'Theology Discussion Group'

Subject: The Man of Sin Exposed From: jh To: hey John Hampshire Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 13:07:22 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: john, I just found this website with online sermons and I listened to this guy who also thinks that all works religion is the son of perdition being worshipped as God. http://grace-for-today.com/sermon.htm The Man of Sin Exposed - Greg Elmquist Check it out. jh

Subject: Reluctantly and sorrowfully From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:07:56 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I take my leave of the board. I have many dear friends here (I hope you consider me your friend also) and I appreciate what so many of you have done to help me to grow in the Lord. I particularly appreciate the warm manner in which Pilgrim has responded to me over the weeks and months, especially in view of the fact that he recognized that I am not exactly 'reformed.' Thank you, dear brother, may the Lord God give you all comfort and strength, and I praise God for the knowledge and ability He has given you in presenting and defending His truth. But, as I have said in several places in the thread, 'The Perfection of the Lord Jesus,' it chills my heart and quenches my spirit that my brothers and sisters in Christ don't come out of the woodwork to denounce the Idea that the Lord Jesus Christ could ever associate Himself with the ability to sin. I have stated more than once that I think this strikes at the very heart of Christianity, dealing with Who the Lord Jesus is and what His attributes are and always have been. Prestor John is to be commended for taking a stand for the immutability of God's righteousness by his quoting Prof. Berkhoff. The quotes were right to the point and I am glad to be in the company of such a distinguished theologian as Berkhoff on this issue. This is a very hard post for me. I write with misty eyes and tears in my heart. May the Lord grant that all here who don't know Him, come to Him through the Lord Jesus. And may the Lord strengthen and encourage the many here who champion the cause of our Redeemer, Savior, Lord and God, my Lord Jesus. Farewell.

Subject: Re: Reluctantly and sorrowfully From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 13:17:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - it is I who is sorrowful. If you feel uncomfortable (assumption on my part) posting and fellowshiping on 'The Highway' over this one secondary issue (secondary to me for it's somewhat of a mystery as Pilgrim said)....how can you even consider spending time at that other website you mentioned that ridicules our gospel of free grace? Gee, now I know where we rate! Are we really that 'bad'? hahaha I know your feelings were not hurt...not by me, anyway. I like and respect you too much! ...Anne too! ;-) I suspect you feel this is no laughing matter. Fine. But do you really feel it's worth dividing over? Is it remotely possible that your position may be erroneous? I will not fall on my dagger over my position...I'm simply not that learned. The whole question is academic and theoretical and should help us better understand the nature of God and the incarnation as we mine for answers. It ought not be a point of serious contention... Hey, send me to my room without supper, give me time out...but pls don't leave us. Your brother in Christ, laz

Subject: Re: Reluctantly and sorrowfully From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:49:59 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Rod! You can't leave! You are one of my favorite posters, always to be counted on for fresh insight, coupled with relentless logic. No, I have not been involved in this discussion, with the exception of that one post a few days ago, because, to be honest, most of y'all's arguments went - whoosh! - right over my head. I am confident that no-one with whom you have been carrying on this far-reaching thread has intended any disrespect to our Lord. If it makes you feel any better, I may say that I have been leaning more towards your position. Perhaps we tend to think of 'sin' as only a physical action, without allowing the temptation itself to be a sin. I know I don't pay near enough attention to 'Yet if any man lusts, etc, etc.' To an ex-Catholic's way of thinking, sin is an action-step, so to speak. Thinking of it doesn't count. Wanting to sin doesn't count. Only actually committing the sin counts. Apparently you disagree strongly with this line of simplistic reasoning, and I don't blame you. I do, too. Now. Would I be correct in saying that since the Reformed position is that we are all hell-bait because of our sin nature, then Christ could not have a sin nature, since He was at no time, and under no circumstances whatsoever, hell-bait? When Scripture speaks of Him being tempted by Satan, is it your understanding that the verb applies to Satan, as one holding out an unlawful inducement, as opposed to Christ feeling any desire to take him up on it? Someone could try and 'tempt' me with lobster tail, but since I would rather eat a mouse, it would not be, to me a temptation. So our Lord was about as interested and desirous of sinning as I am in munching mice. Right? I hope you reply on this forum so all may read your response, but if you prefer, could you e-mail me privately about it? Thank you, dear Rod. Anne

Subject: Re: Reluctantly and sorrowfully From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 17:39:21 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, Unless I have completely misunderstood our dear brother Rod's position, I believe he would say (and I do hope he will reconsider and respond), that for a temptation to be a temptation, the recipient must be involved in it as well as the tempter. But my personal conviction is that anything which is contrary to the perfect law of God is to be construed as a temptation even though whatever it may be has finds no desire or propensity within me. Thus, although Satan's lies which he used to bring about a dissimulation in Christ were indeed contrary to all that is good, the Lord Christ, not even for a moment entertained this wicked attack upon Him or His mission. As for the ability of Christ to have sinned, I shall not comment on that here, but only to say that which I stated below, that being that the Lord Jesus Christ was so united to the Father in love and thus obedience, that He couldn't have sinned. BUT, I do believe that He because He shared our 'flesh' (which does NOT necessity a sin nature, for Adam before the Fall did not possess such! And neither shall we after our glorification. God pronounced the accolade of 'very good' after He created man did He not?), it was within His nature to have the freedom to disobey God IF HE WILLED! You are certainly correct in asserting that sin is not simply the overt act which transgresses the Law, but our desires and thoughts are also sinful if they are not in perfect alignment with all that God requires. The 'Sermon on the Mount' surely makes this point crystal clear! :-) In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Thank you, Rod!!! From: Anne To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 18:39:28 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I think we Christians have two particular failings. One is that we 'separate out' the natures of the Lord Jesus (more on that in a moment). The other is that we are too familiar and casual with Him. So many call Him, 'Jesus,' as if addressing or talking about the kid next door. He is, 'My Lord and my God!' This is an infinitely holy Being, One Who has condescended to 'become flesh and dwell among us' so that He could bring about our salvation. But we often command Him to do things in prayer and treat Him with an intimacy which is either disrespect or borders on it. I am so pleased to read this bold statement. Granted, there seems to be some improvement over the past, with regard to the over-familiarity with which our Lord is referred (My particular peeve was J.C.), but it is still out there. There will probably be some of you horrified at this, but I have never been especially comfortable with the notion of regarding Christ as 'my best friend.' Now where did He refer to Himself as that? I know, I know . . . He lovingly and graciously said that He considers us as His friends (at least His disciples at the time), but it still didn't come across, to me, anyway, as if we are meant to be His best buddies. I think it is a human failing to tend toward presumption. The Son of God kindly speaks of His disciples as His friends, and we act as if the next round of drinks should be on Him. Is it too dreadful of me to state flatly that I don't need a bestest friend in the whole world, but a Saviour? That, above all! This is the only board in the world on which I would dare post this, but I have never been especially enthusiastic about the now-obligatory Christmas time rendering of 'Happy Birthday to You!', directed at the baby Jesus. Even Christ Chapel did it. Besides being presumptuous, and sappy, it is Too Cute For Words. Our Lord of Lords and God of Gods possesses myriad attributes, but 'cute' isn't one of them. 'The Man Upstairs.' 'J.C.' 'I like to think of Jesus as my best friend!' Yuck.

Subject: Re: Thank you, Rod!!! From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:56:32 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Blessed art thou, Anne; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you, but our Father who is in heaven' (the RRV--Rod's Revised Version, a poor paraphrase and attempt at lightheartedness). Hebrews seems to speak directly to the points you affirm and so eloquently state, in 2:9-13, where He isn't ashamed to call us 'brethren' and where 11:6 indicates that we aren't to presume on our relationship because God isn't ashamed to 'be called our God' (11:16). Our proper attitude is gratitude and amazement at His grace.

Subject: Re: Thank you, Rod!!! From: Bro. T.R. To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 13:17:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne and Rod: Couldn't agree more. When I slip (ugh!) in using the word friend I mean it is the sense of closeness or relational proximity. Do try not to though. Many of us sovereignty folk are guilty of 'downspeak'. Again we must pray for the merciful intervention of our Father to transform our minds with all appropriate linguistic consequence.

Subject: Eschatology From: B.H.Cagle To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:52:26 (PST) Email Address: bcagle8928@aol.com Message: In the reformed tradition I think that premillinialism is a natural outcome of clear biblical exegisis. It amazes me that some reformed thinkers think that amillinialism is the only view.For those of postmillinialism I think we should have an alter call and give them a chance to repent and become premillinial!!! Now before any of you reply angrily i am just joking!!!

Subject: Re: Eschatology From: Prestor John To: B.H.Cagle Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:55:50 (PST) Email Address: pdnelson@icehouse.net Message: In the reformed tradition I think that premillinialism is a natural outcome of clear biblical exegisis. It amazes me that some reformed thinkers think that amillinialism is the only view.For those of postmillinialism I think we should have an alter call and give them a chance to repent and become premillinial!!! Now before any of you reply angrily i am just joking!!! --- Mr. Cagle: The Reformed tradition has in regards to eschatology three views, they are postmillinnialism, amillinnialism, and historic or covenant premillinnialism. All three views have proponents which claim that theirs is the outcome of clear biblical exegisis. What you personally believe should be based upon your study of the scriptures in regards to eschatology. However, it does not mean that you should treat the other views in a flippant manner. I am a postmillennialist. I respect the other positions although I consider them wrong but I do not treat those that hold to them with disesteem. And I surely would not suggest an altar call as traditionally that has been the response of those that hold to an Arminian tradition. (aka Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, D.L. Moody). Prestor John Servabo Fidem Premillennial Deception www.icehouse.net/pdnelson/decep.htm

Subject: Re: Eschatology From: mebaser To: B.H.Cagle Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 17:21:23 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In the reformed tradition I think that premillinialism is a natural outcome of clear biblical exegisis. It amazes me that some reformed thinkers think that amillinialism is the only view.For those of postmillinialism I think we should have an alter call and give them a chance to repent and become premillinial!!! Now before any of you reply angrily i am just joking!!! --- B.H.Cagle, Are you joking about your entire post, or about the 'altercall to the postmills?' mebaser

Subject: Re: Eschatology From: jh To: mebaser Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 11:49:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: mebaser, Good question. My guess is the whole post must be a joke because I think that the greater percentage of 'Reformers' agree that the amillinial view is the most biblical. jh

Subject: Re: Eschatology From: Bro. T.R. To: jh Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:26:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: After being decidedly convinced of all three views, I now 'Pan' for fellowship with all. Each advocate deserves their due respect. In-fighting on eschatology seems often to fuel the Pelagian and Arminian. Terrain for the engagement calls for a high level of discernment. I've met B.H. on at least two occasions and I 'think' he prefers cooperation and fellowship to drawing lines in the sand. Hopefully he hasn't changed. There is only One whose sand lines matter!

Subject: the possibilty of christ's sinning From: brett To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:47:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: just thought maybe you all would like to mull over this --- there are some pretty hearty names on both sides of the fence

Subject: Brett, please mull this over. From: Rod To: brett Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:55:24 (PST) Email Address: na Message: It only matters where God's name is! :>)

Subject: Well, to 'heck' with the wicked! From: Anne To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:00:38 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Due to the 'unsuitable language' filter, I am not sure how well this message will be understood, but here goes: Did y'all see the new U.S. News and World Report? It's cover story is that Hell has gone the way of the horse and buggy, to judge from what is being preached today in modern pulpits, and by the pollsters. Here's a snippet from the article: Many modern Americans are simply ashamed of Hell, explains Groothuis of the Denver Seminary. Even some evangelicals, who generally take a more literal approach to Biblical teachings, he says, view Hell as 'a blemish to be covered up by the cosmetic of divine love.' In increasingly secular American culture, Hell has become about as politically incorrect a concept as one can find.' Actually it is a very interesting article, and I daresay y'all might enjoy reading it. I tried to post the URL, but you never know how these things will work out. ;-> I especially liked that quote about the 'cosmetic of divine love.' That seems apt for today, does it not? One thing that surprised me was that both Luther and Calvin rejected Dante's vision of fiery torments, being convinced that the doomed sinners' agonies came from eternal separation from God. Live and learn, I guess. Anne www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000131/hell.htm

Subject: As an aside . . . . From: Anne To: Anne Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:26:18 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I simply loathe it when a poll is offered wherein there's a question is based on a false premise. The U.S. News & World Report site has a poll about our belief in the afterlife. The first question is: Do you think there is a Heaven where people who have led good lives are eternally rewarded? Now how the heck am I supposed to answer that? Talk about works-salvation theology! Mercy, the Reformed view isn't even a tiny blip on the radar, is it? Anne

Subject: We are, indeed, a handful. In more ways than one! n/t From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:40:02 (PST) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: Rod are you aligning yourself with the Reformed? nt From: Prestor John To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 15:30:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Rod are you aligning yourself with the Reformed? nt From: Rod To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 18:27:35 (PST) Email Address: na Message: John, The Reformed position has a great many good points, not the least of which is the adherence to the sovereignty of God. Also, as your quote of Louis Berkhoff shows, the inability of the Lord Jesus Christ to sin is the conviction of at least one Reformed person (and I assume you also). :>)

Subject: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:07:13 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Has this board ever dealt with the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ, though fully man, was unable to sin? He absolutely had to be sinless and unable to sin, by the fact that He was the holy and immutable God, and by the fact that the thing which causes other men to sin, their being 'in the flesh' (a description of the sin nature), is not a part of Him.

Subject: yes it has From: lindell To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:09:42 (PST) Email Address: ldunning@usa.net Message: Rod, This was hashed about last year or the year before. What was mentioned then was: M.R.DeHaan was of the opinion that the Lord could not sin because His blood was not tainted by Adam. In his book 'The Chemistry of the Blood', he declares that none of the womans blood enters the fetus, hence the absence of the sin nature. Although, if your religious palate longs to cast a disparaging eye on the Lord's character, then it may delight you to know that M.R.'s grandson Richard DeHaan allowed that He could have sinned. Then the matter of the Lord's temptation by Satan. Psalm 24:1 says the Lord owns the earth. Exodus 19:5 says the same. Now if Moses and Aaron had their religious thinking correct, then Satan's offer was not a valid offer, was it? The Lord said that Satan never told the truth, so at what point was He tempted. If the temptation was valid, would not the Lord then believed that Satan was telling the truth? Have at it amigo, I'm outta here..

