It was written as a time when Timothy was in prison (presumably in Italy) but when he was about to be release. 4. It was not written by Paul. 5. When Paul called Timothy to come to Rome, he indicated that he did not have long to live. 6. When Paul called Timothy to come to Rome, he said that of their former companions only Luke was still with him. I agree that this evidence is not conclusive. The epistle could well have been written by someone else of whom we have never heard... like Paul's younger brother, Elmo [just kidding]. John

Subject: John, I vote for Elmo! :^) nt
From: Rod
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:47:35 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: Rod
To: saved
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:31:12 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
saved, If it were written before the death of Paul, then who wrote it? The Spirit of the Almighty God has chosen not to reveal the author to us for His own reasons. He also determined the content of the Epistle, not the human author, accounting ultimately for the fact that the catagories you mention were not dealt with. The fact that the author doesn't mention the things you enumerate may, in fact, be evidence that Paul isn't the author, not evidence of the time period in which it was written. The Epistle does sound Pauline in many places, but not in all respects by any means. We just don't know the human author and it's probably best to leave it at that.

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: John Stevenson
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 16:59:01 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
My own personal opinion is that it was written by Luke very shortly after the death of Paul - take note of who was with Paul just prior to his death. You are correct in that it very much resembles Pauline theology though without his specific style of writing. This would lead us to believe that it was penend by someone very close to Paul. While the author is not named, it is evident from the epistle that it was not anonymous. The readers knew the identity of the author, even if we cannot be certain. And someone has already correctly pointed out that the author makes a distinction in Hebrews 2:3-4 between himself versus those who actually heard Jesus. John

Subject: Re: Date of Hebrews?
From: Rod
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 20:43:41 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
John, I personally would like for it to have been Paul (don't ask me why, it's just something I'd like), but I don't think it was. I find the tone more Pauline in the latter chapters than in the earlier ones. I don't see that chapter 2, verses 3 & 4, preclude it being Paul. There is no record of Paul having heard or not heard the Lord Jesus prededing His death and resurrection that I can find. He did have direct dealing with him on the Damascus road and in Arabia for three years apparently as he was taught by the Lord. Verse three deals simply with what was 'at the first...spoken by the Lord,' not revelation which came afterward. The omission of any testimony of Paul's direct relationship to the Lord in receiving direct communication and witness from the Lord Jesus, as an Apostle must, might be stronger evidence that the author was someone other than he than what was said about the original Apostles. If that's what you were getting at, I might tend to agree. As for the identity of the author being known by the initial audience, I think that has to be a given. How else would the receivers know whether to give it weight as a credible source from a leader/teacher/prophet otherwise? But it seems clear that God has not intended and doesn't presently intend for us to know the author. If the author were Luke, the Spirit of God had him change his tone and style considerably (not impossible) from the gospel and Acts, it seems to me.

Subject: A MESSAGE ABOUT THESE FORUMS
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:07:47 (PST)
Email Address: thehighway@gospelcom.net

Message:
Attention all faithful participants and 'lurkers'! :-)
There has been a change in the policy with the people who own the forum software we are using. The Highway does not own the software, as it is not sold but only leased. Two significant changes have taken place which I think you should all be aware of: 1) The cost for leasing these non-ad forums has been increased by 2 1/2 times the previous amount. 2) The advertising banners, etc., which are placed on the 'Free Boards' has also been increased as well as the type of ads being used. Some are morally objectionable as well as being invasive to the visitors. Therefore, we are in the process of securing our own Bulletin Board software and setting up the three current forums elsewhere. However, this is no easy task and it does take time to get this accomplished. So, here's what to expect: we are not going to renew the lease for these boards and thus they will be reverted to an 'Ad Sponsored' format. There will be banners, etc. appearing in at least three places. Some may be offensive. It cannot be emphasized enough, that we at The Highway are not responsible for the content of these ads, nor are we able to control them in any way. Secondly, the presence of this advertising will increase the loading time of the forums. Again, this is something we have no control over. When our new system is installed and operative, the new location will be posted here and on the other two forums. You will always be able to find information about them by visiting the home page of The Highway and clicking on the links for these forums located there. We deeply regret this situation, but we are confident all things will be worked out and the results will be an improvement in many ways. Your patience and understanding is needed at this time. If you have any questions or comments about this situation, please send them to me via e-mail.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Salvation
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 14:22:16 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I just had a conversation with someone, who believes it is possible for someone to come to faith in Christ, with out ever even hearing the name of Christ. They tried to tell me that since it is Christ that saves through faith, not knowledge that saves. Anyone, who says that preaching of the gospel is the only means that one can come to salvation, is making God smaller than He is. I told this person that no one could know about the way of salvation without some prior knowledge of the way of salvation. Of course this person brought up Romans chapter one verses 18-20, that talks about everyone knowing that there is a God through His creation. I replied that knowing that there is a God and knowing the one true God are two different things. Although this person agreed with that, she said that there is no where in scripture that proves that God can’t save a person with out the Bible. I told her that I think there is scripture that says otherwise, however, even if there wasn’t. It is better to go with what the Bible does say about the issue. In other words the burden of proof should be on her. We shouldn’t speculate on matters like this. Like I said, I believe the Bible does show that it is only through the gospel that we can know of anything about salvation. Can someone show me where that can be found? This person isn’t saying that the main way someone does come to faith is through he preaching of the gospel. They just think it may not be the only means, since God can do anything. Tom

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:32:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
This question, whether the 'natives in Africa', etc., are saved because they 'didn't have the chance to hear about Christ' is typical but not restricted to Arminian theology. Billy Graham and the Pope both affirm that all those who haven't had the 'chance' to hear the gospel will either be saved, or according to Billy Graham and countless other Protestants, 'will be given a second chance' after they die. This is without doubt a complete denial of God's purpose in sending His Son to take on human flesh and to die in behalf of all those who God wills to be saved. It also denies God's indisputable sovereignty in countless ways; e.g., God can't get the job done during a person's lifetime due to the stubbornness of heart, etc. What the Scriptures teach and of which Calvinism has historically affirmed, is that ALL THOSE whom God has predestinated will be saved. Secondly, that the normal means by which men are saved is through the preaching of the Word or an ancillary means, e.g., individual witnesses who proclaim the gospel, missionaries, the private reading of the Word, etc. It seems that a fundamental truth is forever forgotten, that is that God ordains the MEANS as well as the end. Thus all those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be brought into contact with the Word and hear the name of the Lord Christ. There is no 'second chance' and none is needed, for God is able and does accomplish all things necessary to save the elect. If a tribe of people in Africa has been without the knowledge of salvation in Christ, it is because God has not willed that they be saved. PERIOD! God is not under any obligation to save any man, woman or child, for all are under condemnation due to their corruption of nature and their ownership of the imputed guilt merited by Adam. Thus salvation is a GRACIOUS act of God which He gives to whomsoever He chooses. I would agree that there is no human being who is unable to be saved by the grace of God. This would include infants, those with severe mental disorders, etc. These, as all have affirmed are exceptions and not the rule. Nor are they to be used to deduce that since salvation can and does come to such, that there just might be other 'methods' by which God saves. The faith necessary to apprehend Christ and His the merits of His atonement is also a gift of God, given at the time of regeneration. Since this regeneration is a secret work and independent of man, there are no obstacles which can prevent anyone from being saved. Heb 9:27 'And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: . . .' At conception, the individual is liable to judgment unless God breathes new life into the soul and the Lord Christ reveals Himself to that person. We don't have to commit any sin to be damned, for we are 'children of wrath' by virtue of who we ARE. Will this deep and difficult truth ever be taken into our hearts? Salvation is all of GRACE... and neither unborn children, mentally handicapped, feeble old women, natives in Africa, or anyone is deserving of God's infinite grace. That God has even taken an interest in the plight of sinful mankind is incomprehensible. Let this truth humble us into the dust and cast off any idea that men can be saved outside of Christ as He is proclaimed in the blessed gospel, the power of which saves men.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 14:24:44 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim What you have stated hit to the heart of the matter. God is indeed able to reach any of His elect by the preaching of the word. If someone is elect, God will reach that person, regardless of their situation. Of course if one believes that the word 'elect' should be interpreted the way Arminian's take it to mean. Then they will not except that arguement. But the scriptures are clear on this matter. However, that doesn't mean that everyone will see that clarity (if at all)in the same time span. My own testamony proves that. It took me years of study to see it. Tom Tom

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: Brother Bret
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:32:18 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
How about James 1:18 and 1Peter 1:23? Both equation the new birth with the word of God as the means. Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: Five Sola
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 21:20:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, oh I just love those...'saved by faith' that is all that matters, not what is believe, yada,yada... I usually just ask them 'faith in what?' It is not a blind nebulus faith in nothing. If they reply 'faith in Christ/God' then ask which God or which christ? the christ of the JW.. an angel who worked to become a god? or the christ of the liberal who is just a man and a good teacher and has NO divinity? etc. Hopefully they catch it by then, that the faith must be based on truth. I think you did good and in addition to Rod's statements you should be fine. I guess I just get cranky with particular questions/objections and have trouble giving a 'good answer'. A problem I need to work on, but they are just so irratating. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 15:39:04 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, 'For by grace are ye saved through faith...' (Eph. 2:8) and in addition to the excellent answer you supplied with Rom. 1:18-20, I would urge you to invite her to back up to verses 16-17 where the faith of one witnessing to a chosen one of God concerning God's truth creates and increases faith in that person. And also, ask her to explain away Rom. 10:17 which reiterates that very fact. As Paul affirms, 'For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe' (1 Cor. 1:21). They believe what they hear and read from God's Word unto salvation. It is God's chosen way. That is the normal and chosen method of God's salvation for men. But, if these friends are speaking of mentally deficient persons and infants who die, deaf mutes and the like whom God may chose to save, then I consider these exceptions to the normal channel of God using the hearing of the Word as all of us undoubtedly did. These are not able to hear the testimony in the same way as the vast majority of people are.

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 00:05:41 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod From the conversation that I had with her, I think she would agree that the preaching of the word is God's normal way of saving people. I know that because of the importance she places on evangelism. She would also agree with you, when you said: 'But, if these friends are speaking of mentally deficient persons and infants who die, deaf mutes and the like whom God may chose to save, then I consider these exceptions to the normal channel of God using the hearing of the Word as all of us undoubtedly did. These are not able to hear the testimony in the same way as the vast majority of people are.' However, she would also add people that never get a chance to hear the gospel. Such as those who are in the jungles of Africa. She seems to believe that in those cases God would reach them, much the same way God does with infants, and mentally handicapped people. As a side note, although I agree with you about the exceptions. I do so because it makes sence to me. Not because I see that evidence in the scriptures. Do you know of any scriptures that speak of this exception? Tom

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:34:25 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, Please read 2 Sam. 12:23; Jonah 4:11 (Who are those who 'cannot discern their right hand from their left hand', of whom there are thousands?); Judges 13:5 and 7; and Job 31:15. Also, it seems that Psalm 58:3 indicates that one is not 'wicked' until after his birth and subsequent actions, though he is bent to it while in the womb. That those I have enumerated are saved isn't directly stated, but I think God's intentions are clear. There is, so far as I can tell in the Church Age, no one else saved apart from faith in the delivered testimony of the Word of God. Faith coming by 'hearing' and 'How shall they hear without a preacher?' (see Rom. 10:14-15). It is, as 1 Cor. 1 says, God's 'chosen' method of salvation.

