'Theology Discussion Group'

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 man