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:58:39 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - Adam originally had no sin nature, YET, he sinned. As Gene states, what would have been the purpose of the 'temptation' and Christ becoming like us in the flesh if he could not suffer (which we know He did) or be tempted. Christ in his humanity felt all of our struggles.... Having said that (to the best of my limited ability and knowledge of theology) I think Christ, even though He did not possess a sin nature (like Adam originally did not), COULD have sinned in his humanity but unlike Adam CHOSE not to. He behaved perfectly - without sin. He had no desire to sin (no sin nature) but COULD HAVE nevertheless made the DECISION to sin. He is the perfect SECOND ADAM. As believers we still have the ability to sin as well as the desire...albeit diminishing in time as we grow in grace and knowledge. Am I in error? If so, correct me gently, please. ;-) blessings, laz

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 13:46:21 (PST) Email Address: na Message: laz, I am going to disagree with you. And I must say that I will try to do it gently, but this is a real 'burr under my saddle' that Christians don't comprehend the absolute holiness of God and that the Lord Jesus is and was God. As such, He would never and could never associate Himself with the reality or even the possibility to sin. God loathes sin with a loathing we cannot comprehend. God chose to 'become flesh and dwell among us' and He prepared His body and human nature for His habitation and to be permanently united with Him in eternity. Do you honestly think He would have chosen a vessel in which sin was possible? Heb. 10:4-10, especially verse 5, as I told Gene, describes the body (and subsequent human nature) provided. It was a body prepared for sacrifice and the Sacrifice was to be perfect, without spot or blemish. That was the purpose of the 'temptations,' to demonstrate that He was perfect and couldn't sin and fail! I suggested some Scriptures to Anne in this capacity, let me take you to some of them. Let's begin with Mark 1:9-13. Here, we have the Lord Jesus baptized by John, and immediately the Father declares, 'Thou art my Son, in whom I am well pleased .' His being well-pleased is a continuous state; there was never a time in which He wasn't well pleased with the Lord Jesus, as He affirmed again at the Mount of Transfiguration. Now, notice that, as soon as this pronouncement is made, Mark says, 'immediately,' the Spirit of the Lord 'drove Him' into the wilderness to be tempted. Mark's gospel is the only one to use this term, but note its urgency and the necessity of His facing that temptation to prove that He was well pleasing to God. To find out the details of the transaction, we have to turn to Matthew. In Matt. 4:1-11 we find the account of the temptations. Now, please be aware that, before any of the temptations began, the Lord Jesus 'fasted forty days and forty nights,' and 'he was afterwards hungry.' I'll say! I'd guess that He was very weak and trembly also. But then the Enemy, 'the tempter,' came and said, 'If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread' (verse 3). Let's pause a moment and consider how you and I view 'temptations.' I think most of us see them as things we want and yield to because they're so enticing. And even, if we're 'strong,' and don't yield, we wish we could; we pine for them as a result. But the word here means to 'test' or 'try.' That puts a different face on it. The Lord Jesus was being 'tested' or 'tried' to see what was in Him. Think of what you do when you contemplate a new car. Do you 'try it out?' Do you do that to find out its characteristics and to see if it 'pleases' you in its performance? The Lord Jesus, while not an object, was 'tried' to bring out what was in Him, to demonstrate for the record that He was pure, clean, holy, and had all the righteousness of God, being unable to sin. If you or I had fasted forty days and nights, wouldn't we longingly and mouth-wateringly have contemplated creating food from stones? But the Scripture doesn't even hint at that about our Lord. The Lord Jesus immeditately responded with Scriptural rebuke. And it was so for the rest of the trials also. He couldn't fail, being possessed of 'all the fulness of the Godhead bodily' (Col 2:9), possessing God's immutable attribute of inherent holiness. I think we Christians have two particular failings. One is that we 'separate out' the natures of the Lord Jesus (more on that in a moment). The other is that we are too familiar and casual with Him. So many call Him, 'Jesus,' as if addressing or talking about the kid next door. He is, 'My Lord and my God!' This is an infinitely holy Being, One Who has condescended to 'become flesh and dwell among us' so that He could bring about our salvation. But we often command Him to do things in prayer and treat Him with an intimacy which is either disrespect or borders on it. Too many Christians, I think, forget that He is One whole and complete Person. He is God. He is man. He is both together and all the time and is not one without the Other. Look at what the angel said to Mary about His future existence: 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). 'That holy thing' was not just the God side of Him, nor was merely His human nature. 'That holy thing' was and is the whole package of God's gift of a Savior to us. He is the Lord Jesus Christ, a name and a title, and a description of Him. (It would do each of us good to research those words and that title to get a feeling for Who and What He really is.) The thing to keep uppermost in mind in all this is that He is holy. He is holy as God, and He is holy as man, because, though He has two natures, they are joined in one and He is one total Person, the Second Person of the Triune God. God can never fail or sin. He sent His Son 'to condemn sin in the flesh,' and that achievement was in the 'likeness of,' or representation of, 'sinful flesh,' but of necessity, His divine nature could never have abode in actual sinful flesh. It was never God's choice not to sin. It didn't have to be--sin for Him is a most distinct impossibility. He didn't choose not to sin when He prepared the body/human nature of the Lord Jesus; He didn't choose not to sin in the Lord Jesus when presented with the temptations; and He could never, in the past or present have chosen such a thing as sin, so contrary to His immutable nature.

Subject: Brings up another question From: Gene To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:22:26 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, I will comment later on your post but this I find interesting: Too many Christians, I think, forget that He is One whole and complete Person. He is God. He is man. He is both together and all the time and is not one without the Other. Does this mean God the Father never 'forsook' Jesus on the cross? I do recall Jesus accusing God of leaving him. Carrying this point further, IF God did forsake Jesus on the cross (and left him) then at that point would not the unblemished sacrifice become blemished? In other words, God was then not a part of the sacrifice rendering it null and void.

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Gene To: laz Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 09:39:11 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Laz, We agree!!!!!!!!!!!! Mark this day on your calendar. :) I never thought about Adam that way...good point!

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: laz To: Gene Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:07:30 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Laz, We agree!!!!!!!!!!!! Mark this day on your calendar. :) I never thought about Adam that way...good point! --- Gene - don't party just yet...I'm more than willing to be corrected and change my views if shown biblically as Rod is trying to do. ;-) Rod - I did read the verses you gave Anne and they had no impact on my tentative position as I had articulated it earlier this afternoon....I will reread your post above. blessings, laz

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Gene To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:20:32 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, John 1:14: 'The Word became FLESH and made his dwelling among us.' Now, tell me again how Jesus was not 'in the flesh.' Sarx is the word used both here and in Paul's writings to describe, as the NIV puts it, 'sinful nature [flesh].'

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: Gene Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:32:08 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Gene, I know you're angry and disturbed with me, but you always err. That error has to be pointed out and demonstrated when doing so will benefit God's people. And you're actually angry with God with whom you constantly disagree, not me. Okay, here's the explanation. I hope you were sincere in the request. Go back to verse 1 of John 1: 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' God and the Word are synonymous; God spoke the creation into existence in Gen. 1. And the sinning couple 'heard the voice of the LORD God walking' in the Garden in Gen. 3. Now go to Heb. 1 and read 1-3. There you'll find that the writer is describing the One who was on the earth, the One Who 'spoke to us...in these last days.' You will note that He is 'the brightness of [God's] glory, and the express image of his person.' Those words in Heb.1 which describe the Lord Jesus Christ signify, as I'm sure your Greek expertise will tell you, an exact image of God. An exact image is possible only if, as John 1:1, which you ignored, is true, and the Lord Jesus is Who the Bible states repeatedly, the Second Person of the One triune God. Now, take a look at your verse you quoted. Is the emphasis on the 'flesh' which God became of His choice to accomplish His plan? Or, is the emphasis on the Word Who is God, Who is the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth? Obviously, the emphasis of that verse and the context of the Chapter is on the holiness of the One Who chose to become flesh and dwell among us. Now, go back to Hebrews. Look at chapter 10:4-10, especially, but not exclusively, verse 5. Who prepared that flesh? Answer: God ('and the Word was God,' remember?). Why did God prepare that particular body? Answer, so that it might be a perfect Substitutional Sacrifice for our sins and so that the exact righteousness of Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God, could be imputed to those who are saved, those who could have absolutely no righteousness otherwise. 'For he hath made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousnes of God in him.' How could Christians possibly be 'made the righteousness of God in him' if He hadn't the exact righteousness of God, i. e., He had to be God. One can't impart to others by imputation what he doesn't possess. He gets our imputed sin and we get His imputed righteousness. Okay, now to the issue of the 'flesh.' Yes, Gene, he was 'flesh,' unique 'flesh,' a human being without Adam for a progenitor, His Father being God and His human nature coming from Mary. Note how that complete Person is described in the Bible: 'And the angel answered, and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). 'I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God' (John 10:30-33). 'The Jews answered [Pilate], We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself to be the Son of God' (John 19:7). 'And Thomas answered and said unto him, 'My Lord and my God' (John 20:29). Now let's read what Paul said on this issue in conclusion. 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death' (Rom. 8:2). The 'Spirit of life' was 'in' Christ Jesus and it is God's power, the power to make one free from sin and death and alive to God. Only God can do that; Christ Jesus was God, and God come in the flesh. But what kind of 'flesh' was it? Was it the 'flesh' I spoke to you of before, that rotten, corrupt, putrid, dead-to-God nature described in Rom. 8:5-9? No. It was something else entirely; something from God and God Himself: 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh [that would be the sin nature of Adam's offspring], God sending his Son, in the likeness [a 'resemblance'] of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh' (verse 3). And He did that, 'that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit' (verse 4), speaking of those whom Christ has made alive in the new spiritual birth. His 'flesh' is, as I said, a unique thing. It's a product of the welding of a perfect human nature with no sin tendency and no possibility to sin with the nature of God. That Person, the God-Man is the fulfillment of God's plan for salvation. No one is saved unless a partaker with Him in God's inheritance (see Rom. 8:14-17). Well, Gene, that was only a thumbnail sketch, but, if God has given you 'spiritual eyes and ears,' it will suffice for your salvation.

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Gene To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:25:33 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: His 'flesh' is, as I said, a unique thing. It's a product of the welding of a perfect human nature with no sin tendency and no possibility to sin with the nature of God. That Person, the God-Man is the fulfillment of God's plan for salvation. No one is saved unless a partaker with Him in God's inheritance (see Rom. 8:14-17). If, as you say, he had 'no sin tendency' then I guess the temptations in the desert were really not temptations. If Jesus had no possibility to sin then he was not tempted! And 'unique' flesh?!?!? I missed the chapter and verse that came from. There is no qualifier used to describe Jesus' flesh. John could have used 'man' but instead he chose the most crass term (sarx). Did Jesus sin? NO! I think you had better understand what 'flesh' means and how the SAME word is used to describe Jesus' human nature AND man's.

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: mebaser To: Gene & Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:17:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Greetings Gene and Rod, Consider Hebrews 2:14-18. 14 Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. Verse 14 indicates that Jesus partook of the same 'flesh and blood' as mankind does. If Jesus would have merely partaken of the flesh, then there may be an argument that would support that Jesus was 'in the flesh,' meaning human sinful nature as Gene supposes. But the fact remains that Jesus partook of 'flesh and blood,' which is a phrase that always has the meaning of a physical body (cf. Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12; and this passage) rather than a spiritual condition. The rest of verse 14, as well as vv. 15-16 clearly spell out the reason why Jesus became flesh and blood; to save the 'descendant of Abraham' by annuling the power of him who had the power of death (Satan). Verse 17 proves the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. Yhe Bible version I use (NASB) says, 'He had to be made like His brethren...' while the KJV uses, 'it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren ...' The KJV is more accurate to the Greek, but even more accurate is: He was OBLIGATED (behooved) to BECOME (be made) like His brethren. 1. Jesus was OBLIGATED (Opheilen) to become like His human brethren. By the fact that He was obligated before he was incarnated reveals His preexistence. 2. He wasn't 'created' like his brethren, he BECAME (homoiOtheinai) like His brethren. Again indicating His preexistence. As for verse 18, I am inclined to agree with laz and Gene in at least one thing, Jesus SUFFERED in His temptation. But we can all rest on the fact that He never sinned. Hebrews 4:15 'For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.' In Christ, mebaser

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: mebaser Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:37:54 (PST) Email Address: na Message: mebaser, Everyone is ignoring one thing. He was fully man, but He was not of the same flesh as other men, as pointed out in Rom. 8:2-4. There it is specifically stated that He was 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' a specific expression denoting the fact that here was something unique. Here was a perfect man, a man possessing the inherent goodness of God, else we would never be justified. Our justification rests on the fact that He received our sins in imputation, and in turn imputed His righteousness to us. If he'd had flesh with the same capacity to sin as all other men have, we would have had another sin tendency imputed to us! We would have remained in sin. How could that save us? But instead, 'For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' (2 Cor. 5:21). Now, He knew sin, He knew all about it. It was what had wrecked man and brought on the requirement that He come to save His own. So, how did He not 'know' sin? He didn't know it because it couldn't touch and taint Him. Go back to Heb. 1:1-3. Adam was created 'in God's image,' but the Lord Jesus was not created, but eternal, and His human nature was 'prepared' as Luke 1 and Heb. 10 both declare. He was (and you students of Greek should pick this up in the original and determine that it is true) the 'express image' of God, and that was in His human and divine natures in combination, as one Christ/Messiah. That is, He wasn't 'good' because He didn't sin; He was good because He was God, inherently good and unable even to associate with the possiblity of sin. look at what He stated while here on earth in His earthly body: 'Why callest thou me good? There is none good, but one, that is God' (Matt. 19:17). Was He God at that point? 'I and my Father are one' (John 10:30). Was He not God? 'Have I been such a long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath see the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?' (John 14:9). Was He not God? When John 1:14 says that the 'Word became flesh and tabernacled among us,' isn't that a reminder of the 'tabernacle' which God gave specific instructions about in to the nation Israel in the wilderness? Wasn't that the place where God and man met in reconciliation and atonement? Wasn't it a holy Tabernacle, built to specific instructions to reinforce just that fact and to glorify God? Jesus Christ was just such a holy Tabernacle in His flesh, the place where God and man met so that God's anger could be propitiated and acceptance could be found through a pure and clean Sacrifice of His flesh and lifeblood. He was 'the brightness of [God's] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high' (Heb. 1:3). The right hand of the Majesty on high was His place, His rightful place, both before and after His coming to the earth in bodily form. And that was because He was the eternal Son of God and a holy, acceptable Sacrifice, completely well pleasing to God. He could never have sinned and He never wanted to sin. {Please compare my earlier post to laz.}