Subject: addendum
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 14:21:29 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Just so there will be no understanding of my statement above: ''Also, it seems that Psalm 58:3 indicates that one is not 'wicked' until after his birth and subsequent actions, though he is bent to it while in the womb,'' I'm not indicating that such aren't under the curse of Adam and not under God's judgment. What I was trying to say is that the 'wicked' as designated in the Psalm are those living past infancy and committing sins which reflect the child of Adam, not the child of God. That would not apply as a permanent designation of an unborn child or a severely mentally handicapped person, a Hellen Keller-type who couldn't communicate, etc. whom God had predestinated to salvation. God is completely able to get his truth to such persons and clearly must do it in some other manner than the "normal channel." We must remember in regard to the "jungle people" that all peoples at one time knew about God, according to the direct testimony of the Bible (see Rom. 1:19-32). These "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (verse 26) and consequently, "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind..." (verse 28). That is a description of all lost people, particularly the Gentiles, and it lets all the air out of the "God will save them anyway" hypothesis.

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: scott lewis
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 21:33:02 (PST)
Email Address: navyrdc@megsinet.net

Message:
Just a few verse that come to mind right off the bat to think about. Gal 3:2 This the only thing i want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ. scott

Subject: Re: Salvation
From: laz
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:00:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Might it be possible that just as God probably has another way (a secret way, Gen 29:29 - an exception we are simply NOT privy to) to reach deaf, mute, mentally impaired, etc....that He might also have 'another way' to reach the pygmy in the jungles of Borneo? If He does...wouldn't that make the preaching of the Gospel pointless since God is going to save regardless of whether a person hears the Gospel or not? Thinking out loud..... laz

Subject: Women's Rights and God
From: laz
To: Any Liberals/Feminists
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 18:20:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I gotta ask any feminists/liberals out there who may contend that those backward fundamentalist Baptist (me being a Presby), so much in the news lately, take the Bible way too seriously or out of context (or take it too literally), failing to properly qualify Paul according to the modern times we live in, as it relates to husbands being 'over' the wife...the wife submitting to her husband. Which parts of the following section in Ephesians do we leave in...i.e., obey...which parts do we disregard on account of our 'modern' and more liberating/enlightened society? Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Ephesians chapter 6 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. OK...I saw these four basic commandments: 1) Husbands, LOVE your wives, LOTS!! 2) Wives, have reverence for and submit to Hubby. 3) Children, obey your parents. 4) Everyone, honor your father/mother. Where does ANYONE get off picking and choosing from these four commandents which were given in a single setting? Where does someone get off suggesting and teaching that in modern times (whatever THAT is with respect to a timeless and transcendent God), we can now disregard #2 because God didn't really know what He was talking about when He inpired Paul to pen those words? Does anyone really think they know better than Almighty God? If we are at liberty to read the Bible and pick and choose what's relevant to us and what's not....does not the Bible merely become simply a decent book with good ideas that may or may not apply to us? Who decides what applies? Should our kids therefore be free to not obey us if their enlightened conscience dictates to them that this command to obey parents is an outdated notion to begin with? Should diss'ing our father/mother be something that ought to be accepted in a free society as just another alternative lifestyle choice? I recall that if you break ONEcommandment ... you're guilty of breaking them ALL. But then again, liberals don't really care to keep ANY of them...much less concern themselves with breaking them. I say, despise the Word of God...despise God! laz

Subject: Re: Women's Rights and God
From: Webservant
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 11:13:30 (PST)
Email Address: webservant@stratfordopc.org

Message:
Though feminists (self proclaimed spokeswomen for all women)love to crusade for 'women's rights' we somehow seem to never hear anything from them about women's responsibilities. For example, women are said to have reproductive rights, but they almost never bear responsibility for supporting their offspring, and they bear no responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancies, though they are allowed to butcher their babies to relieve themselves of the consequences of their actions. Patriarcy is a dirty word these days, yet it is biblical to have a patriarchal home. Not only should wives be submissive to their husbands, I also believe that they have no business being behind a pulpit, or a bench, or being a public official. I am not sure whether or not they should be allowed to vote. I would be interested in hearing some debate on both sides of the issue. Also, check out the new web ring on the Stratford Orthodox Presbyterian Church web site, called 'Feminism on Trial'. It can be found on a web page that also contains a sermon in RealAudio entitled, 'Christian Feminism'. Warning to Liberals: This sermon is not politically correct! Christian Feminism www.stratfordopc.org/ChristianFeminism.htm

Subject: What I don't understand....
From: Anne
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:51:43 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
....is what is difficult to grasp about my being forbidden, as one of the female persuasion, from teaching or leading because when Eve did it she made such a hash out of it. Since Adam was our federal head, it was his sin that put the whammy on all people, both male and female. What is unjust about women having a little extra restriction put on us because of Eve? If it is just for us to be included in the penalty for Adam's malfeasance - and it is - then there can be no logical objection to our being banned from teaching and leading because of Eve. It's essentially the same thing, is it not, just on a smaller scale? It seems illogical for someone to accept Adam's penalty yet balk at a mere temporal restriction due to Eve's sin. In Him, Anne

Subject: Re: What I don't understand....
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:13:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne,
The 'rub' comes from, as Rod said, PRIDE. But even more fundamental is the inherent rebellion we all have against all law; and more so in regard to God's law. We seem to think that 'law' inherently is a bad thing; that it restricts us from that which otherwise would give us freedom to do and enjoy. Thus 'law' connotes something negative. Hear how this odious lie was first introduced:
Genesis 3:1 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'
Doubtless there is much more contained in this text than I will bring out, but consider the following:
    1) Satan immediately plants in the mind of Eve the erroneous idea that a single law equates to universal restriction. 2) God's goodness, generosity and loving providence is brought into question since He forbid one solitary item to His creatures. 3) God's wisdom was implied to be inferior to that of the creature. 4) God's right to sovereignly rule over His creation is brought before the bar of creature-wisdom and the erroneous idea that the creature has an inherent right to live autonomously.
If I may paraphrase the words of the Deceiver, he spoke to Eve in this manner: 'IF God truly loved you; IF God genuinely cared about your happiness; IF God truly was concerned about your well-being; IF God was at all interested in seeing you grow and mature as a human being; He would not have forbid you the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. However, since He did forbid you this simple and delightful 'treat', He only has His own best interests in mind and therefore you are but so much chattel. Are you going to stand for this type of insensitive and self-serving treatment? Just who does God think He is anyway?' It should not surprise us that in this particular case, that some women and men, together with them, find God's specific instructions for the church and its institution and operation to be something 'restrictive' and therefore to be questioned and even rejected.
John 8:44 'Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: We're all proud creatures, aren't we? nt
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:38:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: Re: I checked with ...
From: Stan
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 20:07:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
my wife and she says you should reject the first three verses and then the rest of them and anything else we can put off to custom .......... ;-) AMEN on the post!

Subject: arminianism
From: ephraim
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 18:13:58 (PST)
Email Address: gershom@sympatico.ca

Message:
I have a question. Is arminianism a heresy? I accept that denial of the divinity of Our Lord or of the Trinity is ouright heresy, but can we put arminianism in the same category?

Subject: Re: arminianism
From: Rod
To: ephraim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:29:04 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Ephraim, This is a very complicated situation. 'Is Arminianism a heresy?' It most definitely is as the other respondants have indicated. It is because it directly denies the express Word of God as excellently summarized by Pilgrim. But it doesn't deny all the Word of God. That in itself isn't a guarantee of acceptable service to the Lord or of Christianity. Even cultic groups adhere to some Scriptures. Yet the recognition that salvation is from the Lord through Jesus Christ by grace through faith is the key. An Arminiam may not understand all that in its entirety, may hate the teaching of sovereign grace, and still be saved, I think. I base that on my own situation. I believed and taught Arminian principles, but knew that salvation was from the Lord. That is what the others mean when they say that Arminians often aren't consistent and cannot actually truly believe what they profess on the subject. The fact that salvation is of the Lord and the Lord places us in a sanctified position when He saves us means that we don't have to understand all about salvation to experience it, but that, if we are elect and saved, the Lord God will give us enough knowledge to be saved and give us the grace to 'call on the Name of the Lord,' as the Bible sets forth in necessity of salvation. There are some who will say I am espousing 'easy believism', but such is not the case--a careful reading of that last paragraph will give the lie to that charge. To one who is untaught and full of pride it can and does seem that he cooperates with God in getting himself saved. But God can, and I believe will, reach his true child with the truth of sovereign grace, bringing him to the realization that it is all a gift of God (as Eph. 2:1-10 most definitely teaches). Such a person realizes ultimately, again by God's grace, that he is a beneficiary and recipient of God's work in him because he is indwelt and taught by the Scriptures and cannot deny God's revealed truth. So, when you ask: 'Can we put Arminians in the same catagory as those who deny the divinity of our Lord or the Trinity?' I have to say, 'No.' A Christian by definition is one who is 'in Christ' by the sovereign will and action in grace of God. Such a person will not deny the divinity of the Lord and/or the Trinity. And God's grace will not allow him to make a fatal error in his spiritual life because all the saints will persevere by God's grace. But, I have to assert and emphasize that all who profess are not actual Christians. So, it is possible to be a professing Christian in an 'Arminian' church and be lost. Semi-Pelagianism contains the error that man has some spark of good in him which enables him to cooperate with God in his salvation, as some several participants on the forum have asserted in the last few months. Yet the child of God who loves God and His Word must study that Word and come to the realization that such a presupposition is in direct conflict with such verses as, 'There is none righteous, no, not one...there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:10-11). When the truth of those statements comes home to the heart of the child of God, he understands Paul's assertion, 'For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing' (Rom. 7:18). The lost man is totally in the flesh and God's Word repeatedly says that there is nothing in him which wants God or salvation. A saved person must come to recognize the truth of that doctrine; it is undeniable. It is God's solemn truth.

Subject: Re: arminianism
From: JohnS
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 12:20:36 (PST)
Email Address: methos1957@hotmail.com

Message:
I find myself substantially in agreement with this.

Subject: salvation and knowledge
From: FredW
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:45:44 (PST)
Email Address: fred__w@hotmail.com

Message:
Hi Rod, I haven't posted in a while, but wanted to comment on a statement made in your email. To refresh your memory, I am a 5-point Calvinist and agree with your email 99%. R: ...the Lord will give us enough knowledge to be saved... FW: I would say the Lord can save someone even without imparting any knowledge whatever. Such could be the case in an infant or in the case of a mentally challenged. I believe the knowledge is given to help us in issues of assurance and living among others (i.e evangelizing, discerning, encouraging). Your comment?

Subject: Re: salvation and knowledge
From: Rod
To: FredW
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:25:05 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Fred, I am a '5 pointer' too, but I don't use the term 'Calvinist' very often any more, preferring 'sovereign gracer.' :^) In the case of the overwhelming majority of folks, such as you and I, who have intelligence and characteristics and senses in the normal range, it seems incontrovertible that these must have knowledge to be saved. In Pilgim's well done response to you below, he refers to the method of salvation. In God's chosen way (testimony, preaching of the revealed truth), the regenerated person is given new life first, but is not yet come to faith, not yet saved. He will be saved for he now has a new heart and will to be so and he is saved (seemingly on the human view of things) almost simultaneously, but the justification by faith doesn't come until the faith is imparted to him on the basis of revealed truth from God. Faith has the knowledge God requires as an object, so that some basic knowledge is an essential part of that faith (Rom. 10;17). I don't know of course, but I am inclined to believe that God grants sufficent basic revelation with regeneration to those other catagories of people we listed that they have faith also in order to be saved: 'For by grace are ye [plural] saved through faith; and that not of yourselves [plural], it is the gift of God--not of works, lest any man should boast. For we [plural] are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before prepared that we [plural] should walk in them' (Eph. 2:8-10). The emphasis of the plurality here seems to indicate that all God's people are saved in the same manner, by grace through faith. That would necessitate some revelation being imparted to every person in Christ's body so that faith might exist. In the case of the 'exceptional' people, it would have to be given strictly internally rather than through testimony of another person. In any event, all saved folks would be 'created [by God] in Christ Jesus,' in being granted new life by grace unto salvation. Note that, 'When Elisabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit' (Luke 1:41). Elisabeth had not known that Mary was pregnant, it seems clear from the context, but it is also clear that she received revelation at that greeting that 'the mother of my Lord' (verse 43) had come to her. Her unborn child leapt at the same impulse of revelation, which seems very significant. Hope this helps clarify.

Subject: Re: salvation and knowledge
From: Pilgrim
To: FredW
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 08:35:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FredW,
Welcome back! :-) I am aware that your reply is directed at Rod, so I hope you aren't averse to me jumping in here? Could it be that you are looking at 'knowledge' in a too narrow way? We know that justification is by faith alone. It doesn't appear that the Scriptures make any exceptions to this fact. To do otherwise is to assume that which isn't actually revealed. We do know that God does save the elect infants. I ask you, Would it be so strange that since salvation is all of grace, that the Spirit who by His infinite power brings the dead to life, also works in the same way to regenerate the spiritually dead souls of all those who are incapable of expressing the fruit (faith) of that regeneration? And thus having been regenerated, the very essence of that person thus reaches out to Christ in the same way that a cognizant adult does? What I am trying to get you to consider is that when we, as mature adults, profess with our mouths the Lord Jesus, this outward expression is just that; an outward expression of that which resides in our heart of hearts. Surely the God of all creation is able to communicate with all of His creatures, e.g., drawing a multitude of fish into the nets of weary fisherman, directing the migration of birds, the caribou, etc. Would it therefore be a thing too difficult for God to quicken the dead soul of an individual just conceived and reveal Himself to this person; opening the way to Christ? Granted, this too is but speculation, but I think it is a viable one since it is consistent with the way and means that God has ordained to reconcile sinners to Himself while preserving His ineffable holiness and the integrity of His justice.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: arminianism
From: Pilgrim
To: ephraim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 20:51:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ephraim,
Five Sola is right for the most part; Arminianism is a heresy. The reason is that it denies GOD'S method of salvation. The Scriptures teach that salvation is of the LORD (Jonah 2:9). That it is all of GRACE (Eph 2:8,9). Arminian teaches that faith is a necessary prerequisite that grants regeneration, while the Scriptures teach that faith is the necessary consequence of regeneration (John 1:12,13; Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13; Titus 3:5; etc.) Thus faith, in the Arminian system becomes a 'work' for it is the 'deciding factor', generated from a man's alleged free-will. For indeed, according to the Arminian all men are equally 'able' to believe if they so will. This is a clear contradiction of the Lord Christ's words in John 6:44, where He says that 'no man can come to me unless the Father Who sent me draw him.' (cf. Jh 5:40). Again, it contradicts the teaching of the apostle Paul who says that 'no man seeks after God . . .' (Rom 3:11; cf. Rom 8:7,8; 1Cor 2:14, etc.) And this is just the beginning. Arminianism denies that the death of Christ actually secures the salvation of anyone, but rather it only served to make salvation possible. Further, Arminianism teaches that man has the power and ability to not only reject Christ as He is offered in the gospel, but he also has the power to resist the Holy Spirit Who has been sent to bring him to Christ by the eternal decree and will of God. And finally, but certainly not the last item that Arminianism errs on, is that it teaches that those who have come to faith in Christ can ultimately be lost and be damned to perdition if they so choose. But the Scriptures clearly teach that all those who the Father gave to Jesus Christ and for whom He suffered substitutionally will infallibly be saved (Jh 6:37-39; 10:27-29; Col 3:3,4; 1Pet 1:3-5; Rom 8:29,30; etc.). However, I would have to say that if a person who holds to the doctrines of Arminianism, which today is more Semi-Pelagianism, and really believes and trusts in them, them they are yet genuinely converted and they are still under the just judgment and wrath of God. I fear that the majority of Evangelicals who profess to believe in Christ are in this situation and don't realize it. Therefore, while I do believe in foreign missions, I feel that the largest mission field today is in the U.S.A. and Canada.
In His Grace, Pilgrim PS. There are many articles on Arminianism and comparisons of it with Calvinism on The Highway web site. Check here: The Highway home page. And more specifically here: Calvinism and the Reformed Faith. For a brief comparison between biblical Calvinism and Arminianism see here: A Brief Comparison Between Calvinism and Arminianism

Subject: Re: arminianism
From: Five Sola
To: ephraim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 19:41:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ephraim, I would have to say that Arminianism if followed consistently is a non-christian belief system and could rightly be called a Heresy, BUT I must say that I have rarely met a arminian who follows arminianism in their life consistently. I mean that most will preach it but not live it. I will also add something since I might be misunderstood: I do not believe that Arminians are non-christians. There are still our brothers/sisters in Christ, fooled by satan but part of the church nonetheless. If someone were to go to the extreme of full Pelagianism that is another story and I would have to seriously doubt their salvation (ie, pelagius, Charles Finney). Five Sola

Subject: Was John the Baptist, Elijah?
From: Chris
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:01:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brethren, This is a Subject that I have come across before as I read some passages in the Scriptures....'Was John the Baptist, Elijah...' Of course we know that Elijah was carried away in a Fiery Chariot...and therefore never died....but what about Jesus' comments in Matthew 11:7-15.....I have heard a couple of people say that it dealt with John the Baptist being the the spirit and power of Elijah....but why does Jesus put so much emphasis on this issue and say 'And if you will recieve it, this is Elijah which was to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.....This is what has got my attention....and makes me think that John the Baptist was Literally ELijah who never had died. I would appreciate some input and instruction in this matter....

Subject: Re: Was John the Baptist, Elijah?
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 15:17:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris,
John the Baptist, a preacher of repentance and faith, was accordingly the Elijah who was to come. Like the Elijah of old, John too was a preacher of repentance. The two resembled each other also in the character of their appearance, the incisiveness of their message, and the simplicity of their life. True, John was not literally Elijah (cf Jh 1:21), but inwardly he was indeed, for 'he went forth in the spirit and power of Elijah.' (Luke 1:17), and was therefore called Elijah by the Lord Christ. That Malachi 3:1 refers indeed to John the Baptist as Messiah's herald is clear from the fact that this way-preparer is evidently 'Elijah the prophet' of Malachi 4:5, which in turn, is John the Baptist, according to Christ's own words (Matt 11:14). Thus interpreted, the meaning of Mal 3:1 must be:
Take note, I Jehovah, send my messenger, John the Baptist, to be the forerunner of thee, the Messiah. The forerunner's task is to prepare everything — especially the hearts of the people (Mal 4:6) — for thy coming.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Was John the Baptist, Elijah?
From: laz
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 10:47:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris - I will not presume to instruct you. lol But, my pastor did address this matter as we went thru John. I agree with what you've heard...John came in the Spirit and power of Elijah...as the one 'crying in the wilderness...to make straight the way of the Lord'. But John also denies that he IS Elijah (John 1:25) So, John is only Elijah metaphorically, but not literally...just as Jesus is a 'door', a 'hen' ... metaphorically...but not literally. Must be a Hebrew thing. blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Weeeellll ...
From: stan
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 21:23:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
you said: makes me think that John the Baptist was Literally ELijah who never had died. If that be true then Scripture be false - not an acceptable deal to accept in my mind ;-) Luke 1.13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. If John was the spirit of E. then maybe we have cloning in the Scripture - oh, excuse the clowning :-P

Subject: Woman Minister
From: Sherry
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 15:56:19 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.com

Message:
First I would like to say I am now out of this form this is a backward way of thinking I am very much for woman in the minister. I am a Presbyterain and for woman minister as for a man ruling a woman no my saying is nobody rule me and nobody own me. This is Baptist fundamentalism talk and my Dad taught me that I can be educate as well as do what I want in live. I wish to be equal to men and women. Minister has told me to stay out of this forum because of fundamenttalism and that they like to have there writing in print. If a man misuse a woman that wrong to and as for woman sitting still and not allow to speak that wrong to.

Subject: Re: Woman Minister
From: Cristina
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 17:02:47 (PST)
Email Address: lush1776@home.com

Message:
dear Sherry, If you beleive your bible to be the Word of God and to be true all you need to do is look at these verses and it tells you what God says about women's role in the church: 1 Corinthians 14:34,35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 1 Timothy 2:11,12 “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” From these few verses of Scriptures, we have a direct command for women to be silent in Church and not to teach, nor usurp authority over the man. This word “teach” is the same word that is given for qualification to the bishop in 1 Timothy 3:2 along with being the husband of one wife.According to Titus 2:4, women are to teach the younger women. Ladies can encourage, edify, exhort, comfort, or give their testimony to help others...what a role to fulfill..God has given all roles to live by..it's a matter of excepting these rolls and happily serve God. I have no problem serving under a man's leadership because first a foremost I am serving my Father..please take time and study more of what God has to say on this subject...and I feel these folks here are trying to minister to you because of their love for you and concern for you Love in Christ Cristina

Subject: Re: Cracks me up ...
From: stan
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 21:15:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
when people can't comply with Scripture they blame it on the Baptists ;-) HEY!! A big BACKROW BAPTIST AMEN on the Scripture that has been given, trust the Spirit can use it to His advantage in the readers lives! stan

Subject: Re: Woman Minister
From: Five Sola
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:02:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sherry, a few points... 'I am a Presbyterain and for woman minister as for a man ruling a woman no my saying is nobody rule me and nobody own me.' First, God owns you, and rules you, thus you must submit to His teaching in scripture. Second, I don't think we said a man 'rules' a woman, but God has said for man to LOVE their wives and wives to SUBMIT to their husbands. Any man who acts as a tyrant, holding his authority over a woman like a whip IS WRONG and not deserving of the title 'man'. Rather a husband is to be the Head of his home and that involves loving his 'wife even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for it' (Eph 5:25) you say: 'This is Baptist fundamentalism talk' How funny, many of the people who responded to you are Presbyterian as I am. In fact this is a teaching found in Holy Scripture and has been taught by the church ,including the Presbyterian church (until the PCUS & PCUSA became liberal and left the teachings of scripture), since the begining. Only recently with the uprising of pagan & unbiblical Femenism did this doctrine begin to be doubted. you say: 'I wish to be equal to men and women' Well you are equal in God's image, you are no less worthy of respect, honor, love, etc. than a man, but God (not any of us) has put you in a different ROLE when it comes to issues of leadership, marriage, etc. You have a different duty than a man. A good illustration of this is that a hammer and a wrench both are valuable tools and have their specific jobs but a hammer is not good at tightening nuts, bolts, etc., and a wrench is not good at hammering nails. They could both complete the job (probably) but that was not their task they were designed for. God Designed Woman and Men for different task and to try otherwise is to cast doubt on the wisdom of God. Personally, I could never sit under the leadership of a woman pastor/elder (obvious reasons aside) because if she could not interpret the CLEAR teachings on woman not in leadership then I couldn't trust her teaching in ANY part of the Bible. you say: 'Minister has told me to stay out of this forum because of fundamenttalism and that they like to have there writing in print.' :-) Is your minister a woman? if so then OF COURSE she said this. she is afraid you might see God's truth instead of her lies. As for having our stuff 'in print' it ALREADY IS it's called 'the bible' :-) you say: 'If a man misuse a woman that wrong to' No man should misuse a woman none of us are saying that, nor would anyone on this forum (that I know) would support that. you say 'and as for woman sitting still and not allow to speak that wrong to.' ??? I guess you are saying GOD IS WRONG!? ( 1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.) Sherry, I urge you to study the scriptures on this issue for they are clear on it's teaching. At least to see if you pastor is right. Also a good book I will recomend again is 'Different by design' by John Macarthur Jr. it is only $6-$8 at www.cvbbs.com Five Sola

Subject: Re: Woman Minister
From: lurker
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:48:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Amen Five Sola....Sherry needs to be like the Bereans Paul praises if she is to avoid falling in the pit she is currently treading at its edge. Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. If Paul expected his teachings to be tested by the people in light of scripture....Sherry's teachers/pastors should require no less. Are they better than the great Apostle Paul? lurker

Subject: Re: Woman Minister
From: Rod
To: lurker
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:52:36 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
luker, The painfully obvious thing is that there is thus far no evidence that Sherry has read the Scriptures. She, sadly, neither adheres to them nor uses them. I pray she will be delivered from this deception.