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: mebaser To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 17:12:43 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, In your post, you wrote, ' Everyone is ignoring one thing. He was fully man, but He was not of the same flesh as other men, as pointed out in Rom. 8:2-4. There it is specifically stated that He was 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' a specific expression denoting the fact that here was something unique.' I assure you that Gene is the only one ignoring you there. You are preaching to the choir if you say to me that Jesus in the flesh was something truly unique. As far as your statement, 'If he'd had flesh with the same capacity to sin as all other men have, we would have had another sin tendency imputed to us!' I simply disagree with this statement. There is nothing scriptural or logically arguable that NECESSITATES this statement to be true. He does not impute to us His nature, but His righteousness. If He imputed to us His nature, then we would stop sinnig due to our new perfect and divine nature. Now, I know that His righteousness stems from the fact that He is the righteousness of God, but remember that the righteousness imputed to us is that righteousness demanded by the Law. We could never fulfill the Law, but Christ did. You covenant theologians express this very doctrine in what's called the covenant of redemption between the Son and the Father. If you dismiss the righteousness of Christ manifested by His perfect attainment of the Law, you dismiss the covenant of redemption. Now to your credit, you affirm the very biblical notion that God cannot possibly 'know sin' from an experiential perspective (for God cannot be tempted by evil, James 1:13). But do not forget that Christ laid aside His divine prerogative (Philippians 2:6-7) when He took on human flesh, and He did suffer in temptation (Hebrews 2:18). Christ may not have had a sin nature, but He surely faced temptation whereby He 'suffered' in some sense, otherwise blot out Hebrews 2:18 from your Bible. The fact of Jesus being flesh and blood, the kind of flesh and blood that suffers by temptation, in no way has to mean that Jesus is less righteous than He would be if He did not suffer in temptation. On the contrary, by enduring the suffering, and even defeating it by not sinning, actually is able to aid those of us who suffer and fall to temptation on a daily basis (Hebrews 2:18b). In Christ, mebaser

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: mebaser Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:36:09 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hi, mebaser, We differ on several points. First, I'm not strictly a 'covenantal theologian,' as the Reformed see it, not bearing any label, including 'Reformed.' Also, I don't classify myself as a 'theologian,' not being schooled in the 'Queen of the Sciences.' I'm truly just a simple Bible student. mebaser--'As far as your statement, 'If he'd had flesh with the same capacity to sin as all other men have, we would have had another sin tendency imputed to us!' I simply disagree with this statement. There is nothing scriptural or logically arguable that NECESSITATES this statement to be true. I know that His righteousness stems from the fact that He is the righteousness of God, but remember that the righteousness imputed to us is that righteousness demanded by the Law. We could never fulfill the Law, but Christ did. You covenant theologians express this very doctrine in what's called the covenant of redemption between the Son and the Father. If you dismiss the righteousness of Christ manifested by His perfect attainment of the Law, you dismiss the covenant of redemption.' I see this as an error on your part, based on both Scripture and logic. First, the Lord Jesus imputes to us His nature, which is total righteousness. If He'd had a sin capability, which would be a sin 'tendency,' so to speak, as all who mention this point to Adam, who was innocent and good, without guilt or penalty, who had the most auspicious of circumstances and communion with God as an incentive to stay sin free. But Adam sinned at his first opportunity. If the Lord Jesus were like Adam in His human nature, that would be part of the 'righteousness' imputed to us, as we are imputed His exact standing before God and are to be 'conformed to the image of [God's] Son' (Rom. 8:29, as if you didn't know). One imputes what one has: We had sin and only sin, imputing that to Him; He had no sin (and no 'tendency' to sin), but pure righteousness before God and He imputed that to us. That fact is evident for the law was 'weak through the flesh' (Rom. 8:2). The law brings out the tendencies of the flesh, according to that statement, but the law brought nothing from Him, but praise and obedience. I conclude, on the basis of that evidence, that it shone forth 'the brightness of [God's] glory' in the Lord Jesus, because He was completely filled with being 'the express image of [God's] person' with no room for anything else in His character and nature just as God (Who He also is) doesn't. The expression 'his person' should be of great significance to you who are students of Greek, as it undoubtedly refers to God's 'substance,' or 'essence.' I want to emphasize to you that I don't 'blot anything out of my Bible.' I'm aware of Heb. 2:18. Let's delve into it. 'For in that he himself suffered being tempted, he is able to help them that are tempted.' If one puts a comma after 'suffered,' or reads it that way, with a pause, it seemingly changes the whole meaning of the verse. Also, we sinning humans have a concrete idea of what 'temptations' are which clouds our thinking, having ourselves suffered by longing for the item in the temptation. That isn't what the verse is referring to. The Lord Jesus didn't covet and long for the things suggested by 'the tempter.' But He did suffer in the temptation. In the event in the wilderness, the Lord Jesus was suffering physically at the beginning of the temptations, having foregone food and other 'creature comforts' for forty days and nights. But His spiritual and emotional suffering came from knowing that it was God's will that He be subjected to Satan's presence and his offers, both of which were at odds with His nature and repugnant to Him. Also, knowing that Satan was tempting Him on every level of humanity, physical, emotional, and spiritual, realizing that mankind was faced with those temptations daily and unable to resist, being unregenerate and spiritually dead, condemned under sin. He, however, wanted none of the things Satan offered or suggested. There were things which did cause Him to suffer, but the tendency to yield was not among them, for he didn't consider doing them. He immediately rejected the things 'offered' with the confirmation of Scripture, no hesitation at all is recorded or implied. His most intense suffering was in in prayer to His Father when He sweat great drops of blood. Let's be very clear concerning what was troubling Him at that point. It wasn't that He was going to die. It wasn't that the death would be excruciating. In John 10:10-18, He spoke freely about laying down His life for the sheep. The tone of those verses indicates that it is an accomplished fact and that He is ready to assume the task. Yet, in the Garden, He wrestled with the fact of His forthcoming death. It seems to me to do no violence to the Scriptural teaching, to the focus of the Bible, to conclude that the thing which is so despicable to Him was the assumption of the burden of our sin. It is actually that sin which killed Him, the 'wages of sin' being death (Rom. 6:23, cp. Gen. 2:17). For One so utterly righteous, Who had never known sin, or it's penalty, the horror of that fact of receiving the penalty for our sins is so mind-bendingly abhorrent to Him that His whole righteous nature drew back form the fact, not in rebellion to God's will, though. He wasn't actually tempted to forego the cross for a very simple reason. He was now human and divine, but that combination was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God Himself. His will, therefore, was the same will as the Father's and the Spirit's. It was one will for the three Persons of the Godhead. What He actually submitted Himself to was His own will to save the predestinated in election, though it wasn't His 'personal will' in the sense of desire to 'be made sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21). The intense desire to escape that penalty was submerged in the larger, more necessary, decree from God in eternity (in which He was a participant) that we would be redeemed at that enormous cost. That assumption of the penalty for sin was, of course, the source of great agony for a God Who had never experienced sin. Again, this was a 'test,' and a severe one. But it deeply confirmed that He couldn't sin, couldn't go against the will of God. Heb. 2:18 is very much in my Bible.

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Prestor John To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 15:21:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well then to input a covenant theologian's view on this a little quote from Berkhoff's Systematic Theology: We ascribe to Christ not only natural, but also moral integrity or moral perfection, that is sinlessness. This means not only that Christ could avoid sinning ( potuit non peccare), and did actually avoid it, but also that it was impossible for Him to sin (non potuit peccare) because of the essential bond between the human and divine natures. Berkoff also adds this under the necessity of the two natures: a. The necessity of His manhood. Since man sinned, it was necessary that the penalty should be borne by man. Moreover, the paying of the penalty involved suffering of body and soul, such as only man is capable of bearing, John 12:27; Acts 3:18; Heb. 2:14; 9:22 . It was necessary that Christ should assume human nature, not only with its essential properties, but also with all the infirmities to which it is liable after the fall, and should thus descend to the depths of degradation that man had fallen, Heb. 2:17,18. At the same time, He had to be a sinless man, for a man who was himself a sinner and who had forfeited his own life certainly could not atone for others, Heb.7:26. Only such a true human Mediator, who had experimental knowledge of the woes of mankind and rose superior to all temptation, could enter sympathetically into all the experiences, the trials, and the temptations of man, Heb. 2:17, 18; 4:15-5:2; and be a perfect human example for His followers, Matt. 11:29; Mark 10:39; John 13:13-15; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb.12:2-4; 1Pet. 2:21. Prestor John Servabo Fidem

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: mebaser To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 02:08:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Greetings again Rod, You write: First, the Lord Jesus imputes to us His nature, which is total righteousness. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. But what I see you saying is that we have to us imputed the nature of Jesus, and that we must therefore have imputed to us all the tendencies of that nature. Well, who says that Jesus, in His incarnation, had the tendency to sin? You bring up the issue of Adam sinning at the first moment he could, but didn't even you say that Jesus' being in the flesh was unique only to Him? If this is so, and I do believe that this is so, then you cannot compare Jesus' nature to Adam's. You are assuming that if it was possible for Jesus to sin, then He must have been inclined to sin. We all agree that it is a ridiculous and even obstinate notion that Jesus could have had the tendency or inclination to sin. But it does not NECESSARILY follow that if Jesus could be tempted, then he would be inclined to fall to temptation. For the record, and to your credit, I do see biblical support (not necessarily proof) that regenerate men may have to some degree Christ's nature imputed to them, but only if indeed it can be shown that to PARTAKE of the divine nature (cf. 2 Peter 1:4) is to have Christ's nature IMPUTED to us. I will have to study that more in depth before I reach a conclusion. You write: One imputes what one has ... He had no sin (and no 'tendency' to sin), but pure righteousness before God and He imputed that to us. Again, you assume that not having a tendency to sin necessitates from an inability to sin. You very well support the fact that Christ had no tendency to sin, but have not shown either biblically or logically that Jesus was completely incapable of sinning. You write: 'For in that he himself suffered being tempted, he is able to help them that are tempted.' ... If one puts a comma after 'suffered,' or reads it that way, with a pause, it seemingly changes the whole meaning of the verse. To put a comma after 'suffered' or pauses after it, so as to attach the 'being tempted' clause to the latter part of the verse is untenable from the Greek for at least two grammatical reasons. Let me explain as easily as I can. 1. The word for 'He Himself' (autos) appears between 'He suffered' (peponthen) and 'being tempted' (peirastheis). The significance is seen in the literal reading: He suffered, He Himself having been tempted, He is able to help... In the Greek, as well as in English, a phrase like this one (beginning with 'He Himself') interrupts the flow of the sentence for the expressed purpose of explaining what it immediately interrupted. So the phrase 'He Himself being tempted' is used to explain the fact that 'He suffered.' 2. The main phrase in this passage is 'he is able to help them that are tempted.' That means that we have two phrases left ('in that He suffered' and 'He Himself being tempted') called modifiers. In Greek, as well as in English, it is irregular to put modifier phrases before the main phrase unless they are put there for emphasis. To have two phrases, both modifying the main phrase, is rare. If what you propose is correct, then we have two phrases, unrelated to each other, both modifying the main phrase. That would mean that both phrases are more important than the main phrase which they modify. But if the grammer given by all Bible translations (that I have seen) is correct, then we have a main phrase ('he is able to help them that are tempted.') modified by an 'emphatic' phrase ('in that he suffered'), and that emphatic phrase is itself modified by the remainig phrase ('he himself being tempted'). Let us leave the Greek grammer now and go on to a more convincing argument that shows that Jesus suffered DUE TO His temptation, rather than merely saying that He suffered while he happened to be tempted. The Scriptures, in at least two places, strongly indicate that Jesus' suffering was due to His temptation. Those two places are both in Hebrews, Heb. 4:15 and 5:7-8. Hebrews 4:15 says 'For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.' Jesus SYMPATHIZES with our weaknesses. To sympathize literally means to to feel what one goes through. Jesus knows through experience how we feel when we are tempted. Yet, as the verse indicates, he never fell to that temptation; He is without sin. Hebrews 5:7-8 say: 7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. 8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. Verse 7 indicates that when Jesus was 'in the flesh,' He was pious. Verse 8 goes on to say that although He was a Son (a reference to His divinity) He learned something, obedience. That obedience was derived from His sufferings. When Jesus was tempted, he suffered, but He learned something He had no need of before, obedience. Thus when Jesus was tempted, he made the (foreordained) choice to obey, rather than to fall to the temptation. If, as you see it, Jesus suffered only while He was tempted, then this verse would make no sense. Well that's all for now. In Christ, mebaser