Subject: Oh really?
From: laz
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 17:23:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sherry - clearly your church has no intention on submitting to the Word of God (having left sound biblical teaching DECADES ago) ....just as I suspected in my last post to you where I compared your church leadership to that of ancient Israel who preferred to think, live and 'worship' like the demonic and pagan cultures around them. Your church's practices are no more 'christian' (and God honoring) than those of Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Unitarian Universalists...and the rest - WORSE even for it knew better in another time!! Your church leadership wants no part of the God of the Bible - preferring to treat those of any stripe who heed 'every word that procedes out of the mouth of God' - as Jesus COMMANDED, with utter contempt. They hate the truth because the truth is not in them. It's easy to call names (e.g., fundamentalists) .... but it's a lot tougher to defend your beliefs in the market place of ideas...as Paul did on Mars Hill. I'd like for your leadership to defend their novel views here, on this Forum .... it's been slow...we can use the excitement. haha! As for men 'ruling over women'...that's a strawman argument by your church to appeal to your own sinful sense of autonomy and self will - you are truly Adam's daughter! You will not have God or your husband 'rule' over you, eh? Not even for your OWN GOOD?! Like Burger King in America...your church believes in 'have it YOUR way'. Forget God's way....we make up our own rules. Who wants to be named with the 'fundamentalists'? Hey, I can think of worse things to be called. If I'm a fundamentalist who loves the Bible...your church leaders are liberals who despise the Bible...and therefore God himself. There, I said it. Furthermore, biblical husbands (the kind that TRUE Presbyterian Churches produce) don't 'rule' over their brides, but love them, nurture them, protect them, honor them, and even willingly die for them if required as Christ died for His bride. And biblical wives I know praise God each night for such loving, attentive, caring, self-sacrificing, husbands who model Christlikeness! Godly husbands to be sure! Biblical husbands wash their wives feet and loving serve them as Christ, the 'head', served His disciples and eventually took to the Cross FOR them. Husbands, as 'heads' of the wife, (as the Bible says!) do the same for their wives. You really have a problem with THAT? Don't you want your husband to treat you as Christ would? I'd really like to know what you consider a good and godly husband and how it would square up with the Bible's definition of a good and godly husband. I pity you...for you know not what you say! You SHOULD WANT a biblical husband....but will not likely find one in your current Church. When you marry (I'm assuming you're single) ... also consider hiring a good divorce attorney for odds are you will need one if you continue to believe your church's lies about the nature of holy matrimony as designed by God, described in the Bible, modeled by Jesus, and commanded to be lived by Christ himself. The best spouses are those who love God and His Word first and foremost.... 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. May God, by means of His Word and Spirit, deliver you from their lies and grant you repentence and discernment. In Him, Laz p.s. I think you need to meet some of these fundamentalist husbands and their wives and children. I want my daugther to marry a man just like me...I will die happy knowing that she will be adorned, honored and cherished by a man who only wants to please God and her above all else. My daughter would undoubtedly want a husband just like her dad (me) for she sees just how blessed her mom is (and dad too for I have a wonderful, faithful and submissive/biblical wife!). Oh, and I see nothing wrong with my daughter becoming a doctor, lawyer, congresswoman, astronaut...but when she gets married...she serves her family FIRST as God has called her to do. There will be plenty of time to explore Mars or find cures for cancer after her kids have left home for college. ;-)

Subject: Re: Woman Minister
From: Rod
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 17:18:05 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Where did anyone say man may 'misuse a woman'? May God have mercy on you and open your eyes.

Subject: What'd you ask for, then?
From: Anne
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 16:54:18 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
You said: I would like to know what everyone think of woman taking the pulpit and becoming minister and precnhing the gospel. We told you. If you don't want to hear the answer, I'd strongly advise that you not ask the question. Have a nice life. Anne

Subject: Re: What'd you ask for, then?
From: Chris
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:33:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, 'Have a Nice Life?' I dont think that that kind of comment is needed in this situation, do you? Obviously this Lady has been mislead like alot of used to be before Christ Jesus found us and delivered us from ourselves and the Devils lie.....I do encourage you Sherry to be honest with us, yourself, and especially God, seeing He is allknowing....God is not a 'Grandfather Figure'.....He is Holy, Righteous, Loving, and abundantly Mercyful and Graceful.....He is also a Judge of Sinners who wont Repent and Believe in His Son Jesus Christ for Forgiveness of Sins.....Jesus is the only One who 'ever' rose again from the dead and any Ressurection of anyone else is the Result of His First...The sad thing is Sherry, anyone who does not Believe in Jesus, does not believe in God.....For Jesus was and is the expressed image of Almighty God our Father.....This will be a Great challenge to you to examine your faith and make your calling and election sure....If your motives for visiting this board is anything other than seeking Gods Truth...then the Lord will Judge your heart according to this matter....but let us brethren and some have already reach out in Love and Proclaim the Good News that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God... Chris

Subject: Chris, I'm very pleased that
From: Rod
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:40:22 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
someone finally challenged that 'grandfather figure' statement Sherry made. Thank you. This is a horrible deception. God nowhere pictures Himself in His holy Word in that manner, but as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the roles of each personality and the Godhead are clearly defined in the Scriptures. 'Grandfather figure' isn't one of them. You are clearly on the right track in correcting her on this. Sherry, As has already been pointed out to you: We will tell you the truth and help you to understand it if you want, but you must be willing to look at and trust the Bible as God's Word, not any other source, for truth. Our faith is in the God of the Bible as He has chosen to reveal Himself to His own through His inspired Word.

Subject: Sorry! You're right, of course.
From: Anne
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 19:37:31 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
My response was snippy, ungenerous and unchristian, and you're right to call me on it, Chris. My sincere apologies, Sherry. Anne the Embarrassed

Subject: Well done, Anne! nt
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 20:42:36 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: Woman Being Minister
From: Sherry
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:23:38 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.com

Message:
Hello to all: I would like to know what everyone think of woman taking the pulpit and becoming minister and precnhing the gospel. Here in Canada the Presbyertian Church has allowed women to be minister the pass 31 years. I believe that is a good thing for woman she can be educate as well as hold a job and have family live to.

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: laz
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 16:17:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I agree with all the above respondants to Sherry thus far. Women are indeed called to serve the Body of Christ as 'heirs together of the grace of life'...just not as pastors, elders or deacons (maybe deaconesses?). As Anne explained....the Bible is crystal clear on this matter. End of story. Right? Some of the mainline Presbyterian churches...like the PCUSA...have long exchanged the true knowledge of Christ as found ONLY in the Bible for human wisdom, personal preference, fleshly desires. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT ANCIENT ISRAEL DID OVER A DOZEN TIMES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT CAUSING JUDGEMENT TO REIGN UPON THEM LIKE CLOCKWORK. THEY SIMPLY KEPT RETURNING TO SATAN'S TROUGH. LIKE ADAM, THEY PREFERRED TO BELIEVE SATAN's WORDS OVER GOD'S! Sherry, you may not want to hear this, but your church is doing exactly what ancient Israel did when they turned away from God's infallible word and His annointed prophets who brought them truth...often killed for their obedience to God. PCUSA has long since aposticized....turning to pagan idols like humanism, feminism, pragmatism, multiculturalism, etc.....turning to everything BUT the one true God revealed in the one true Word. Oh, Welcome to The Highway....where sometimes the truth hurts. hehe! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Five Sola
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 14:29:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sherry, A GREAT book on this specific topic is 'Different by Design' by John Macarthur, Jr. I will say that Scriptures say that it is not acceptable to God to have a woman as pastor,elder,deacon (ie, any leadership role). Now this is not to say that a woman is not skilled, smart or able to do this but it is something that God forbids. When a woman is in a leadership role it misrepresents the image God has given for the church. The husband/man as the representative of Christ, the head; and the wife/woman as the representative of the Church, the bride. Also how would a woman pastors be 'subject to her husband in ALL things' and yet be her husband's leader/shepherd. It can't be done. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Reformed SBC
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:23:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Women Pastors, elders, no. Deaconesses, yes. Deacons are not teachers, but servers (something most Baptists have not understood). See John Piper's excellent article on church governance at http://desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/LeadershipChurch/Governance.htm

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Tom
To: Reformed SBC
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 00:46:56 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I read Piper's article, and something I felt was interesting is the following by Piper. '2. In the middle of the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 Paul says, 'The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.' This could be the wives of the deacons, but could also be the women deacons. The latter is suggested by the fact that no reference to women is made in 3:1-7. Since women were not candidates for the eldership in the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:12-13) because of its authoritative function in teaching and oversight, the absence of the reference to women in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 would be expected. But this confirms the probability that the reference to women in 3:11 is to women deacons, not merely to wives of deacons.' What I felt was interesting is that in the KJV it reads 'wives' in verse 11. However in other versions such as the NAS it does read 'Women'. I understand that the the same Greek word for 'wives' can also be translated 'women'. However the words 'women' and wives have different meanings. My leaning however is 'wives', for it seems odd to me that 'women' would be used, especially given fact that not much is said about women either before this verse or after the verse. Verse 12 jumps right back to the subject of husbands only having one wife. I have a lot of respect for John Piper, he is someone that I like to read. However, in this particular case, the reasons he gave for 'women' being the correct interpretation, lead me to believe the opposite of his leanings. I also think that he is being a little too speculative for my liking. Given the fact of 1 Timothy chapter 2 said on the subject of women. There is no certainty of a women being a deacon in the New Testement. Some would disagree with that by saying Phoebe was a deacon. However, the KJV and the NAS both use the word 'servant' in Romans 16:1. The Greek word can be translated 'deacon' or 'servant'. Do we see any indication in the scriptures that Phoebe or any other women was chosen for the office of 'deacon'? Remember all believers should be servants, but not all can be chosen for the office of deacon. So in conclusion, until I see anything concrete, and not based on just speculation. I think the best understanding of these passages, are that women should not be chosen for the office of deacon. Tom

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 08:34:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
I think your observations are correct in regards to Piper's 'speculation'. If you look carefully at his 'exegesis' he has conjectured that authority is the key element here; since deacons (according to Piper) are not mentioned as having any 'authority', then women can be included as meeting the qualifications for that office. Let it ever be held firm, that the Deaconate is an OFFICE, which in itself is a position of authority within the structure of the church designed by God. That the authority is different than that of Elders is certainly true. But it is of no less importance! The older writers saw the offices of Pastor (preaching elder), Elder and Deacon as expressing the three offices of Christ; Prophet, Priest and King. Receiving that as being a true representation, one must ask themselves if the ministry of Christ in attending to the physical needs of mankind; hunger, thirst, pain, suffering, etc. was of less a concern than the spiritual needs? (Jer 22:15,16; Amos 4:1; Zech 7:10; Matt 25:33-46; Mk 10:21; Lk 14:13,14; Rom 15:16,17; Gal 2:10)It is my contention that they should not and cannot be bifurcated, as Christ came to save the whole man and not just the soul. Therefore this matter of 'authority' is irrelevant and inappropriate to base a conclusion that women should be included in the office of Deacon. I think the response by Wayne Grudem speaks sufficiently to this issue here: An Open Letter.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:32:12 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Do you know what I find quite ironic? Piper is a member of the same organization that Grudem is. Tom

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Five Sola
To: Reformed SBC
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 20:52:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ReformedSBC, I know that some are beginning to support the possibility for a woman deacon (sadly this has even infected the Reformed camps). I will say that yes in some scriptures there is the same use of the greek word that is also translated deacon. But if I understand the greek word (I'll admit I am not a greek scholar), it can mean 'servant' and at other times refer to an officer in the church. Yes women can be 'servants' in the church (no derogatory intent) as we all are. I will be the first to say that women in the church have vital roles in the church. But for a woman to serve as an officer in the church is not allowed in scripture. I have heard some people state that deacons, in the presbyterian system, do not have any authority or leadership in that sense so it should be ok. (obviously this is not even an option in the baptist system since deacons serve a role much like an elder and have much authority in the church) I could almost agree with it, BUT just for the fact that members will almost always give a respect (as they should) and deference to a deacon (or any officer in the church) that a woman would not need to be in that role. Also Deacons commonly serve in 'elevated' task, such as administering various functions during worship (offering, announcements, etc) that is it just too close (if not fully) to being disobedient, if not hypocritical. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:13:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola,
You have me curious now, because you said (having heard this from someone else, evidently): 'in the Presbyterian system Deacons do not have any authority or leadership' In the Presbyterian churches I have been a part of, Deacons are ordained to office no differently than Elders. There may be Presbyterian churches which don't do this? However, the Scripture makes clear that Deacons are to be QUALIFIED to serve; qualifications which are strikingly similar to those of the office of Elder. Looking at the relevant passages (1Tim 3:1-13) Paul is very clear according to verse 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.
that the deaconate is an OFFICE. Historically, all office-bearers in all denominations have been appointed in some manner; setting them apart by some type of public ceremony. And as an aside on something that has been lightly touched on in here before, Deacons who have 'no authority or leadership' in the churches where they serve are being maligned, IMHO. Again, the qualifications for the OFFICE of Deacon are almost the same as those for Elder. Secondly, Paul gives high esteem to deacons; no less than he does to Elders. If deacons have no authority or leadership, then why have them at all? From what Reformed SBC has written about how deacons function in their churches, it seems that they are far more biblical in their use and recognition of the office of deacon than these Presbyterian churches you have heard about who allegedly see deacons as janitors with a name tag! :-) The bottom line is, if there is a position in a church which is recognized; e.g., Deacon... and if those in that position have duties which involve any type of teaching or labor concerning the public worship, then women are not to serve in that capacity. It seems to me that there are churches/people out there who will try anything to justify their desire to put women in positions which God has forbidden them to do so. It's almost humorous to see their innovative 'end-runs'! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:32:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I re-read my post and see where I was not very clear. :-) The comment on a deacon not having authority was used in a discussion in which the person was comparing deacons of the baptist and presbyterian 'variety'. Since most baptist deacons are essentially the office of deacon and elder combined and in the presbyterian it is divided a bit more. Deacons don't have the 'ruling' authority that elders have, primarily since their focus is more on the 'upkeep' of the church while the elders is the 'upkeep' of the sheep (I am extremely simplifying this.) I do know that deacons must be someone who can teach (even though I think that qualification is only given to elders), they should have lives that will lead by example (another reason agains women deacons), and I in no way am trying to lower the vital role of deacon (I turned down a nomination in my church because I felt I was NOT qualified) I guess my point was (rather their point) is that the governing authority (which is not allowed to be given to woman) is more with the elders and not the deacons. I think these people who bring this up are being influences by reformes like John Piper, and others(?). Five Sola

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:48:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five,
Thanks for the clarification. :-) One of the many problems I see with this notion, e.g., that women can serve as 'deaconesses' because deacons don't rule is that there is no biblical support for this view. Where in the Bible do we find that 'authority' alone, is the deciding qualification for the offices of Elder or Deacon? The Pauline teaching in 1Tim 3 is clear, that only 'husbands', 'men' are qualified to be either an Elder or Deacon. To me it would be impossible for Paul to have put it any clearer! What I wonder, is why all these attempts at this present time to try and obviate the clear teaching on this subject and allow women to serve in capacities which are prohibited by the Lord and Head of the Church? I ask concerning the practical reasons, not the root/heart reasons! :-) Is it the tremendous influence and influx of the radical feminist movement which would seek to usurp the God-ordained headship and authority of men? Certainly this is seen in almost every other facet of life. So it wouldn't be surprising if this was one of the major reasons at this point in time for its existence. Anyway... just pondering... hahaha.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Reformed SBC
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 18:53:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think before folks go on and on about 'there is no biblical support for this view...The Pauline teaching in 1Tim 3 is clear, that only 'husbands', 'men' are qualified to be either an Elder or Deacon. To me it would be impossible for Paul to have put it any clearer!' one should read Piper's article. To disagree is fine, but to say there is no bibilcal evidence is silly, especially regarding an expert exegete like Piper (who is one of teh co-authors of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, remember!)

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: Reformed SBC
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 21:55:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SBG,
Sorry to gore your ox brother! :-) Personally, I wouldn't consider John Piper to be 'an expert exegete', albeit I think he has given us some wonderful sermons. I'll certainly read his article to see what he has to say. He's certainly worthy of my time! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: SavedByGrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:23:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
While I realize that people will say that my church should not have this kind of set up, what would you think about a Church Board (2 Trustees, 1 Clerk, 1 Treasurer and 1 Asst. Pastor that is in training) where the Treasurer and Clerk are women, and each have a vote in those matters that the Board votes on? It is something that I think the Pastor :-)wants to change (even the whole set up) but it's left over from before he got there. There is also not enough male members to fill all the roles, but there would need to be a couple of changed hearts on the Board too. Based on your comment of: 'and if those in that position have duties which involve any type of teaching or labor concerning the public worship, then women are not to serve in that capacity' and what I have mentioned above, what do you think. Thanks! SavedByGrace

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: SavedByGrace
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:06:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SBG,
Personally, I hold to a 'Presbygational' form of church polity! :-) I see biblical warrant for either a Presbyterian or Congregational type of government. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Because of this, I don't think it is only one 'right' choice. In other words, neither is unbiblical but rather both are and it's a matter of how one reads the relevant passages that one particular type of government will be used. However, in both systems, the officers of the church will be the same; albeit with slightly different applications of them. By this I mean, that some will see the Eldership as a duality; pastor(s) and also ruling elders. Others will see the Eldership as consisting of only one type of elder, where one is designated as the 'preaching elder' who is responsible for the pulpit and the others, although equal in authority, are responsible more for the governing aspects of the congregation. Deacons are deacons it seems. There is no place that appears to bifurcate this office into different functions/responsibilities where there is a plurality rather than one group of men. As to having Trustees, a Board of Directors etc., this is the traditional Congregational system, which may serve well pragmatically, but I find has no biblical warrant for its existence. Since this body of individuals, as you yourself have explained and I have witnessed too, makes policies which effect all aspects of the church, which it has no biblical warrant to do anyway, women should not be included, IMHO. :-) Lastly, I'm not sure what you wrote previously concerning 'Deaconesses'. So perhaps you can refresh my memory? hehe
In His Grace, Pilgrim PS. See the excellent article on The Highway at: The Problem with the Eldership and its Wider Implications

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: SavedByGrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 13:33:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thank you Pilgrim. What is the difference between the Congregational form of government that you said has biblical warrant, and the traditional one that doesn't? Also, that wasn't me that said something about deaconesses :-). SavedByGrace

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: SavedByGrace
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 16:50:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thank you Pilgrim. What is the difference between the Congregational form of government that you said has biblical warrant, and the traditional one that doesn't? Also, that wasn't me that said something about deaconesses :-). SavedByGrace
---
SBG, Oops... Sorry! I am laboring under a fried brain today! hehe According to the Savoy Declaration of 1658, which is the original, historical and official Confession of Congregationalism, it says, under the heading 'The Institution of Churches and the Order Appointed in Them by Jesus Christ':
Section 9 The officers appointed by Christ, to be chosen and set apart in the church so called, and gathered for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power and duty which he entrust them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are pastors, teachers, elders and deacons.
In section 11, which deals with the appointment and installation of these office bearers it says:
The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Ghost, unto the office of pastor, teacher or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself, and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of that church, if there be any before constituted therein. And of a deacon, that he be chosen by the like sufferage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.
There is therefore an equality among the office bearers yet a distinction of function. The responsibility of preaching mainly falls upon the pastor(s), but in section 13, which I'll just summarize, it states that others may also preach who have been 'also gifted and fitted by the Holy Ghost for it, and approved (being by lawful ways and means in the providence of God called thereunto). .' That there is a distinction between those who rule and those who serve is also implied in the way pastor/elder/teacher and deacons are mentioned in the articles. But what is nowhere to be found is any mention of a Board of Trustees, or any other group or individual in reference to the official governing of the church. I haven't taken the time to review the Baptist London Confession of Faith but I would stick my neck out here and say that it too is very similar to the Savoy and makes no provision for the governing of the church other than by its appointed officers; men who are ordained to the offices of Pastor/Elder/Teacher and Deacon. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: Reformed SBC
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 08:57:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Reformed SBC, Are you therefore advocating that women can hold the office of Deacon? If not, can you give the Scriptural basis for this 'office/position' of 'Deaconess' which functions apart from the two/three offices of Elder and Deacon? In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 14:35:42 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Those were my thoughts also. The Bible talks about Pheobe being a deaconess. But the question can be asked, did she truly opperate in the office of deacon? Or did she just serve in the church, like every believer is commanded to do. The word 'deacon' means 'to serve'. Personally, I think the later, since everyone is commanded to serve in one capacity or another. Two questions, that come to my mind however are. Why does the Bible use the word 'deaconess', is the case of Pheobe? Does the Bible use this term with others that do not operate in the office of 'deacon'? Tom