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: mebaser Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 11:36:40 (PST) Email Address: na Message: mebaser, my friend and brother, First, a question. Is the Lord Jesus Christ God? Another: Isn't the message of the Bible all about the absolute and undeniable holiness and righteousness of our God? Third question: If God can't abide sin, abhors sin, loathes sin, and sin brings death to humanity, why would we ever be able to say that the Lord Jesus Christ ever associated Himself with a sinful ability? I regard that as the greatest impossibilty conceivable. Furthermore, I think it strikes a blow at the heart of the Christian faith, dealing with the actual Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, Who didn't become righteous, but instead, demonstrated His immutable attribute of righteousness by the fact that He never, at any time, desired to rebel against God's will. 'And he that sent me is with me. The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him' (John 8:29). Did you notice that? He is pleasing to God because He, though now possessing a human nature forever, is God and The Father is in communion with the Son, the total Person. The human part isn't separate from the Person; it became part of the Person, joined with the Second Person of the Trintiy in a way we can't fathom. The human part is melded with the divine portion to 'become flesh,' to be 'that holy thing' (a most striking expression) spoken of to Mary by the angel in Luke 1. The name 'Jesus' is sandwiched between 'Lord' and 'Christ' to indicate that God gave us a complete gift of grace, a propitiation, a 'mercy seat,' the place where God and man can meet in reconciiation. That fact enables Paul to write to Timothy, 'There is one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5). He, in his totality, His complete Person, the unity of his natures which comprise one Person, declared, 'My food is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work' (John 4:34). This was spoken at a time when His disciples were concerned for Him physically: 'Master, eat' (verse 31). But His overriding desire to serve God was 'nourishment and sustenance' to Him, as He explains in the succeeding verses. It is an error, I think, to separate out His two natures to say that one could do this and the Other wouldn't allow it. He was never 'at war' with Himself within. I think that, if we come to grips with that concept, the conflict is resolved. ____________________________________ On the subject of imputation of His nature to His elect, let's approach the topic like this: What is God's ultimate goal for His elect? Doesn't Rom. 8:30 tell us it is 'glorification?' Doesn't that glorification result from justification? '...whom he justified, them he also glorified.' Now, we have to ask ourselves, what was God's motivation behind the 'golden chain of salvation?' Looking at verse 28, it was because He desired that 'all things' (everything which ever transpired) 'work together for good to them that love God.' Comparing that with Eph. 2:4 and 1 John 4:19, we find that desire was born of His mercy because of His great love for us. Now, how does that love ultimately work itself out for us? 'For whom He did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren' (verse 29) so that He might glorify us with Him because we are partakers of His righteous nature. And that nature is ours by imputation, a gift indescribable. I say that this 'predestination to conformation' is God's highest purpose in relation to His people. It is only made possible by our conformation to His Son because that is only possilbe due to the fact that His Son was never in rebellion and never desirous of rebellion, never even capable of rebellion. He was, in that sense alone, vastly different from us in the flesh. He was in the 'likeness of sinful flesh' so that He could 'condemn sin in the flesh,' but He 'knew no sin.' ______________________________________ Did He suffer in the temptation? I've never denied it. What I have said is that He didn't suffer temptation (trial) in the exact manner we do. When we suffer in temptation, we do so because we actually have a desire to disobey God. We often yield to that temptation, proving that we are 'weak through the flesh.' The Lord Jesus, however, never wanted to do what was contrary to God's will; couldn't do what was contrary to God's will. He suffered because He hated the presence of sin and its effect on man (suffering and death) and because the very presentation of the opportunity to disobey God was repulsive to Him. His flesh, His humanity, being unlike ours in the 'weakness' toward sin, recoiled from it and that made Him suffer, knowing that His own could not resist and had no will of their own to do so. I trust this has been helpful.

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:52:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - if Jesus could not be 'tempted' in the plain understanding of the word 'temptation' because He was God, as you say ... how could Jesus (as very God) not know all things while on earth ... to include the fact that the fig tree in the distance did not have figs? Where Lazarus was buried, etc. To me it's vital that Christ took on a human nature to the fullest extent....He was fully man and fully God...Christianity 101. Tell me again in what sense was Christ human ...or super human? I also have to disagree that we are imputed with Jesus' nature....in the here and now via justification we are imputed with his righteousness alone ... otherwise, if we have his nature, as you say,...we'd not sin either. no? laz p.s. let me restate that Jesus, the perfet God-man had the ability/power to sin, like early Adam...but not the desire. He was obedient unto death....which suggests that disobedience was 'possible' on account of his human nature. I see no violence being done to the gospel or the nature of God...

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 20:32:40 (PST) Email Address: na Message: laz, Just a quick answer. My posts, each and every one of them affirm the humanity of the Lord Jesus and never detract from it. I'd appreciate your realizing and acknowledging that. And I sincerely appreciate your looking at the Scriptures offered. I admire and respect you and mebaser and others who have such dedication to the Lord, but hold to a view which just chills my heart and quenches my spirit. Your view that the Lord Jesus, God, Who chose to become flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, could actually have committed sin is just completley abhorrent to me. I'm saying this not to offend or alienate you, but so that honesty will reveal the depth of my conviction on this matter. I feel that on it rests the core of Christianity, determining the 'Who' and 'What' our Lord Jesus is. The Lord Jesus Christ is the heart of Christianity and His Being, abilities and attributes. I know of no more important matter to consider. His complete title, which includes His human name, is really an identification of Who He is and he is "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8), the Lord jesus Christ. As for His not knowing, He both knew and didn't know; He grew and didn't grow. Balanced against your example is this place (and other places) where He did know: 'And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said...' (Matt. 9:4). Was that because He was a 'superman?' No, and I never suggested it. It was because He was God Who condescended to come to us in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh and 'for sin' (Rom. 8:3). He 'knew no sin,' but He knew all about sin, its deadly effects and its gracious cure. Concerning 'human nature to the fullest extent,' I'd ask you to think on this. The 'fullest extent of human nature' is God's conception of it: A man who is without sin and confirmed in His ability not to sin, as well as His inability to "know sin" by committing it . A man such as the world has never known, nor will ever know, outside the Lord Jesus Christ. Our perception of man, sinful man, man in sinful flesh, is a corrupt conception of what it is to be 'fully human.' Fully human is God's ideal. That's why He wants us to be "conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the first-born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 21:25:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - I fully recognize your adherence to the humanity of Christ in your posts. ;-) But I do believe that your 'position' does detract abit as you seem to import a notion not supported by the Bible, as I read it. I just don't see your 'unique' position being Biblical when taken as a whole...I think MEBASER's post gives reasons why our position should NOT give you the ebie-jeebies.... ;-) Jesus was fully human...like us...no more, no less. I know you believe this as well. However, I don't agree (or find biblical warrant) for saying that Jesus' temptation was to show us that he could not sin. I believe He was tempted because it was God's will to show us that Christ was just like us, suffered like us...and thus was worthy to represent and die for us. I also think that Jesus couldn't have truly sinned because God had ordained from eternity past that Jesus would 'save His people from their sins' with a perfect sacrifice...BUT...still, Jesus had the ability to sin (he was HUMAN), if not the desire. OK, let me try to see your point in this manner. You believe (as I ) that Jesus was 100% God. And that it's unconscionable (sp?) that God could ever sin (I agree with that as well)... being against His very nature...therefore, Jesus the GOD-man could not possibly sin. Is this how you see it? If so, how can Jesus suffer if God is impassible? The incarnation makes it possible. YEs, it's a mystery... laz p.s. as for Jesus being 'the same yesterday, today and forever' do you believe Jesus to be an eternal being...or created in time via the incarnation?

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 22:45:18 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Brother laz, You asked, 'p.s. as for Jesus being 'the same yesterday, today and forever' do you believe Jesus to be an eternal being...or created in time via the incarnation?' Please take note, it doesn't say 'Jesus,' it says, 'Christ Jesus.' That's significant. laz, I suppose that was intended to be a simple question. But believe me, it's not! 'Jesus' was His human name. It is seldom used alone in the NT after the resurrection. It is used almost exclusively in the gospels to represent His appearance in human form (and of course His being human), where a familiarity is allowed as an accomodation to the people to whom He appeared in physical life. During that time, the Apostle John could lie on his breast at table in complete innocence and love, not having yet seen or fully realizing His glory. Cp. Rev. 1:9-18. 'Jesus" is eternal and was never 'created,' (that may not be the word you meant). His body was 'prepared' for Him, as I have quoted from Hebrews. It is a word meaning something like 'thoroughly completed.' The eternal Son existed in the pre-Incarnate form in time and appeared many times in the Bible to man in visions and representations. I'm convinced he is the 'Yahweh,' the God of Israel, the 'I AM' Who showed Himself to Moses. This was before He took on the flesh, literally 'became flesh,' and lived in that 'tabernacle' of human flesh. But the Bible teaches that He was always the Lord Jesus Christ, in a sense, because the plan is eternal, God in His three Persons is eternal and God is not limited or bound by time, though everything must be worked out by and for us in time. I'm convinced that, even as we explore this issue, we're already, in God's eternal view of things, seated with the Lord Jesus 'in the heavenlies,' as Eph. 1:3 indicates. There are other indications of this, such as the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,' in Rev. 13:8 and 2 Tim 1:9, where '[God] who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.' It seems undeniable to me that there is a temporal view taught in the Bible, along with the eternal view. At the instant of God's decision to create and save, the plan was completed in His mind and the human nature and body 'prepared' for the eternal Son of God. The Lord Jesus, however, was born, but born as 'that holy thing' which I've already alluded to at least twice elsewhere. The Lord told Joseph that he was to name 'that holy thing' promised to be born of Mary, 'Jesus.' And that is His human designation. But, as I said somewhere, we have no business referring to Him simply as 'Jesus' today. He is the Lord Jesus Christ. I say, most often, 'the Lord Jesus.' I've noticed that Pilgrim says, 'the Lord Christ.' I believe all Christians should refer to Him as "Lord" when they speak of Him on the basis of the confession it demonstrates according to 1 Cor. 12:3. You, laz, see my affirmation that God is so great, so righteous, so far removed from sin, as not even able to associate Himself with it whatsoever, as 'belittling God.' I have to confess that that mystifies me no end, for it is to the praise of His glory that sin can't even be mentioned in association with His Person. The position you hold makes Him, in my eyes, 'created in man's own image.' There is a woman on another board who feels about me as you do, but she even went so far as to question my salvation, severely denouncing me. As I have said, I think the whole of Christianity turns on this issue of whether God is that close to sin or not. I trust that helps. :>)

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 14:49:33 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - you said: There is a woman on another board who feels about me as you do, but she even went so far as to question my salvation, severely denouncing me. Tell me you meant something different than what I understood??? ...don't recall giving you grief or calling you a nasty name... hmmm I accept your subtle rebuke about my casual use of the name 'Jesus' without the appropriate qualifiers to His Lordship....hey, at least I always CAPITALIZE 'He' and 'Him'..etc. I recognize deity when I write it. ;-) But then again, are we to worship the Name or the Person? I could joke and accuse you of being a unitarian who says we MUST be baptized in Jesus' name alone...but I will refrain... ;-) One really can't be too respectful of God. I also agree with just about the entire post above except the part of my view potentially 'belittling' God. Don't see your point.....yet. Christ Jesus had no more desire (infinitely less actually) to sin in His humanity than I do of becoming the next Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot or Ted Bundy. Yet, I have the ABILITY to do exactly as they...only my spiritual nature (regenerated) prevents me (and God's love for me). I can not be tempted to commit murder for I 'don't have it in me' to murder. I can't be tempted to shoplift for the same reason. But, I can be tempted to do other things. And it would cause me emotional/spiritual pain to be subjected to such temptations fortunately we are taught to pray to be delivered from such temptations...to 'pray and watch' lest we fall. Is it sin to be temptable? Is it sin to be tempted? I say no, no. A recovering alchoholic is not in sin for having to struggle with booze. The pull to drink is not the sin...it's the giving in to temptation on account of our sinful nature that results in sin...usually during the thought process when we say 'yes' and before we actually commit the sin. But on the otherhand, temptation build us in the faith when we successfully resist. What is meant for evil is often used for good by God. James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. You said something interesting to Mebaser in a recent post regarding how Christ was tempted....it had a ring of truth and good sense. Or did it? Did He suffer in the temptation? I've never denied it. What I have said is that He didn't suffer temptation (trial) in the exact manner we do. When we suffer in temptation, we do so because we actually have a desire to disobey God. We often yield to that temptation, proving that we are 'weak through the flesh.' The Lord Jesus, however, never wanted to do what was contrary to God's will; couldn't do what was contrary to God's will. He suffered because He hated the presence of sin and its effect on man (suffering and death) and because the very presentation of the opportunity to disobey God was repulsive to Him. His flesh, His humanity, being unlike ours in the 'weakness' toward sin, recoiled from it and that made Him suffer, knowing that His own could not resist and had no will of their own to do so. ...yet Christ was born of a sinful women, was raised amongst sinners, and hung around sinful people during His ministry. Maybe you are right....you've gotten in a good punch...I need to regroup. ;-) But for the moment, brother Rod, the bottom line for me is that the incarnation is a mystery from the get go....and Jesus DID suffer temptation of some kind in the desert. Blessings, laz p.s. If Christ was credited with being perfectly obedient on our behalf (which suggests that 'theoretically' He could have been disobedient)...why the big deal...it was impossible for Him to do otherwise in your view? Another question. If ONLY God can refrain from sin (I say this because you seem to be saying that Christ in his humanity could NOT ever sin because He was also God), what is our assurance that we will NOT sin in heaven? We will not be deity? Even many angels sinned? Can I rest in the fact that the 'humanity' of Christ did not sin....therefore we too in our resurrected bodies will also be able to resist temptation/sin as Jesus Christ did while on earth...having his very nature within us?

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Tom To: laz & Rod Date Posted: Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:59:02 (PST) Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net Message: Rob and Laz I am finding this topic to be very informative, and up to this point I have hesitated to put my 2 cents into the conversation. You are much more knowledgable of the scriptures than I am. But this conversation reminds me of Gal.5:16 'This I say then, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.' I realise that this scripture is referring to believers not our Lord Jesus. But somehow (I may be wrong)I believe that it shows us how Jesus didn't sin. He always walked in the Spirit, while He was was on the Earth. We the created, are totally depraved, while our Lord, though fully human and fully God, wasn't totally depraved. He was not conceived in sin like we were. His very mission here on Earth was to do the will of the Father, so that the chosen in Him before the foundations of the world,would be saved through His death and resurrection. Therefore to me whether or not our Lord Jesus could or couldn't sin. Is not a point I want to ponder, the fact is He didn't sin. He must have continually walked in the Spirit. Another point to ponder is the fact that God's will can not be altered, so obviously Our Lord Jesus' Godness (is that a word? if not I hope you get my meaning) was stronger than His humanness. One of the passages I think that displays our Lord's humanness is found in Matt.26 particularly verse 39 'And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.' I can hardly fathom what our Lord must have been going through at that time. Tom

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 18:03:15 (PST) Email Address: na Message: laz, my friend and brother, I hope I can clear up some of the misunderstanding. You quoted me and wrote this: 'Rod - you said: There is a woman on another board who feels about me as you do, but she even went so far as to question my salvation, severely denouncing me. Tell me you meant something different than what I understood??? ...don't recall giving you grief or calling you a nasty name... hmmm ' Yes, laz, we didn't connect on my meaning. I meant each of you thinks I'm somehow not glorifying God when my intention is to praise and honor Him to the utmost. I was trying to contrast your brotherly attitude to her close-minded and unreasonable one. I appreciate your attitude and praise you for it. My intent was to indicate the type of severe opposition I've encountered. It amazes me that I am trying to uplift and honor God by affirming His immutability and that effort is interpreted as somehow 'taking away from God's majesty!' ___________________________________ laz--'I accept your subtle rebuke about my casual use of the name 'Jesus' without the appropriate qualifiers to His Lordship....hey, at least I always CAPITALIZE 'He' and 'Him'..etc. I recognize deity when I write it. ;-) ' Actually, it wasn't my intent to rebuke you personally. The thought was triggered by the reference to 'Jesus' concerning Heb. 13:8, when the verse identifies him as 'Jesus Christ,' in recognition of His duality of nature and yet His completeness as one Person, Who remained undivided in His attributes by the addition of the human nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal Son. The failure to always identify Him as "Lord" is an indictment of the whole Church of Jesus Christ today, generally and at large. I think it tends to lead to a mistake about His attributes and that is serious. It is a common error, one I made for many years without realizing my disrespect to my Lord. _________________________________________ Regarding the suffering of the Lord Jesus, let's all consider this fact. The Lord Jesus was always well pleasing to the Father because He did the Father's will (which, since they were co-equal, was also His own). The Father's will consisted of achieving satisfaction of His wrath against the predestinated and elect through 'propitiation.' Only then could He be well pleased. Looking in the Bible at the 'pleasing of God,' we discover some interesting things. First, we see that, in the great statement about the vicarious sacrifice of our Lord, God has Isaiah conclude, 'Yet it pleased God to bruise him.' It pleased God because it enabled the anger He had held 'in reserve' against the predestinated and elect, because of their sins, to be poured out, expended on His Son. And, seemingly contradictorily, but not actually so, that 'pleased' the Son also, since He had participated in that plan's formulation in eternity. That's why it pleased the Son on earth to 'do always those things which please him.' The remainder of that long verse in Isaiah is this: '...he hath put him to grief, when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand' (53:10). That sheds a lot of light on the manner of suffering described when the Lord Jesus sweat great drops of blood in the Garden. He, being immutably righteous and untained by sin in any way, even the consideration of committing it, was faced with the fact of 'assuming' our sin, being totally identified with it! That awesome contemplation of receiving sin in Himself was so burdensome that His soul recoiled from it. But He never recoiled from the cross itself and the necessity of it. That was His ultimate will, the reason He had come to earth in human form. But the intermediate step, the reception of such a repulsive thing, to a holy Being, was a great cause of stress and suffering. How could He do His ultimate will when the immediate prospect was so overpowering? How could He, in His earthly Self, achieve peace with His [God's] own will? ''...looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith [cp. the 'of' concerning 'faith' in Gal. 2:20], who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God' (Heb. 12:2). He looked past the thing which caused revulsion in Him and comtemplated the joy of bringing to glory those who are predestinated to election so that they might be forever with Him and He, thereby, would receive greater glory. That fact, that realization of the purpose of the entire plan of God, enabled Him to be at peace with the reception of our punishment which would kill Him. The anticipation of His ultimate goal overcame the extreme reaction of disgust and hatred of the reception of sin. _________________________________ You added this: 'p.s. If Christ was credited with being perfectly obedient on our behalf (which suggests that 'theoretically' He could have been disobedient)...why the big deal...it was impossible for Him to do otherwise in your view? I think the last section of this post showed exacty why it was 'the biggest deal ever done.' I simply refer you back to it. And it's not unusual for God to 'credit' people for what they couldn't resist doing. Isn't that what He did in our salvation? When He brought us to Himself by giving us a new will in regeneration which was a gift of longing for salvation in faith in the Lord Jesus? Don't we call it 'iresistible grace?' Then He rewards us with eternal life for having the faith which He gave through grace and which justified us? See Rom. 3:21-30, especially verses 23 and 26 and Eph. 2:8-10. ____________________________________ Your final question: 'Another question. If ONLY God can refrain from sin (I say this because you seem to be saying that Christ in his humanity could NOT ever sin because He was also God), what is our assurance that we will NOT sin in heaven? We will not be deity? Even many angels sinned? Can I rest in the fact that the 'humanity' of Christ did not sin....therefore we too in our resurrected bodies will also be able to resist temptation/sin as Jesus Christ did while on earth...having his very nature within us?' Actually, what I seem to be saying and am saying is that Christ is one total and complete Being Who could never, and can never sin, the impulse never touching him, and the tendency to sin not being a part of either of His two natures, which we emphasize to the point of forgetting that he is One complete Being, God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Once again, it is God's ultimate goal to bring us into conformity 'to the image of His Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren.' We 'shall be like him for we shall see him as he is,' says John in 1 John 3:2. We have the 'royal inheritance' (see Rom. 8:14-17), not actually being diety, but being conformed to His image in righteousness, absolute righteousness, without the flesh, which we stop dragging along with us and which tempts us to sin, because we shed that in physical death. We will then have only the regenerated spiritual life given by God in Spirit in the new birth (see John 3:3-12 and Rom. 8:4-9) and we will possess a 'spiritual body,' reaped from the 'sowing' of this physical body in death, since we are, already, 'in Christ.' In that regard, see 1 Cor 15:35-50.

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 20:00:54 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - thanks for clearing the air...but for the record, I never considered your view as less glorifying...just not necessarily supportable by the TEXTS. I know, them be fightin' words! ;-) I will remain undogmatic until I've read some more on my own. Curious to see where others fall on this issue. I asked my pastor the question this morn without giving him any views and he suprisingly parroted my earlier position and reasons...although he seemed to have been caught off guard and spoke off the cuff. Perhaps if he heard your side of the story..... Any way, thanks for the workout. ;-) blessings, laz

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Pilgrim To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 09:08:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz, For the record I must disagree with Rod on at least 2 items. 1) I believe that it was theoretically possible for the Lord Christ to have given in to temptation and sin. The Scriptures seem clear enough to me that the myriad temptations that He was exposed to, and particularly those of the Evil One, were real albeit inefficacious. If the temptation of Eve by Satan in the Garden of Evil was real, then the temptations of this same creature that he launched against the Lord Christ were also real. I think Rod is confusing 'temptation by an outside stimulus' with 'propensity to sin'. May I reference the discussion that went on above concerning the fall of Adam and Eve, in that I read far too much speculation on all parts without any biblical support given. The 'WHY' of Adam's fall is known to all due to the fact that it is recorded in Genesis. But the 'HOW' is nowhere to be found in God's Word. How Adam, who was created with the imago dei and no 'propensity to sin' could fall to temptation is beyond me, the vast majority of theological giants (Jonathan Edwards included), and myriad others. There just isn't any indication HOW Adam could sin. We know after the fact, that it was possible for him to sin. And we know that it was possible for him not to sin, and thus was the 'test of obedience' given him by the LORD God. [As a further note, sin didn't enter the world through Eve or Adam, but Satan. And there was no outside temptation nor propensity to sin by nature in him. Thus the origin of sin is indeed a 'mystery' to which I bow before God and His infinite wisdom and have and will, D.v. never speculate upon such matters.] Likewise, the Second Adam (1Cor 15:45) was under a 'covenant'; ie. a covenant with God the Father to do that which was His will. That 'will' was to do that which the first Adam failed to do; ie., to render perfect obedience in all things. It is essential that we note that the Lord Christ was obedient (Rom 5:19) but more so, He learned obedience, ie., in his humanity even while He was the Son of the Most High incarnate: Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Note that this 'learned obedience' came about through/by 'the things which He suffered.' It is not to be assumed that those 'sufferings' were simply those bodily aches and pains we all experience in life, but also the spiritual conflict which was introduced by the temptation of the Devil himself. Let me state this very clearly so that Rod particularly won't misconstrue what I am saying here. The Lord Jesus Christ did NOT have a 'propensity/inclination' to sin by nature, yet the temptations of the Evil Once were no less real. It was the Lord Christ's OBEDIENCE ie., His resistance and victory over sin which brought about His coronation in heaven as King of King and LORD of Lords. It is this perfect righteousness which is imputed to all who believe upon Him with a saving faith. But that righteousness was EARNED and LEARNED by the Lord JESUS Christ in His humanity. Now Rod would have those who hold to this view be guilty of 'separating' the two natures of Christ. Yet, I would contend that those who hold that it was impossible for the Lord Christ to be even tempted etc., to be confluting the two natures of Christ. The authors of the Nicene Creed were 'inspired' to write what they did having been exposed to the heretical teachings of Arius and others concerning the Trinity and affirmed the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise, Chalcedon came about due to the erroneous teachings concerning the two natures of Christ. Both of these Creeds are clear that the 'Persons' of both the Godhead and those of the Incarnate Son must be recognized; not confused nor separated. The Chalcedonian CreedTherefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ did NOT sin was necessary so as to secure the eternal redemption of His people but also because He was a SON who was fully enamoured with God; so much so that to do His will was indeed His meat and drink ONLY, and thus the power to overcome all temptation and render a perfect obedience to God's Law. (Ps 40:8; Lk 4:4; Jh 17:1, 2, 4, 19; Phil 2:5-8; Heb 1:9; etc.) If the 'obedience' were not of His will, but only a natural outflowing of His nature (which it was indeed, and therefore His will was moved), then that which He accomplished for us would not have been applicable to us. But this is the very reason why the Lord Christ became one OF us, so as to offer a vicarious substitutionary atonement. 2) This second item has been discussed several times before in here, that being the eternal nature of Christ. Rod contends that 'Jesus' was eternal. But I must disagree with this also. Let me state what I DO believe before showing why I believe the Scriptures do not support the eternality of Jesus of Nazareth. I hold that the SON of God, the second person of the Divine Trinity is eternal, being one with the Father and the Spirit in essence, ie., nature. I affirm the Nicene and Athanasian statements concerning the nature and persons of GOD. John's prologue to his gospel is probably the most perspicuous statement concerning the deity of Christ ever written. And, it is also the place where it can be shown that 'Jesus' is not eternal but 'begotten' of the Father in time and history. In verses 1-3 we have the affirmation that the 'Word' (logos) was and is God of very God. In verse 14 we have this very same eternal God (logos) taking upon Himself human flesh and manifesting Himself visibly and materially among men. Was there a time when this 'WORD' (logos) was not? No, He is, was and will be the great 'I AM'. However there was a time when the 'WORD' did become flesh. The result of the Word taking upon flesh is the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity (Son/Word/Logos) who was BORN of the Virgin Mary, etc. And the name of this child who was born is JESUS. The resulting incarnation resulted in a person who was both fully God and fully man, having two natures as the Chalcedonian Creed above states clearly. Further, even the prophetic word of the LORD supports that there is the combination of the eternal with the temporal such as in Isaiah 9:6: 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:' Notice that the child is 'born', denoting a historical and temporal event, but the son is 'given' and NOT born, thus not affirming the temporal. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we are easily led to understand that the 'son' spoken of in Isaiah's inspired prophecy, was the Eternal Son of God. Thus 'Jesus' was NOT eternal but 'born'. But the 'Son/Word/Logos' that became flesh was eternal, and the two natures were joined into the one flesh and we now know Him as the LORD Jesus Christ; ie., LORD=God Jesus=man Christ=Anointed One/Redeemer/Goel etc. Again, we must not confuse the two natures of the Incarnate Son of God nor must we separate them, yet we must recognize their uniqueness both by nature and operation. This has always been a very fine line on which to walk. And thus I unlike Rod here, don't feel the passion on the first issue concerning the 'ability of Christ to have sinned' as he does. I can understand why and how he takes his position. And although I disagree with him on the issue, I don't feel that what he believes is crucial to the faith. Likewise for the second point on the eternality of JESUS. Although I am familiar with the fact that on the first point, there have been numerous people on both sides of the issue; people I must say were equally orthodox in their theology and their practice. As to the second point, only until recently has this become popular. It has been held by some in the past, but not nearly proportionately as what we have today. Well, there's my worthless 2 cents worth on these two issues! HEY........ you asked!! :-) In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 12:29:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thank you for your time in giving us your opinion. hehe But I think you've only succeded in running brother Rod off. I hope he was only kidding.... blessings, laz

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Pilgrim To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 19:01:46 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thank you for your time in giving us your opinion. hehe But I think you've only succeded in running brother Rod off. I hope he was only kidding.... blessings, laz --- laz, You know me far too well by now to realize that my intention was never to 'run Rod off' by anything I have said. I agree with what you said above that this issue is one that deals with more deduction than actual Biblical doctrine which can be found on the surface. Albeit, it is unfortunate that Rod has chosen to part company over this issue. And even more so whereas he has many statements concerning the heresies promoted on the other boards which he participates. Either this parting is an indictment that I and others hold to damnable heresy in his view, or perhaps he is 'thin skinned' concerning this particular subject? I pray it is the latter! In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: lindell To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 20:25:37 (PST) Email Address: ldunning@usa.net Message: Dear Pilgrim, I am disappointed also by men who would enterain the thought that the Lord had a sin nature and that He could possibly sin. I also know that a man must answer to the dictates of his own conscience, both on your part and mine. If the Lord had a sin nature or if He just had the ability, what a confused state that would have on my simple minded religious thinking. For this is how my mind would worry, IF He could sin, then maybe He did and never told anyone. Perhaps He sinned more than once. Maybe while He was in that frame of mind He made statements that aren't true and many of His promises are just lies. Now I have to sift through the Bible and try to determine which statements are true and which may be false. Now the Solid Rock who was once my sure foundation is nothing more than shifting sand. You would say, 'but He didn't sin,' that He had no will to sin. How could you be sure of that? Being the Lord of Glory, He would also have the ability to cover His tracks and would never be exposed by mere mortals. Yes Pilgrim, I see it as damnable heresy and it is of such magnitude that the place of fellowship cannot be continued for the conscience will not quiet itself. Over the last three years I have been made glad on many occasions by the Bible teaching and lighthearted banter that the Highway provided. But right this moment, my gut wrenching feeling is this, if I was to master all the Hebrew and Greek text in the world and could impress the most noted theologians around the globe, I would rather remain a hopeless imbecile than to entertain for one moment that maybe the Lord could sin if He wanted to. If I was of that thinking, I would call me a blasphemer.