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 20:22:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
If you are referring to Rom 16:1, the KJV translates it as 'servant' and not 'deaconess'! Yes, it is true that the Greek word is the same for both the office of deacon and the word servant. But as you pointed out, in Timothy 3 Paul is speaking of the OFFICE of Deacon and not just a typical 'servant' who can have various labors within the body. The qualifications for the OFFICE of deacon are much the same as they are for Elder; being restricted to men only. This is so clear, I am mystified that anyone would even try to assert that women can be 'deacons' in the capacity laid out there!!
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 13, 2001 at 00:18:20 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Thanks Pilgrim What you have said concerning this topic, is my understanding too. It only helps to make me even more sure of my possition. :-) Tom

Subject: Re: Woman Being Minister
From: Tom
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 13:30:21 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Sherry You have seen what others have said on this issue. Especially the scripture verse that Anne mentioned. I am a little curious, as to why you think it is a good thing for a woman to be a minister? Do you have scriptural reasons to believe so? If not, do you believe that the Church can override what scripture says on an issue like this? Tom

Subject: Women are forbidden to be ministers.
From: Anne
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 11:40:26 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
1 Timothy 2: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. Not to mention 1 Timothy 3:1-3, and Titus 1: 5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. There are hard to grasp bits in Scripture, but these are not among them. In Him, Anne

Subject: Theonomy
From: Five Sola
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:13:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am curious as to the 'exact' teachings of Theonomy. The reason I ask this is that our church is updating our library with some recent and not-so-recent classic (which is much needed). During this process, some taped lectures by Greg L. Bahnsen were purchased. If I understand right Mr Bahnsen was a theonomist. Am I correct? Also I am curious if this will 'taint' his presentation of 'Covenant Theology' which is the subject of one of his lectures. Does A theonomist view of Covenant theology differ from that of a non-Theonomist? I am not a theonomist or at least as I understand it presently. I disagree with it and always thought it to be post-mil view taken too far (no offense to any theonomist out there :-) ) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Theonomy
From: stan
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 07:38:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In my limited reading on the subject way long ago, you are right on - postmill - cov. theo - theonomists. Going back to establishing God's kingdom here on earth so Christ can come and rule is my impression. Establishment of the Kingdom includes the church placing the law of God as the law of the land. stan

Subject: Re: Theonomy
From: Five Sola
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 13:03:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Stan, yes, Theonomy seems to confuse, no-combine, the city of God and the city of man. Five Sola

Subject: Doctrine
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:52:03 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I have been noticing recently, that the people I have been in contact with. Avoid any conversation about doctrinal issues. One example of this is with a friend of mine. Over coffee recently, a friend who is very devoted to the Lord, and to knowing the scriptures. Said to me, that he will probabably never be interested in talking about things like TULIP (he probably doesn't even know what it means). He is more interested in just being a doer of God's word and baring the fruit of the spirit. He believes that issues like TULIP do more to promote division in the body of Christ, than it does good. Most of these people I talk with probably don't even know what the words Arminian or Calvinist mean, nor do they care to know what they mean. Although, I disagree with these people about doctrine. I think where one stands on issues is very important. I want to know how to answer someone when they say something like that to me. My own wife is one, who agrees with what they are saying. I am starting to feel that I need to be very careful around people. A few years ago, before I was a Calvinist. I used to be able to go into deep discussions with many of these same people. But now, I have noticed that many of my conversations are superficial. Boards such as this one (there are exceptions), seem to be the only places where I can discuss issues like this. Any thoughts? Tom

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: John Stevenson
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:18:06 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
My first thought is that, though I also enjoy a good doctrinal discussion, your friend has a point that it is a lot more important that we be doers of the word rather than mere discussers of it. Of course, the best of all possible worlds is that we be BOTH. John

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Tom
To: John Stevenson
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 23:43:03 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
John Though I agree with you that we should be doers rather than just discussers of the word. I think it was JI Packer that said something to the effect of: While it is possible to have a knowledge of the doctrine of salvation, and not be saved. It is also true that with out knowledge, there is no salvation. The two go hand in hand. Also in the introduction to Packer's book 'Knowing God'. He says something to the effect of: If all you are reading this book is for knowledge, with out putting what you learn into practice. Then I ask you to put this book down right now. For that kind of knowledge can do nothing more that to puff up. Tom

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Cristina
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:11:40 (PST)
Email Address: jlush@home.com

Message:
I have been noticing recently, that the people I have been in contact with. Avoid any conversation about doctrinal issues. One example of this is with a friend of mine. Over coffee recently, a friend who is very devoted to the Lord, and to knowing the scriptures. Said to me, that he will probabably never be interested in talking about things like TULIP (he probably doesn't even know what it means). He is more interested in just being a doer of God's word and baring the fruit of the spirit. He believes that issues like TULIP do more to promote division in the body of Christ, than it does good. Most of these people I talk with probably don't even know what the words Arminian or Calvinist mean, nor do they care to know what they mean. Although, I disagree with these people about doctrine. I think where one stands on issues is very important. I want to know how to answer someone when they say something like that to me. My own wife is one, who agrees with what they are saying. I am starting to feel that I need to be very careful around people. A few years ago, before I was a Calvinist. I used to be able to go into deep discussions with many of these same people. But now, I have noticed that many of my conversations are superficial. Boards such as this one (there are exceptions), seem to be the only places where I can discuss issues like this. Any thoughts? Tom
---
The problem with doctrine many times is it makes folks face up to sin they are dealing with in their own life and they just dont want to fess up to it..and as for the TULIP..people just can not grasp the idea that God elected some and not all....There question as always is 'How can a loving God choose some and not others?'...and what they they to really ask is 'Why did He even choose one of us?' ..as we are all undeserving...I have seen it many times when theology is discussed...It divides....'It divides truth from lies'..we should continuelly study the word (doctrine) to be able to divide truth from lies.. 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2Tim 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. thanks for listening Cristina Lush Family Homepage www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: James Lush
To: Cristina
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:56:58 (PST)
Email Address: lush1776@home.com

Message:
Just wanted to post that the email listed below for my wifes post is wrong, its lush1776@home.com Thanks And I agree with her post WHAT YOU BELIEVE DICTATES HOW YOU BEHAVE!!!!! Lush Family Page www.angelfire.com/la/jlush www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/images/lighthouse.gif

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: laz
To: Cristina
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 14:30:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
A hearty 'AMEN' to that!!! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: scott lewis
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 13:16:02 (PST)
Email Address: navyrdc@megsinet.net

Message:
Tom, Its alot easier for people not to talk about doctrine because it might offend someone. People would rather just get along and do Gods word whatever that is. Now sure how they can be doer of what God wants them to with out knowing who God is or what they actually believe about Him. I've run into the same thing at the Chapel I've been attending. The Pastor preached about election for over a month and when it came up in the Womens Bible study my wife was leading they acted like they had never heard of it, one lady got really upset and left. I'm really not sure what she was doing all the while the pastor was preaching election. One thing I believe you need to do though is to start with the basics before every talking about anything like TULIP. Start with God's Sovereignity with out that your discussions will go no where, What I've seen is that people aren't really comfortable with the ideal that GOD's in charge and not them. scott lewis

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Reformed SBC
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 05:56:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
One thing I believe you need to do though is to start with the basics before every talking about anything like TULIP. Start with God's Sovereignity with out that your discussions will go no where, What I've seen is that people aren't really comfortable with the ideal that GOD's in charge and not them. scott lewis
---
John Piper has an excellent article on 'How to teach and preach Calvnism' at http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/DoctrinesGrace/TeachCalvinism.htm In it he says this: 8. Don't ride hobbyhorses that aren't in the text. Preach exegetically, explaining and applying what is in the text. If it sounds Arminian, let it sound Arminian. Trust the text and the people will trust you to be faithful to the text.

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 17:41:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Amen! Scott. Those who proclaim, 'No Creed but Christ; no doctrine but life!' are hypocrites and sorely deceived. For if they are truly wanting only 'Christ', that begs the question, 'Christ who?'. And what about this 'life' which is foreign to doctrine? How does one determine how to live without a set of laws, rules and/or precepts (aka 'doctrine') to guide them?
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 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.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Rod
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 17:07:53 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Scott, I think you've hit on a major factor in this. Another is that some people don't want to explore doctrinal issues, they want to 'win' and compel all others to come to their point of view. Tom, 'Doctrine' means teaching. If there is no teaching, no one knows anything. Any person who says, 'I don't want doctrine,' is fooling himself. Not to desire pure Bible doctrine is as foolish as a would-be automobile driver attempting to drive by applying the principles of horseback riding; as dangerous as trying to wire a building without an understanding of electricity. Since the Lord Jesus was always teaching and the Bible itself is instruction, to deny the necessity of doctrine is to deny God's will. What should you say to such folks? Well, try reading Eph. 4:11-16 to them and then ask them, "If God gave some men as teachers (doctrine-givers, if you will), then why did He do so, if your view is correct?" Also, "If we are to ''speak the truth in love,'' how does one do that if he doesn't have the doctrine of truth to begin with? How do we obey this commandment of the Lord?" I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is an indefensible position and truly ridiculous. A thinking person will not say it once he understands the situation.

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 23:37:41 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod I agree with you. What I don't understand about some of these people, that I have talked to, is they actually believe in doctrine. But they don't even realize it. They believe in the Trinity etc.. For example, one person said to me. 'You know Tom, what you are doing with people like Harold (I have a ministry to the native people) is much more important than your study in theology.' When I told him that what I am doing with people like Harold, flows from my study of theology and doctrine. He said, 'no it isn't.' Then turned and walked away. What really makes me scratch my head about this particular person. Is that at the time, he said that he was an elder in the Church, who regularly filled in for the pastor when he was away. Anyone who listened to him preach, could not help but realize that he had taken a long time studying the word of God, so he could teach the congragation. Why couldn't he see that he was teaching? This man is is a very intelligent person. Tom

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 23:52:29 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, You're absolutely right! Doctrine is inescapable. Without it there is no understanding or conceptual development. It is sad, isn't it? Some of my dearest friends are the ones with whom I can have theological/doctrinal discussions (not debates). There is a special closeness with those folks which I don't feel with others. They are, however, in the vast minority. I think when your friend replied to you as he did, he demonstrated he might be intelligent, but is not wise.

Subject: Re: Doctrine
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 13:05:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Funny you should ask about this! :-) Go here: Is Doctrine Necessary? Another article that speaks to this is: Creeds and Standards. . . Their Function In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Cloning Revisited
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 00:03:36 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I was listening to RC Sproul recently and although he was not referring to clones per say. He did say something, I found quite interesting. He said that there is a sense that all life is filled with God's Spirit. Without the breath of life that is given by God's Spirit. There is no life at all. When I heard him say that, it reminded me of the discussion on cloning. Whether or not man successfully makes a human clone. That clone can not have life unless God breaths life in it. God is more in charge of life than anyone can ever know. As I thought of that it reminded me a joke that I was told that sort of shows man's ignorance. A group of scientists got together to discuss how they were going to tell God that they no longer needed Him, since they could create life themselves. They decided that they would all draw straws to decide which of them would be their spokesman. After they had done so, the rest of the scientists assured this scientist, that they would be right behind him giving support. So off they went to tell God what they wanted. The spokesman said rather nervously to God. 'God I come on behalf of my learned colleges here, to ask if you will leave us alone. Since we no longer need you, we can now survive independently of you, and we can create life ourselves. Will you agree to our request?' God smiled and said, 'All right! on one condition, that you enter into a creation contest with me. Will you agree to this?' The scientists conferred with one another and said, 'Ok'. God said, 'Tell you what, I will be a good sport about this and let you go first.' The scientists planned out their strategy and when they were ready, they started by bending down and grabbing a handful of dirt. God immediately stopped them, and said. 'No, no!! use your own dirt!'

Subject: Re: Cloning Revisited
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:47:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
There is a big difference between 'all life is filled with God's Spirit' (the incommunicable attributes of God called Immensity and Omnipresence [cf. 1Kgs 8:27; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:48,49; Ps 139:7-10; Jer 23:23,24; Acts 17:27,28] and God 'breathing into' a human whereby the Spirit is imparted thus setting him apart from all other created beings who have 'life'. (cp. Gen 2:6; Eccl. 12:7; Isa 42:5; Zech 12:1; Heb 12:9). As I have brought out before, all living creatures have 'life', which is created, providentially sustained and finally removed by God according to His divine and eternal purpose. But in the case of human beings, who are created in the 'imago dei', this 'image' consists of a separate 'soul' which, I believe, is individually created by God and unique to each person. Is it possible that God, for whatever reason which resides within Himself, would create a soul for a hypothetical human clone? Certainly! For with Him all things are possible. But what remains true aside from the possibility that God may choose to do so, is that the cloning of a human being from existing material, taken from another human being cannot include the soul. The soul of man is not an inherent and inseparable part of the flesh, as the texts given above clearly show. Whether one holds that man consists of a 'dichotomy' or 'trichotomy', within orthodox Christianity, what is absolutely true is that the soul is a separate entity from the body and must not be confused, i.e., joined as one. I cannot and will not try and second guess God and His eternal counsel, but what I do know is that men cannot create a true human being as they, being created beings themselves have no power, wisdom or warrant to create one; a creature made in the image of God; being both body and soul! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Cloning Revisited
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 13:09:20 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim I agree with you about that, what you said is what I was talking about. Though I probably did not go into enough detale, because I tend to have a hard time doing so. My point was that regardless of whether or not God's image is in a clone (that would be something, only God knows for sure, and He would be the one to impart that image). In order for that clone to have any life at all, God would have to give that clone life. Much like Dolly the sheep, man didn't give that sheep life, God did. As much as man would like to believe otherwise. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Tom

Subject: Re: Cloning Revisited
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 17:34:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
Yep, I understand! :-) A good example is someone who has been declared clinically dead, yet remains on full life-support! All the physical/bodily functions are working; albeit mechanically, but there is no LIFE! Life is a spiritual thing which originates with the Creator and is given and removed as He wills. It is a comforting thought to realize that nothing can take our 'life' away from us but God. But even when the Lord our God takes our 'life' away on this earth, it still exists; only in a different place. The most important question is, as you well know, Where will you spend your unending life? Will it be in eternal bliss; loving Christ or in the unending torments of hell?
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Cloning Revisited
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 23:45:07 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim You nailed what I was trying to say to a t. I even think the question you asked is one that every one should think about. Tom

Subject: Re: Cloning Revisited
From: saved
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 19:15:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Good replies! Here is a link I found today about 'more problems with human cloning'. (for those interested in reading about it). Scientists sound the alarm about cloning www.msnbc.com/snap/540425.asp

Subject: Re: article fyi
From: stan
To: saved
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 15:03:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/540425.asp?bt=msn&btu=http://go.msn.com/zzj/1/1.asp?target=http://msn.com

Subject: Re: article fyi
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 17:12:33 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
stan, Thanks (I think). This whole thing is horrible to contemplate.

Subject: Re: article fyi
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 20:11:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Have never been one to get verbal about the Lord's coming, but this one seems a lot like the tower of babel - twig that broke the camels
---
you get the picture. I really wonder how long the Lord will wait. stan

Subject: Re: article fyi
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 20:34:42 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
stan, I have to be honest--I've had the same feeling. But I don't want to be premature and jump to conclusions. I've often wondered how I would have considered events and the return of the Lord had I been in Corrie Ten Boom's position in Nazi Germany. I find no hint of cloning that I can discern in the Scriptures. That seems to me to be extremely significant in a variety of possible manners.

Subject: Re: article fyi
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 21:41:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well March 2nd didn't work so maybe ......... ;-) I have always been reluctant - read of the beasts from the abyss of Rev. being B-29's to the WWII author - then Lindsey and his heliocoptors etc. Also when I wonder about how bad it is getting, often Sodom comes to mind and we aren't THERE yet though we are full speed ahead toward it. The New World Order also smacks of Babel - mankind united against God!

Subject: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Sherry
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 13:16:20 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.com

Message:
Hi I am a Sunday School Teacher cn I join your form it sound very interesting from what I have read. And I just found you by surfing on the net.

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: John Stevenson
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 15, 2001 at 18:27:38 (PST)
Email Address: JohnStevenson2@Yahoo.com

Message:
I just surfed in, too. I'm delighted at the level of thought and discussion that I've found here. John

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Brother Bret
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 19:36:58 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hi I am a Sunday School Teacher cn I join your form it sound very interesting from what I have read. And I just found you by surfing on the net.
---
Hi Sherry: My mane is Brother Bret, and I pastor a church in south Florida. Why don't you tell us more about yourself, any family and what you believe. What church do you teach at and what age group do you teach? What part of the country do you live in, if the USA at all? Check out my church website if you'd like at www.ccbcfl.org. Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Sherry
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:55:23 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.com

Message:
Hi Brother Bret I am a Presbyterian and I teach at St. Andrew's and St. James in Cardinal Ontario. I teach six of the greatest children the world and the age range is 12 to 3 years. A small class but I love it and have been teaching for 18 and half years. I singing in our church choir and I am a strong Presbyterian and I believe there is a God. I'm single but still looking I have an older sister who marry she has a girl and boy. My Father just passed away in September from complications from his cancer surgery he was 86. And I do found the house empty but I look it this way he with Mum now. My mother died in 1970 I was very young at the time. I live in Canada in a small town called Prescott that is across from Ogdenbury New York. And yes have snow but many American think we have snow 8 to 10 months of the year not true if we are lucky 2 or 3 1/2 months. And yes we were on the edge of the North Easter and all we got was 6 inches of snow. As for the question of snow I do not like the stuff because I love to jog. And I will not jog because there is ice under the snow. I well be going back to school this fall and becoming a Teaching Assistant because in 10 years there will be a gread need for them. Right now I am setting my Father estate and I may take up to late spring or early summer. Our law are different than your laws and you have to send a letter and death certificate out and then wait unitl they clear it. You live in a place where there no snow just hurricane I am very intrested in them and when hurricane season come I'm clue the Tv.

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Brother Bret
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 18:52:08 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hi Sherry: Can you elaborate that you 'believe there is a God?' The demons believe there is a God too and trmeble (Jam.2:19). What do you believe about Christ and salvation and the other fundamentals of the Christian faith? Thank you, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Sherry
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 21:27:39 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detecttive.com

Message:
Hi Brother Bret: I believe that God is for giving and that he forgive our sins and that some people are not bad. They are just miss led by bad choice's they make in live. But being pointed in the right direction and finding good influence in there live. I see God as a loving, kind and forgiving God and no matter if I slip up in live. I know he will forgive me for the wrong I do to others. And hey no one perfect I know I'm not. One thing I do know that God is always there for me when thing are bad and he will see threw them. the good times and the bad times and that great comfort for me. I know that I can go to god in my prayer and he wil guide and put me in the right directtion That is my fundamental of my Christain faith and my believe. God Bless P.S. forgive any spell mistake sometime my finger type to fast

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Brother Bret
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 08, 2001 at 13:59:01 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Sherry: Thank you for responding. I am concerned about some things that you have said. First of all you said 'some people are not bad.' That does not line up with the word of God. Jer.17:9 says that the heart is deiptful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it.' Is. 64:6 says that we are an unclean thing and all our righteousness are as filth rags. We fade away as leaf and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away. Rom.3:10-18 says that there are none righteous no not one, there is none that understand, there is none that seeks after God, there is none that does good, their throat is an open tomb, the mouth is full of deceipt and cursing and bitterness, because off have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Eph.4:18-19 says that man's understanding apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit is darkened, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart. That they are past feeling having given themselves over to lewdness to work all uncleaness with greediness. Eph.2:1,5; Col.2:13 tell us that the natural unregenerate person is DEAD in sins and trespasses. 1Cor.2;14 says that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God or know them because they are foolishness unto him and spiritually discerned/appraised. There is no salvation for anyone unless God chose them and makes them alive spiritually (aka quickened, regenerated, drawn, born again, effectually called)so they can see what a wretched sinner they are and that Christ Jesus shed His blood and died on the cross, and rose again to pay for this sins of those who will repent and put their trust in Him. God does not forgive apart from Christ and the cross. Christ is not 'a' way but 'THE' way (Jn.14:6; Acts 4:12). James 3:1 tells us that teachers receive a stricter judgment. I realize that you are teacher very young ones. But that does not make you less responsible to 'rightly divide the word of truth.' Perhaps I misunderstood you. If not, may the Lord be pleased to open your eyes to the truths of Christ and His wonderful sovereign grace. Brother Bret Lovitz (www.ccbcfl.org)

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Sherry
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:30:54 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.com

Message:
Sorry I have not answer by now but I was away for the afternoon no you did not understand me. I look at God as Grandfather figure and no you did not missed understand me. I know that some people are bad and they need spiritual guidance I do not give up people who are nonbeliever. I think if a parent teach there children right or a child has guidance there would have less problems in this world.

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Tom
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 10:36:48 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Sherry Did you read the scripture verses that Brother Bret gave? We are all bad, inspite of how moral a person appears to be. Have you ever done a study on the fall, and what the consequences were? If not, I would recommend that you do, when one realizes the depth of our sin. We begin to see just how great a price our God paid to redeem His elect. Tom

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Pilgrim
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 09:23:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sherry, As the owner of The Highway I would like to extend to you a warm welcome and greetings in the name of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. :-) I would also offer to you the following article: A Brief Introduction to Christianity. Just click on the link to read it. Now, I suspect that the first part will seem rather difficult for you to read. But it does get easier as you progress into it further. So, patience is required but its reward will be fruitful to be sure. May I ask a personal question of you? Is English a secondary language for you? If so, what is your native language? Again, I extend a big 'hello!' to you and hope you will enjoy your visits here as well as visiting the main web site where you will find a host of articles, sermons and books to read on various subjects. If you haven't visited there yet, you can do so by either clicking on the blue logo 'The Highway' in the upper right hand corner of the main forum page or click here:
The Highway Home Page
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Sherry
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 14:38:40 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.co

Message:
Hi Pilgrim I forgot to Thank you for the web site.

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Pilgrim
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 19:49:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sherry, That's what we are here for. This forum is just an extension of The Highway web site!
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: one of the monitors
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 14:02:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey there-- By all means join in and let us know what you think about something--whether something you want to bring up for discussion, or a discussion that is already going on. May God bless you and yours.

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Sherry
To: one of the monitors
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 17:35:22 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.com

Message:
Hi Monitors sorry it so longer for me to answer you but if I sit to long in front of my computer. I start go buggy eyes and my eyes start to water our you a teacher or a helper. In my church we called them helper and I have a retirer kindergarten teacher who does my music I don't play the piano. If you do teach what books are you using I use 'One Room Sunday School'. The Quater is finished the last in May and then I wing it for the month of June. We have no Summer Sunday School beacause out class so small and by that time I need a rest from ten months of teaching. But if the children are there during the summer I will take them down we watch a video or color. If you have any ideas for my or I for you I will gladly pass them on. If you go into Yahoo under computer and games I found one called Bible Quizzes. Last Sunday we did Angels Part I and II and boy oh boy I got some wrong. But one of the little girls in my class said to me. Sherry it ok you are smart it just you don't know everything the Bible it a very long book to read. I found out after some of the quizzes questons are in some of my summer material we are not there. But the claa enjoy it and hope we have more of them again. If you have any craft ideas or active or web site I would be grateful.