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Pilgrim To: lindell Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 22:02:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: lindell, I haven't any idea who you were addressing your message to? But no one here has ever even intimated that the Lord Christ had a 'sin nature'. If that were true, then His life and death were a sham. Worse yet, the God of all holiness has not only put over the world's biggest sham, but He would be a liar for worse than Satan Himself, for He accepted Christ's sacrifice as being perfect and efficacious for the sins of His people. Adam had the 'ability' to sin, but until he actually committed the act or even entertained the idea of rebelling in a positive way, he was not under judgment and still qualified by God's own appellation, 'very good'! The freedom to do right or wrong does not equate to being imperfect nor sinful. And I believe this is the misunderstanding here. IF the Lord Christ had the freedom/ability to sin, does that of necessity make Him imperfect? And on the other side, IF the Lord Christ had no ability to sin whatsoever, then how is it that He is the Saviour of men, who did that which they were unable to do for themselves; ie., resist all temptation, suffer the assaults of the Evil One and merit a perfect righteousness in men's stead? Again, everyone here who has as their own by grace a profession of faith in the Lord Christ, as the only begotten Son of the Living God, being very man of very man and very God of very God, has (to the best of my knowledge) rejected any notion of the Lord Christ as possessing any semblance of sin. The key is echoed in your own words, 'to entertain for one moment that maybe the Lord could sin if He wanted to . . .' And this is why the Lord Christ was indeed qualified to be the Saviour of sinners, for He never WANTED TO SIN. He was obedient even unto death and thus secured the redemption of those who were not nor could be 'obedient unto death.' Now the remainder of what you said was ludicrous at best. To suggest that the Lord Christ could have deceived the Father by allegedly covering up some sin, not once but even several times is to disdain and deny the Omniscience of God and worse yet one would have to conclude that the Godhead itself was involved in a devious plot in the entire matter of redemption. It doesn't take a 'simpleton' nor an 'imbecile' to see the fallacy and blaspheme involved in such a thing. Lastly, I resent the personal attack upon the knowledge the LORD God has given me which I have unfeignly used for the edification of others. However, I believe this unwarranted outburst of yours stems from your complete misunderstanding the issue at hand, and thus I hold no animosity toward you whatsoever. I would however, encourage you to not remain boastful in your professed 'hopeless imbecile' state and move on in your life to partake of that which is more substantial. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 20:41:51 (PST) Email Address: na Message: laz, In all honesty and with respect, I don't recall your dealing with the numerous texts I gave in evidence, although you shouted 'TEXTS' in your post. An exegesis would seem to be required before they can be rejected outright. but, if you're through, so am I.

Subject: You didn't 'miss the chapter and verse' you just deny God's truth. n/t From: Rod To: Gene Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:38:38 (PST) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: Good answer! From: Gene To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:09:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:09:30 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Has this board ever dealt with the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ, though fully man, was unable to sin? Not while I have been monitoring it, anyway, Rod. I wonder how He was able to, in effect, represent us without a sin nature (mercy knows, I am NOT suggesting that's a problem!), since it is one of the defining attributes of being human. I guess I had always been taught that He understands what we go through, because He was tempted in the ways we are, though He never fell. But I would rather think the sin nature would be a prerequisite for the temptation. If one's nature is perfect, can one be tempted to do wrong? Or desire the wrong things? I am, no doubt, wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Truth is, I'd never really given it a lot of thought one way or t'other. That probably needs to be remedied. I'll get right on that! ;-> Anne

Subject: Anne--'I'll get right on that!' From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:27:32 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Good deal, sister Anne, let us know what you discover! :>) I think you will want to pay particular attention to the meaning of the word 'tempt' and 'tempted.' I suggest also that you look at Mark 1:9-13; Matthew 4:1-11; 17:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 2:20; 1 John 2:1; and conclude with Rom. 8:2-4). (BTW, the list is far from exhaustive.) Good 'hunting! :>)

Subject: predestination From: B.H. Cagle To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 11:59:49 (PST) Email Address: bcagle8928@aol.com Message: this subject is truly controversial.I think the author hit the proverbial nail on the head when he stated that this truth is repulsive to man's carnal nature.Thank God for his soveriegn grace.

Subject: faith and science From: Marcel To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 15:52:47 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi, recently I discussed with some friends the subject of faith vs science, and someone mentioned that he'd heard that some analysis of man's genetical code had revealed that the human species be probably about 6,000 years old. It was possible to measure thanks to the continual 'decay' in our DNA. Does this sound familiar to anyone? If so, I would like to hear if I should regard the above a hear-say, or if in fact it is water proof. Thanks, Marcel

Subject: Re: faith and science From: Anne To: Marcel Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:43:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am not familiar with that, but there is a discussion of how one scientist has found his reliance on evolution to be shaken, due to DNA mutation. I think that's right. I had completely forgotten how brain-dead I am at biology (though sister Bernadette Marie, at Nolan Catholic High School, would readily attest to it). Still, if you like, just head right on over to: http://www.baen.com/bar/Default.htm, then press Login, then at the next screen, press Guest, then on the next screen (you're nearly there!) press Conferences then scroll down and select 'Truth vs Pravda.' From there, open 'The Holes in the Theory of Macro Evolution.' Whoosh. Then start reading. You should begin feeling out of your depth in about . . . . oh, I guess, 25 seconds. Still, I made it darn near through the entire discussion, and could just possibly write a term paper on the subject now. With judicious cribbing. ;-> Very interesting messages. Would be more so if people would take the few seconds required to erase the unnecessary bits of the posts to which they are responding, if you see what I mean. But that's a constant gripe of mine all over the net. Enjoy! Anne

Subject: Re: faith and science From: Rod To: Marcel Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:31:41 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Marcel, I'm not trying to be mean with this question, but I think we have to ask, Would our faith be strenghtened if the statement were rock solid truth? No, it wouldn't and neither would anyone else's, actually. 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God' (Rom. 10:17). :>)

Subject: Re: faith and science From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:53:01 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'Would our faith be strenghtened if the statement were rock solid truth? No, it wouldn't and neither would anyone else's, actually.' True, Rod, but it wouldn't hurt either, you know. We can't all be the apostle John, who actually knew Christ, watched Him die, then saw Him alive later. Let's face it, for John, not a lot of faith was necessary. Paul got knocked off his donkey or horse, then got a sneak peek at heaven, if I recall correctly. He wasn't infused with faith, he was flattened by it. We are 2000 years after the fact, and I can easily understand how any scientific evidence that would help to support the Scriptural account of our history would be welcome. Surely evaluating DNA evidence is no better or worse than sifting through archeological digs in search of Jericho, or those folks who keep climbing up Mount Ararat? Anne

Subject: The nature of our faith From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:25:19 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne, Here are some things to consider. First, the faith spoken of in Rom. 10:17 isn't just saving faith, but faith in general, including sustaining faith, the faith which keeps us saved. The indwelling Holy Spirit is our Witness and Leader, giving us the exact account and words of these long ago folks you mentioned and it is promised us that 'when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth' (John 16:13). And that is from the revealed Word of God, as that verse goes on to elaborate. Several years ago, our church received many appeals to help expeditions to locate Noah's ark. Presumably, if it could be found, people 'would believe.' If the 'Shroud of Turin' could be authenticated, people would believe, etc.. Nonsense. The lost would be unimpressed, because, 'Ye must be born again,' not, 'Ye must view the Shroud!' We believers have all we need to have a strong faith at our ready access. It is to our shame if we need these false 'crutches.'

Subject: Re: The nature of our faith From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:58:55 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'We believers have all we need to have a strong faith at our ready access. It is to our shame if we need these false 'crutches.' ' Of course, you are right, Rod, but consider . . . . . Paul did make allowances for those whose faith was not as strong as others. Wasn't that the point behind that bit about, oh, what was it . . . . . keeping the dietary laws, or some such? You'll know the part I mean. Not being a hindrance to one whose faith isn't as firm. That's not what he said, but close. Still, the laws of nature are God's laws, so are worthy of study, as well. And if one is interested in trying to nail down the shelf life of DNA (that's probably not a scientifically accurate term), where's the harm? Aha!!!! And Thomas! What about Thomas, huh? He wouldn't believe until he could examine Christ's wounds, and Jesus humored him, merely pointing out that, like you said, it is more blessed to believe without such 'crutches.' [retreating to my corner of the ring, to drink some Gatorade and await the next round ;-> ] Anne

Subject: Re: The nature of our faith From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:36:46 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne, My Gatorade is drunk, my cut man has done his work, and I'm back in the fray! (Actually, my wife brought me a CFS for supper.) :>) Anne--'Of course, you are right, Rod, but consider . . . . . Paul did make allowances for those whose faith was not as strong as others.' Yes, of course, he did. But I'm afraid you're missing the point. Who acquires faith? How does he acquire it? In John 3:3-12, the Lord Jesus went to considerable length to prove to the unbelieving Nicodemus that 'Ye must be born again' (verse 7). Without that indwelling Spirit, literally no one will believe and no one will be taught. What is the direct and sustained purpose of the Spirit for all regenerated people? '...for he shall not speak of himself, but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine and show it unto you' (John 16:13-14, cp. 15). John also wrote: 'But these [things] are written [recorded for a purpose], that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name' (John 20:31). Now, back up and compare John 17:20-21: 'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they may all be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.' That's God's method, that men will hear His truth and believe due to the indwelling Spirit's Presence in regeneration. If that's God's chosen method, why are we always striving to come up with something to 'help Him out?' Anne--'And Thomas! What about Thomas, huh? He wouldn't believe until he could examine Christ's wounds, and Jesus humored him, merely pointing out that, like you said, it is more blessed to believe without such 'crutches.'' Well, I submit to you that Thomas said, 'Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe' (John 20:25) and he really meant it. But, when you read verses 26-29, we see that he was invited to do just what he had demanded, but there is no indication that he did do it. He merely exclaimed, 'My Lord and my God.' Now why was this put in the testimony of the Holy Spirit's inspired Word? It was for this reason: So that men who didn't see could be led by the Holy Spirit within to read Thomas' experience and believe because of his direct testimony. Cp. once again John 17:20. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'scientific data' Marcel brought up were true, but it wouldn't greatly excite me either. We don't need scientific proof for the very simple and emphatic reason that the Lord Jesus has prayed that those of His choice will be saved! What else can be necessary for their salvation and their ultimate glorification? It shall be accomplished.

Subject: Re: The nature of our faith From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:36:50 (PST) Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net Message: Rod What you said here makes a lot of sence. Which is one of the reasons I have stopped using (unless someone asks) arguements like creation vrs. evolution. When I talk to people about the gospel. However that being said, I find subjects like DNA and other things like creation to be a very fascinating. Now though like I said before, I like to look into issues like these not to strengthen my faith or for apologetic uses. But rather because God's creation fascinates me. I guess it is part of the inner child in me, always wanting to know how things work. When you were a kid, didn't you take things apart to find out how they worked, and couldn't put them back together again? lol Tom

Subject: Re: The nature of our faith From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:40:16 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, First, I've very glad for your decision on the 'creation-evolution' thing. I'm on another board from time to time, where the participants like to argue about specific sins and specific areas, such as 'the origin of ethics,' with lost people rather than just giving them the gospel and then, if it is repeatedly refused and ridiculed, ignoring them. The consequence is that there is little meaningful discussion there and little quotation of, or delving into, God's Word. In fact, it seems to be avoided. I'm pretty much convinced that those Christians aren't even aware of how shallow their Christianity is, or appears to be. Just because I said the confirmation or the refutation of this information on DNA is really unimportant doesn't mean people shouldn't be interested in it. But Marcel's title seemed to indicte that its ultimate truth or falsehood was linked to our faith. I just wanted to establish that any secular knowledge, while maybe interesting or important, isn't the source of our faith, nor does our faith need confirmation: 'The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God' (Rom. 8:16). And yes, I took some clocks and watches apart when I was a child (at least I think I remember doing that, it was a long time ago!). Those timepeices always fascinated me. The individual pieces are probably still out there somewhere, lost, alone, and still seeking one another. :>)

Subject: Re: The nature of our faith From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:52:09 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'We don't need scientific proof for the very simple and emphatic reason that the Lord Jesus has prayed that those of His choice will be saved! What else can be necessary for their salvation and their ultimate glorification? It shall be accomplished.' Well, sure. Stuffed to the gills with CFS, I could be eloquent, too. Pancakes isn't the same thing at all (Don is in Austin tonight, so I can get away with it). Do you know, I had never noticed that Scripture leaves it unclear as to whether Thomas actually took Christ up on His offer. I guess I'd always assumed that he had. Huh! Looked it up for myself (I knew a girl named Tommy once) and right you were. Between you and George, I'm down for the count! I'm half a quart low on my saturated fats, that's the trouble. Just let me get on the outside of some CFS and you'll be reeling against the ropes, I promise. ;-> Anne P.S. For the non-Texans who might be shaking their heads in befuddlement, CFS = chicken fried steak.

Subject: Re: The nature of our faith From: george To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:46:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, I once worked with a missionary surgeon, who had pronounce a Christian collegue death. After several other Christians prayed over the man, he came back to life (the doctor was a Baptist and quite surprised, but convinced). Well this happen in Yemen, which is predominantly Muslem. The muslems in the room knew something happen miraculously, yet would not give credit to Christ. So, as Scripture says, 'even if someone were to rise from the dead, they still will not believe'. It takes the Holy Spirit. In His Grip,george

Subject: Re: The nature of our faith From: Rod To: george Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:48:07 (PST) Email Address: na Message: george, Thanks, I was hoping someone would bring that up!