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: one of the monitors
To: Sherry
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 19:21:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sherry, Thanks for your reply. I am not much of a teacher myself, but I think you might like this website (see the link). It is about story-telling, which can be quite a teaching tool for children. I pray God's blessings on you-- one of the monitors Story-telling site www.seanet.com/~eldrbarry/index.htm

Subject: Re: May A Sunday School Teacher Join
From: Sherry
To: one of the monitors
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 14:26:11 (PST)
Email Address: Great Detective.com

Message:
Hi Monitor I have just post with hotboards to create a Sunday School Teacher web site and will post as soon as it is ready. And Thank you for the web site. God Bless Sherry Ps. Sorry it took so long to answer you I was away in the afternoon.

Subject: How Much Gospel Is Gospel?
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 20:58:57 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hi Gang: Something that I have been pondering in my mind lately (oh me), is how much of God's grace (which is also 'good news' and the gospel) we should proclaim when sharing the gospel. We have some (and they are not all Arminians) that say only that which is necessary to believe unto salvation needs to be shared, while others (mostly calvinists) say that we should start from the beginning at election and through the effectual call. This would include not only being careful not to tell everyone Christ loves/died for them, but saying things like 'does God love you' or 'one doesn't know if God loves you unless He grants you repentence and belief in the Lord Christ and His finished work on the cross.' I'm not trying to be detailed here, and hope you get ther gist of what I'm getting at. Your thoughts are welcomed :^ ). Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel?
From: Five Sola
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 06:27:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bro. Bret, I don't have much to add and most of it is a repeat what laz said :-)[sorry i'm not that original-LOL ] I imagine I'm also not saying anything new to you...sorry :-/ I think we as sinful humans tend to want to share the 'good' stuff in order to entice the non-believer to see his benefit in 'coming over'. And what passes for evangelism in most modern churches would seem to prove that. We tend to be like 'Christian' in pilgrim's progress who after hearing the gravity of his situation, and his own sinfulness, begins to try to bring others along by showing them the Heavenly city they can enter if they make it along the path. We must always show the Law before moving to the Gospel. I tend to sometimes spend more time driving the law home before I move on. Primarily for two reasons, 1)most people don't think they are THAT bad and need to be convinced they are worse :-) 2)and the greater understanding we have of HOW MUCH we have offended God, makes His act of Grace even more wonderful.

Subject: Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel?
From: Tom
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 06, 2001 at 01:25:03 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
That is a good point. I don't know how many times I have heard people say things like 'I don't fear God'. When in reality, scripture tells us the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. R.C. Sproul said in his tape series called 'Foundations'. Most people don't realize that it isn't hell that they are being saved from. It is God that they are being saved from. Hell is just the place(as bad as it is) that God sends those he does not save by His grace. R.C. Sproul also said that a lot of people have a hard time reconciling God being a just God. With all the killing that happened by His command in the Old Testament. But if they truly understood their depravity that can not go unpunished, they would have absolutely no problem with it. We aren't doing anyone any favours by telling them about grace through Christ, before they understand the depravity of their fallen nature, that demands eternal punishment in hell. I do however, believe that we need to use wisdom in how we do this. Without it (wisdom) we can unnecessarily turn someone off. When in reality, it was us that they were rejecting. I have seen my share of well meaning Christians do this over the years. Tom

Subject: Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel?
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 19:25:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret,
Some wisdom from an old farmer is apropos here:
If you dump an entire cart of manure on a single plant, you'll kill it!
We are to be mature and discerning in our presentation of the gospel of Christ. Each individual has a certain amount of knowledge, earthly as it might be, nevertheless the truth can be and is known externally in various degrees by all men. (Rom 1:19, 20). Whether the person be a bushman from the Outback of Australia or a stock broker in New York city, God has revealed Himself to them and in them, so that they are without excuse concerning at bare minimum His exist and almighty power. In the northern parts of the Western hemisphere, in which we live, there is a real interest in the 'spiritual'; that which lies beyond the corporeal nature of things. Thus we find many who are listening to psychologists, psychiatrists, popular TV personalities, e.g., Oprah Winfrey, watching shows such as 'Touched by an Angel' and seeking out the advice of horoscopes and psychics. However, this contemporary interest has served only to cloud, at best, the truth about God and man's desperate need of regeneration and reconciliation. Thus, in most cases, it is expedient that the bringer of the good news begin with the truth about God, as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. How much information is to be given of course, depends upon the situation of the meeting in each individual case. It may be but a few words spoken in passing on the street while waiting for a traffic light to change. Or it could be several hours of dialog and conversation in one's home. The Lord providentially provides as is necessary for that individual who is brought in our path. There are two wonderful books which I recommend that deal with this very subject. One is unfortunately long out of print, but available online on The Highway :-). That one is Explosive Evangelism by George Jaffrey Jr. It is located in the 'Calvinism and the Reformed Faith section under the heading 'Evangelism'. The second is still in print, at least I think it is, last published by IVP: Tell the Truth by Will Metzger.
1Cor 3:6 'I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.'In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: How Much Gospel Is Gospel?
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 22:26:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bro Bret - greetings. I always start with the person and work of Christ as found in the Bible....and that His life and work was necessary to deal with what happened at the Garden which made EVERYONE enemies of God. I try to drive home the holiness of God....sin....and therefore the need of a Savior. No talk of election....yet. I try to establish that sin is so much a part of what we are that none can come to God unless God grants them that mercy and grace....that none would come to God under their own power. God must act FIRST. Then and only then will election make any sense. I used this approach just last week....and many times before and not one person has ever taken me up on the 'unfairness' of sovereign and unconditional election. Especially when Romans 9 so clearly establishes this blessed doctrine. Maybe they think I'm just nuts...or maybe they didn't understand a word I said. But happily...His word will not return void but accomplish all that it's been set out to do. As for how God (who's no respecter of persons) might 'feel' about someone, I don't think it helps in the slightest to talk about God's love for the person you're witnessing to (God did love the 'world'...but I think Jn 3:16 is talking about the world in an organic sense)....they probably already assume that God loves them from watching too much TV (and maybe has a wonderful plan for their lives, thanks to B. Bright, hehe)...what they need to know is that they need to get right with a consuming fire of an offended God and repent, and believe by clinging to the foot of the Cross. Election is God's providence, neither here nor there relative to witnessing in the final analysis (and therefore must be put into proper perspective)....the person just needs to hear the Gospel of grace and that Christ came to save all manner of sinners, and charge them to do what the Spirit enables the quickened soul. blessings, laz

Subject: Read any good books lately?
From: Theo
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 18:45:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Every now and then someone brings up a topic about books; I thought I'd ask--is anyone reading something interesting these days? Want to tell us about it, and would you recommend it? Theo

Subject: Re: Read any good books lately?
From: Pilgrim
To: Theo
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:14:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Theo,
A few of the recent books I enjoyed and would highly recommend are:
  • The Promise of the Future by Cornelis Venema (Banner of Truth). I did a short book review on this one for The Highway and two chapters are online as well
  • Pentecost Today? by Iain H. Murray (Banner of Truth). As always, Murray's writings are wonderful. In this book he delves into the issue of contemporary 'revivals' and compares them to the teaching of God's Word and history.
  • The Bondage and Liberation of the Will by John Calvin (Baker) A great book!
  • War Psalms of the Prince of Peace by James E. Adams (P&R) This one has much to offer for the heart as for the head. It is not only informative concerning the imprecatory Psalms of the Bible, but Adams has some great insights and applications for our own prayer lives.
  • Truth For All Time by John Calvin (Banner of Truth) This one is a compendium of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin's 'systematic theology'. I wanted to read this just to see how anyone could summarize the Institutes and not lose too much in the process, hahaha. Stuart Olyott is the translator/author and I must say I was impressed. If you ever wanted to be able to say you read the Institutes in an hour, get this book.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Read any good books lately?
From: Reformed SBC
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 17:43:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Read some REAL good books recently: The Potter's Freedom, by James White. Excellent, scholarly refutation of Norman Geisler's debacle, Chosen But Free. The Bible and the Future, by Anthony Hoekema. Excellent exposition of the Reformed Amillenial position. The Church and Last Things, by Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Excellent.

Subject: To Pligrim and Reformed SBC
From: Theo
To: Reformed SBC
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 18:56:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey guys, Thanks for those reports. I like the idea of that compendium of Calvin's Institutes, and perhaps someday I will get to the book The Potter's Freedom. That latter book has had some good reviews, that's for certain. Theo

Subject: Re: Read any good books lately?
From: Five Sola
To: Theo
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 19:24:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Theo, I guess I will 'ring in' with one I just finished. 'Different by Design' by John Macarthur, Jr. [I was reading it before I passed it onto my Dad who faced a woman in leadership problem with his church. He ultimately has had to leave because of that church's refusal to obey God.] I found the book very well written with only a few exceptions but those were on topics that did not affect directly the topic (ie, when talking of qualifications of elder/deacons, he mentions that the issue of 'not to much wine' should now be 'no wine' since it was necessary then and not now). But other than that the book was very good! two thumbs up. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Read any good books lately?
From: Brother Bret
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 20:50:03 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hmmm. I have been reading a MacArthur Book also (although I haven't picked it up for a while) called the 'Gospel According To The Apostles.' Most of you have probably read it and is a sequel to the 'Gospel According To Jesus.' It answer his critics that the apostles also wrote (under the Inspiration of God of course) regarding the Lordship of Christ and against easy believism. Good so far :^ ). Brother Bret

Subject: To Five Sola and Bret
From: Theo
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 21:16:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks, guys, for reminding me of John MacArthur. I have not read The Gospel According to the Apostles and will have to look for that one. MacArthur is someone who I respect very much. I've been reading I Believe, an exposition of the Apostles' Creed, by Michael Horton, and a biography/exposition of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There have been rumblings about whether Bonhoeffer was or was not orthodox in his theology, but I haven't found anyone who can tell me for certain--so I thought I'd research it for myself. (I even posted that question on a Lutheran BBS and no one answered!) In Christ the King, Theo

Subject: New Search Engine
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 01, 2001 at 22:00:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Greetings All,
A new search engine has been added to The Highway home page. The previous one was less than satisfactory, to put it euphemistically! I still have some small refinements to work on, but nothing that really matters at this point in time. :-) There is no longer the ability to search directly from the home page as before, but the link to the search engine is in the same place. A new page will open for the search engine utility. You will notice that it has a very nice user interface that includes several options to make your search more productive. Enjoy!!
In His Grace, Pilgrim Home Page www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/

Subject: Recent Earthquakes & the Last Days
From: saved
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:01:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The recent earthquakes (earthwarming, etc) are surely a sign that we are in the last days. The second coming of our Lord draweth nigh! Are you ready? List of recent earthquakes neic.usgs.gov/neis/qed/qed.html

Subject: Re: Recent Earthquakes & the Last Days
From: Five Sola
To: saved
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 17:55:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
saved, We have been in the 'Last Days' for almost 2000 years. :-) Along with Let's get ready speeches throughout that time. Personally, I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but I always act as if Christ will come the final time to judge His creation tommorow. Five Sola