Subject: Re: faith and science From: Marcel To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:16:07 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for the link, Anne, though I think that discussion is a bit too heavy , afterall it's theology not biology that I'm interested in. But would you like a great article on the limits of the employment of science in apologetics, go to www.reformed.org, Christianity and Science, 'Creation as Miracle.' Its primary assertion is that it is impossible scientifically to prove creation because creation is a miracle, and miracles elude any strictly scientific analysis. Else I agree with you that it is not wholly useless to dig for evidence of the Biblical account of history for instance. We did not touch the living Word of God with our hands, did not see him with our eyes as did the apostle John, our faith is grateful for any support given. Marcel

Subject: Re: faith and science From: Anne To: Marcel Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:08:11 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'Its primary assertion is that it is impossible scientifically to prove creation because creation is a miracle, and miracles elude any strictly scientific analysis.' Thank you, Marcel, I certainly shall visit that site! And that is such an obvious point that has escaped me up to now: if it can be scientifically proven, it weren't no miracle. I can be so dim. God's way of keeping me humble, sans dout! Anne P.S. Where has Pilgrim been hiding, d'you suppose? I'd have thought he'd have weighed in on some of the meaty discussions going on. He hasn't posted since Monday, it looks like. Pilgrim, I hope you are on a vacation and lolling on a silken beach in the Caribbean, and not flattened by the flu!

Subject: Re: faith and science From: Marcel To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:43:55 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Marcel, I'm not trying to be mean with this question, but I think we have to ask, Would our faith be strenghtened if the statement were rock solid truth? No, it wouldn't and neither would anyone else's, actually. 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God' (Rom. 10:17). :>) --- Rod, True, but that was not the point. Marcel

Subject: Re: faith and science From: george To: Marcel Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:18:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Marcel, I haven't heard or read anything in regards to DNA being 6000 years max., but I did read once that science has conceded that the human species came from one woman who they called African Eve. If this was true, than the Biblical account of creation, would validated to those who may struggle with the creation story. I.H.G., george

Subject: Re: faith and science From: Rod To: Marcel Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:12:03 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Marcel, It seemed to be the point. Check out your title.

Subject: Re: faith and science From: john hampshire To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:21:47 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>it is impossible scientifically to prove creation because creation is a miracle, and miracles elude any strictly scientific analysis. Err, huh? There are only two choices, either God created the universe or it somehow created itself. If we can show no scientific basis, find no proof then we can be assured of special creation. The Institute for Creation Research has built a creation museum, John Morris and others have written many books, and they do their own independent research... all to show the folly of evolution and the truth of a biblical creation account. Now if all of this does not build a Christian's faith, then it is worth nothing. I know by understanding the lie of evolution I have greatly increased my own faith, and not directly by the hearing of Scripture, but by the hearing of truth. On the other hand, I don't need DNA evidence to prove what God says. The final arbitrator is not secondary evidence, it only substantiates a correct interpretation of Scripture, which really rest foremost on a harmony within Scripture than a harmony with some scientific finding. If the 6000 year age is meant to tell that man's origin is 6000 years old, I will reject that. Why? Because the Biblical evidence says otherwise, see... Scripture trumps supposed scientific findings, at least for me. john

Subject: Is it possible... From: george To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 09:28:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: All, Could it be possible that God did create evil and yet not be evil? His ways are higher than ours, thats a given. The laws that govern man's behaviors, don't necessarily follow that God is also govern by them (i.e. Saul being given a evil spirit, the spirit of death at the passover,etc.). I believe it is possible for God to create evil and yet not be evil (where did Satan get the notion to rebell, unless evil was present already). Let the arrows fly. I.H.G., george

Subject: Evil is not a thing... From: E.V. To: george Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:21:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi George, I think one of the things that we often overlook, is that evil is not a 'thing.' It is a parasitic concept. In other words, it can only exist when there is such a thing as goodness. If there was nothing good, there would be no evil. For what is evil, it is non-goodness. Therefore, evil doesn't have to be created per se. What does need to be created is a creatures ability to either do good, or not do good. So in this sense, yes, God did create evil in the sense that he created creatures capable of acting in a non-good way. I hope this helps. In Christ, E.V.

Subject: Re: Evil is not a thing... From: clark To: E.V. Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:58:08 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: E.V. I agree. Evil is the lack of good. Only God is Good and we live in varying degrees of goodness, but never in Good. Just as there is no such thing as dark, or cold only varying degrees of light and heat. It is the lack of light which creates the darkness and the lack of heat which creates cold, but cold and darkness are not 'stand along' things themselves. So when God created the light, darkness was a result. When He create heat, coldness was the result. And because He is Good, anything less than He is would live in varying degrees of evil and sin. Because we don't posses God's Goodness we can only show His Goodness in our lives. The more we reflect His Goodness the more righteous we will be, the less we reflect His Goodness the more evil and sinful we will be. clark

Subject: Evil is... (not a definition, BTW) From: Rod To: clark Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:20:39 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Clark--'I agree. Evil is the lack of good.' Sorry, Clark, but I have to disagree with that. It is, of course, true, but not adequate. I don't know if we can define evil precisely, but any description of it has to include its opposition to God, Who, as you point out, is good. Evil hates goodness and God's goodness demands that He hate evil. I hate to keep sounding like a broken record (I guess that saying has been obsoleted by CD's and tapes), but it's extremely important that we understand this concept: 'For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be' (Rom. 8:7-8). Please notice that 'the carnal mind is enmity against God.' That word 'is' denotes a state of totality, its complete focus. It 'is' nothing else! No wonder the unregenerate can't turn to God in Christ.

Subject: No arrows here, but a FLAMETHROWER... From: Rod To: george Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:28:04 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Just kidding, george! :>) No I don't think that God 'created' evil, but that He designed His plan such that evil would enter into creation, first by Satan's rebellion and, subsequently, by Adam's. He planned for that and willed it, but the evil results from disobedience to God, and isn't due to God's 'creating it.' His creatures 'created it,' so to speak.

Subject: Since this isn't complicated enough..... From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:59:20 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: '....... evil would enter into creation, first by Satan's rebellion...... ' Okay, ditch Adam. What about Satan? Did he have the same innate ability to choose good, then, and fell for some unbeknownst-to-us reason? Presumably God's plan for the creation and fall would have included Satan's fall, I guess even before the universe was created, don't you think? What's the timeline for all that . . . . (And where is it that the devil is referred to as Lucifer, the most beautiful of the archangels, who declared he would rather be a prince in hell, than a pauper in heaven? Or something along those lines. Was that Milton?) I guess it was pride that led to Satan's fall, without any outside impetus such as Adam and Eve had (i.e. the serpent for Eve and Eve for Adam). Darn! I forgot! Didn't someone point out once that Adam had already begun to go astray from his responsibilities, and that is why the serpent had free access to Eve in the first place? If I look hard, I'm sure I can lay hands on that business math college text of mine. Bell curves, anyone?

Subject: Re: Since this isn't complicated enough..... From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 15:27:55 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne--'Okay, ditch Adam. What about Satan? Did he have the same innate ability to choose good, then, and fell for some unbeknownst-to-us reason? Satan, like Adam was given no incentive to sin. He was apparently God's highest creation, with God in Heaven. But, as with Adam, and the other fallen angels, I have to infer that the ability to sin, which the Enemy obviously possessed, inevitably means that the creature will sin, for that is God's ultimate goal in working out His plan to redeem man, showing justice and mercy. Again 2 Tim 1:9--ALL TOGETHER NOW....

Subject: Re: Since this isn't complicated enough..... From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 15:52:22 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'But knowledge is as food, and needs no less Her temperance over appetite, to know In measure what the mind may well contain; Oppresses else with surfeit, and soon turns Wisdom to folly, as nourishment to wind. ' I was searching for the locus of the Lucifer cite, and found this in Paradise Lost. Milton was no dummy. This is a more flowery way of expressing Job's regret at attempting to plunder the ways of God, not intended for him to know. BTW, Satan is referred to as Lucifer in here. Odd, isn't it, how that name has become so common in our parlance, yet is from a not-widely-read poetic epic by Milton?

Subject: 'Ye shall know the truth....' From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:11:59 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hi, Anne, I don't know how far down you'd have to scroll, but in the older messages, there is a thread on this 'Lucifer' thing. I don't know if you want to go to the trouble to dig it out, or not. I just bask in the knowledge that God had it all worked out from the earliest dawn of eternity--and, of course, since He is eternal and the 'Ancient of Days,' self-existent, there was never a time that the outcome wasn't assured. In the face of that Bible-presented knowledge, I shake my head in amazement that anyone can doubt the perseverance of the saints, which is completely embedded in God's majesty.

Subject: Buying and selling From: john hampshire To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 07:04:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.' Rev. 13:17 The first impression is that this might be speaking of a computer mark that does not allow us to shop at 7-eleven. But God is concerned with spiritual things, not earthly, the Bible is concerned with aspects of Christ and salvation, not food. Real quick like. The beast is Satan who was wounded by the sword and has come to life (13:14), a reference to Christ's defeat of Satan and his release during the end times. Satan deceives men by 'the signs which it was given him to perform', that is as Matt 24:24 the nature of the final trib period, Satan deceiving with signs and wonders through false prophets and false gospels. Those who are deceived receive a mark, not literally, but like the elect, they are marked as Satan's property, their allegiance is to their master Satan. The forehead shows will the hand deeds, all a servant to their master. Now for buying and selling. In Jer 7:11 we find a reference to the phrase 'den of robber'. Here we find that Israel was deep in sin, they are 'trusting in deceptive words to no avail' (Vs 8) and 'walk after other gods that you have not known', and they say 'We are delivered'. They were claiming salvation yet did all kinds of abominations. To all of this God says 'Has this house...become a den of robbers in your sight'. These people are referred to as robbers, this term equates to people who worship in the temple but claim they are God's children, making merchandise out of worship by worshipping other God's and yet claim to be delivered. Now Jesus makes reference to this den of robbers in relation to the Jews in the temple of His day. In Mark 11:17 Jesus cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and He would not permit anyone to buy or sell. The reference Jesus used was no coincidence, He was equating the Jews (den of robbers) to those who were like Israel (den of robbers), both thinking themselves God's chosen ones but doing all kinds of abominations in the temple, worshipping a false god and deceived. The type of people who are a den of thieves in Jesus' day were just like the den of thieves reference in Israel's last days. So back to Rev 13, the church is overrun with false gospels featuring signs and wonders, the people are deceived believing they are saved, worshipping in the temple a false gospel and a false god which they think has saved them. These evil ones who are deceived by Satan's image (false gospels) and allowed by the beast (Satan) to buy and sell, that is, they are those that have made a merchandise of the gospel. They are they same group that Jesus called a den of thieves. They are further defined, those who make merchandise of the gospel, in Jer 7:11 that those God calls a den of thieves are those that says all is right and good, yet do all kinds of abominations in God's temple. The followers of Satan in the last days will be as equally deceived as Israel in it's last days. They are all a den of robbers, buying and selling in the temple... deceived and committing abominations in God's name. john

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: this is what happens... To: john hampshire Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:57:56 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...when you are forced by your preconceived notions to over-allegorize a text of scripture. The New Geneva study Bible footnotes that whether the mark is visible or not is not as important as the spiritual distinction being being brought out here. But for the record, that some kind of a mark is in view (spiritual or otherwise) that would allow the buying and selling of commercial goods is agreed to as correct by R. C. H. Lenski, Matthew Henry, Henry Alford, and others. Also, Louis Berkhof affirms the view that there will be a real person called the antichrist in the final days before the return of Christ who will have dominion over the political and economical realm. Amillennialism does not have to hyper-allegorize apocalyptic texts.

Subject: Amil and 2 Peter 3:10-12 From: jh To: this is what happens... Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:57:02 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'the view that there will be a real person called the antichrist...' So his name will be Mr. Antichrist? '...who will have dominion over the political and economical realm.' Political and economical realm? What verse is that? One thing Amils agree on is the plain text of 2 Peter 3:10-12 'But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? ' When Christ comes again, it's the end of the world. Everything will be destroyed. Every fiber of the earth and the universe will be melted and dissolved. This is not a symbolic passage. There is no second chance for salvation. It's the end of the show. And there is no thousand year reign on earth from the physical nation of Israel. How can there be when the earth is totally destroyed? The Amil position is the most logical. jh

Subject: Re: Amil and 2 Peter 3:10-12 From: laz To: jh Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 14:21:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: jh - but even the historic amil position does not negate the coming of THE 'son of perdition' (of which Judas Iscariot was one)...the anti-christ. Yes, we have seen many 'anti-christ's' to date...but there will also be THE antichrist in the future. no? laz

Subject: Re: Amil and 2 Peter 3:10-12 From: jh To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:36:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Yes, we have seen many 'anti-christ's' to date...but there will also be THE antichrist in the future. no?' I don't know every avenue of the amil position so I have no answer on that. When I talk about amil, I mean in simplicity as the very meaning of the phrase is (no thousand years on earth). My belief is that satan is THE antichrist. He is the king of the antichrists and all the fallen angels and followers of works gospels serve under him as fellow antichrists. jh

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: mebaser To: this is what happens... Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:27:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...when you are forced by your preconceived notions to over-allegorize a text of scripture. The New Geneva study Bible footnotes that whether the mark is visible or not is not as important as the spiritual distinction being being brought out here. But for the record, that some kind of a mark is in view (spiritual or otherwise) that would allow the buying and selling of commercial goods is agreed to as correct by R. C. H. Lenski, Matthew Henry, Henry Alford, and others. Also, Louis Berkhof affirms the view that there will be a real person called the antichrist in the final days before the return of Christ who will have dominion over the political and economical realm. Amillennialism does not have to hyper-allegorize apocalyptic texts. --- Hello, Another amill commentator, William Hendriksen, says about this passage that there is a principle in which it is easy for believers to be 'thwarted in their business pursuits' and be 'crowded out and oppressed' due to the Christian principles they believe in, whereas non-believers (those who are marked as such by the 'mark' of the beast, referring to the mark of their spiritual condition) are unoppressed in the same vein. But I am not amill, so don't yell at me for the view I report about. in Christ, mebaser

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: john hampshire To: this is what happens... Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:16:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>....buying and selling of commercial goods is agreed to as correct by R. C. H. Lenski, Matthew Henry, Henry Alford, and others. Really, so if I want to know what Scripture means all I have to do is find 4 or 5 theologians that agree in some way? What happens if I find 4 or 5 theologians who disagree with the other ones, do we up the ante by finding 8 to 10 more who agree with me? Sorry, theologian ping-pong is not my game. john

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: mebaser To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:29:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>....buying and selling of commercial goods is agreed to as correct by R. C. H. Lenski, Matthew Henry, Henry Alford, and others. Really, so if I want to know what Scripture means all I have to do is find 4 or 5 theologians that agree in some way? What happens if I find 4 or 5 theologians who disagree with the other ones, do we up the ante by finding 8 to 10 more who agree with me? Sorry, theologian ping-pong is not my game. john --- You tell him John, I didn't like those theologians anyway! hehe, Your non-amill friend, mebaser p.s. I love it when amillers disagree.

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: jh To: this is what happens... Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:48:33 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: A lot of people may say that, but that doesn't make it true. The mega churches with thousands of people in them are the false gospels. They are freewill works gospels and those are false gospels. The antichrist (satan) is being worshiped in the temple (church buildings). And we all know that the tongues chruches are satanic. The bible says there are many antichrists. And anyone who is a deciever is an antichrist. 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. And the context of Revelation 13 is not about commercial goods, it's about false gospels. Moreover, the physical nation of Israel is not going to be surrounded with tanks and guns. That is the conclusion people come to who do not understand that the Israel of God is the whole church of believers throughout the history of time. It's a spiritual warfare. Not a war with tanks and guns. jh

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: jh To: john hampshire Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 12:56:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: john, I agree along the lines of what you said. In Rev. 18:13 for example, the souls of men are one of the things listed as merchandise. 'The merchandise of gold, and silver........and souls of men. Rev. 18:12,13 I also think that we could very well be in the final tribulation period right now. False gospels that emphasize signs and wonders (like tongues, visions, miracle healings, laughing in the spirit, and so called slain in the spirit) is a world-wide epidemic right now and is increasing. And salvation by works (like free will gospels) are the greatest percentage of false gospel activity amongst all churches under the banner of Christianity today. Satan is being worshipped as God in most churches because so many people are decieved by his messengers. Buying and selling.... I think that works salvation (like free will) is equivalent to 'buying'. Instead of standing still and trusting in the grace of God, freewillers are doing it themselves. Sort of like the following text: Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. And the pastors who are preaching free will are selling salvation because they are teaching people to 'accept Christ' today and you can be assured that all is well with your soul this very evening. Also, the health and wealth gospels are being sold for money too. Preachers say 'give me a hundred and God will give you a thousand'... And those who are fooled by miracle healings (which are really just a few people in the audience who are paid to ACT as if they were suddenly healed of some physical condition) give their money hoping to be cured of their physical problems but it never happens. (The old saying....there's a sucker born every minute). This is also making merchandise of the gospel. jh

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: john hampshire To: jh Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:32:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Howdy jh, You amaze me, I thought I was reading one of my own posts, hehe. I'm am truly glad and refreshed to find someone who understands the severity and extent of the false gospels in what was once the churches of God. I agree that we ARE in the final tribulation period and that the return of Christ to judge this earth is very soon (probably within the next 5 minutes, ha ha, but soon enough by God's clock). If you understand that GOD wrote the Bible, and I think you do, then we should expect Jeremiah to be a commentary on Mark which can be used to understand Revelation. I am truly surprised and dismayed by the number of professing Christians who see little if anything spiritual in God's word, always determined rather to seek the most literal and obvious meaning. I hold to a different interpretation, I believe the most literal meaning is often either not correct, OR not the important message God intends. I see in God's use of imagery and word usage a third level of meaning which follows the context spiritually in just the same way the historical narrative may be flowing. That is, when we understand what the terms refer to, like for example trees, green things are believers, hay, straw, stubble are the wicked, we can find the real message intended by God. And lo and behold, the highest truth in the Bible will always be dealing with Christ and His salvation in some respect. The entire Bible, nearly every passage is just dripping with spiritual meaning, though I have not the spiritual insight to understand it all. I am sorry for those who don't or can't see this. For them the Bible must be a chore to read. Hopefully the rest of your theology will prove to be sound--don't let me down now after I said we are in agreement : ) just kidding, I think… john

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: monitor To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:58:23 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, you wrote this to 'jh': You amaze me, I thought I was reading one of my own posts, hehe. Now you are startin' to scare me....ANOTHER John Hampshire on the forum? Oh my!! ;-) Speaking of interpreting the Bible...can you give us a couple of rules of thumb (or historical figures who think as you do) on how to transition from the more literal hermeneutic to the symbolic/figurative? In otherwords, when do you interpret a passage literally....and when do you kick into figurative gears? monitor

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: Anne To: john hampshire Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 07:36:39 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Brilliantly written, john! I loved it! And do you know, you made me 'see' something that I had intellectually known, but not actually grasped, and that is that it is peoples' evil, wicked natures that makes them gravitate to the EZ-bake gospels. I mean, that is WHY they like them, not really just because it is all they've been exposed to. I know, I know . . . . . I can hear y'all now, muttering, 'Well, duh. What else is new?' But there is a difference between 'knowing' something and truly 'getting' it, now isn't there? Of course, since all my loved ones have an unfortunate preference for the EZ bake varieties, that's a smidge depressing, but so it goes, I guess. Still, I am delighted with your post, john! Thank you! Anne

Subject: Re: Buying and selling From: john hampshire To: Anne Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:53:20 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, When I was a teenager a few years ago (hehe) I used to try and sell to my school chums my ez-gospel, and they without too much difficulty would poke holes in my theology which started me to thinking. If all those Christian books teach this stuff, and all the famous modern Christians believe it, including my Pentecostal pastor (at that time) and most every church, what the *** is wrong with me ( couldn't convince others or myself)? I really tried hard to be a believer. But no matter how I tried to 'fit in' I couldn't do it, I had to have my questions answered. Eventually I gave up and drifted into eastern religions that went hand-n-hand with some martial arts I was doing. But when I couldn't stand not knowing, I threw all my ez-bake books away and just read my Bible. Just as I was learning about predestination, election and the like in my Bible (which no one ever wrote about, I thought I discovered something new), I found Family Stations and became aware that there was indeed a whole world of Calvinism out there with its great thinkers (which I am just a scarecrow in search of a brain in comparison). It was an amazing time for me, my brain was dying for truth, I just wanted some answers and then, (turn on the radio) and there they were. I never looked back at my Pentecostal beliefs, my Arminian friends (notice I didn't say Arminianist friends, hehe), and began filling my tiny (luckily) library with the right kinds of books. My friends, relatives, Mother, and all my family members are Arminian (or is that Armenian) and find Calvinism to be strange, mostly cultist and abnormal. But I am thankful to God that He answered my prayer (yes, I prayed that I would find truth soon 'cause I was very confused at that time and lo and behold it was that same afternoon I found Family Radio as I was looking for some music on AM, wow God works in mysterious frequencies, and ways). While I have never convinced anyone, but one, of the truth of my beliefs, I am very content knowing God is in charge. I still shudder when my Mother takes her ez-gospel from the ez-bake oven and tries to sell it to me, she is a most stubborn and deceived woman. Keep on studying that ol Bible, its full of gold. john

Subject: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Joel H To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:50:39 (PST) Email Address: jh6@muw.edu Message: I have been reading 'The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination' by Loraine Boettner, and the Kibbles and Bits thread got me started thinking about one of the statements in the book. I know the beginning of the thread started with how to resolve the practical difficulties between God's sovereignty and human will. Anyway, Boettner gives a possible solution to how some form of human freedom can exist in the presence of God's sovereignty. On page 35 for those who may have the same edition. 'God so presents the outside inducements that man acts in accordance with his own nature, yet does exactly what God has planned for him to do.' What does everyone think of this argument? What are its weaknesses? Although the creature can do nothing other, I would think under such a system he would indeed be free since he was irressitably enduced not compelled by force (person was not zapped into a robot). Another way of saying it: Although certain causes have predetermined an action, a person still gets to weigh the options and make the choice. This is so because the creature was enduced and not compelled. Any opinions? Joel H P.S. Wow! Anne you do some heavy thinking in the shower. I am usually still asleep :0 John, I agree with everyone else, you have one smart dog! Does anyone smell a conspiracy?? I hope for all this time on the board you haven't been presenting your dog's ideas as your own. Plagarism is a serious offense you know!! ;)

Subject: Bondage of the Will From: george To: Joel H Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 17:09:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Joel H., Luther wrote 'The Bondage of the Will' in response to Erasmus diatribe on freewill. In his book, Luther speaks to the issue of all things happen out of necessity in respect to God's providence. Yet, the individual is never compelled towards in act. The example was that evil men do evil naturally, thus God just directs those acts (i.e. Judas). Man is always responsible, God simply adds or takes away is merciful grace which restains or releases man to act according to his real desires, sullied from the Fall. In Christ, george

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Anne To: Joel H Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 13:18:24 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: ' 'God so presents the outside inducements that man acts in accordance with his own nature, yet does exactly what God has planned for him to do.' What does everyone think of this argument? What are its weaknesses? Although the creature can do nothing other, I would think under such a system he would indeed be free. . . . ' You know, this theory has a good bit going for it, all things considered. I just wish I weren't reminded of one of those undercover 'sting' operations, like the Abscam thing in Washington years ago. The rationale behind law enforcement's sending out undercover cops as hookers, or drug users, or whatever, is that all they are doing is giving people the opportunity to committ the sin. I mean, crime. The fault is the perp's, and the perp's alone. I've never been as politically conservative as most of the rest of y'all, I think, and I have always been uncomfortable with sting operations, unless it is designed to trap a particular person who has been committing a certain crime on an on-going basis. Not a roach motel approach, designed to grab whoever happens to trundle along. If God is the one who creates the person with the inherent, default traits that lead that person to fall a certain way, then when He sets up a situation so that he or she walks right into the 'trap' . . . . that seems to be 'Judy O'Grady and the Colonel's lady' (i.e. the same thing), on a par with Him just making us do the foul deed. We still get whapped with James' insistance that God does not tempt us to sin. Well, if He creates me with the instincts of a thief, then locks me up with an uncounted sum of money in small bills, I would call that temptation with a whoop and a holler. It all comes down to: from whence comes the nature of the beast (us)? If my nature matured or grew or mutated or evolved apart from God's influence, then there goes His sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence. If He made my nature the way it is, both petals and thorns, then how can He not be the author of my sin? I think I'll ditch this stuff and take up something simple and straightforward, like differential calculus. The laws of mathematics are His laws, too, and SO much easier to grasp. ;-> Anne

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: john hampshire To: all Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 18:53:08 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Y'all I have to think there is a limit to understanding God's handiwork. We aren't provided with enough information to formulate a mathematical solution to God's dealings with His creation. You know, it's not Gw = Mn + (f + c). Where Gw = God's will, Mn = Man's nature, f = freewill, c = God constant. As far as I can see a formula would look like this: Gw = Mn That is, whatever God wills God gets. I would think God must create in us the desires that we then act upon. We know He doesn't create evil desires within us, they are already present, but I suppose He brings them forward at the appointed time. It may be that God makes men do the very thing they don't desire, working against their nature. I wouldn't have a problem with God forcing His will on us, as long as we are not inferring God forces us to do evil, we must only be speaking of doing what is right and proper (which we don't want to do). Case 1 for the wicked: God forces them to do good (which they see as their own will but is God's act alone) and allows them to fall into sin by their evil nature. Case 2 for the believer: God allows them to do good by enabling the spirit (which is perfectly obedient) and suppressing the flesh; yet allows them to fall into evil by their flesh nature (but not spirit nature)as He sees fit. >>>>>>>If He made my nature the way it is, both petals and thorns, then how can He not be the author of my sin? The answer must be that the thorns were not originally present but are the result of Adam's disobedience. Case 2 allows God to use our sin nature for His advantage, or in Adam's special case to present Adam with a trial that manifests disobedience by forcing a choice apart from God's will. What He cannot do is force Adam to sin. Police who hope to snare someone by enticing sins is not that far removed from the trials God places before men to test them. I would object if the police forced individuals to buy drugs from an undercover officer, but simply offering a sin is not the same as forcing someone to sin. It could be said that if the police were not running the test then those caught might never have fallen. The idea places blame on the testor for the failure of the testee. We could use similar logic to excuse all sin by saying of those things or people who caused our falling: if so-n-so wasn't born or an object created I would never have sinned, so I'm not to blame. Then bank robbers can blame the bank for being there, murderers can blame the victim for being born which caused him to be murdered one day. Flaky logic. By the way, if you disagree with these things, I cannot take full responsibility for them, my Malamute thought of them first so it's all his fault (hey this blame stuff works!). john

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Anne To: john hampshire Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:33:37 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'We know He doesn't create evil desires within us, they are already present. . . . . ' How? From where? Can there be anything present in man that God did not originally put there? Even if He simply put the predilection to sin, or just the willingness to choose sin, in Eve and Adam, then the ultimate, first impetus for the Fall would have come from God. If they had been made with perfect, sinless natures, then God could have planted an entire orchard of forbidden trees, and the fruit would have remained untouched. Even with the serpent slithering around. Even with the serpent standing on the tip of its tail and dancing the hula. Wouldn't have mattered. No, thanks, peculiar slithery critter! The Lord our God said to leave these be, and that's enough for me. That's what they would have said. It's like the Reformed position on election: If God had intended to save every human being, then every human being would have been saved. Well, then, same song, different verse: If God had intended for every human being to remain in fellowship with Him, sinless and unspoiled, and obeying His laws, then that's what they would be. The problem is, in Scripture we have the Lord continually urging His people to follow His laws and keep His covenant. Yet, if He had really, really wanted us to do that, we would have done it. Could not have done anything else. Yes, yes, I've heard about first causes and secondary causes and prescriptive wills and decretive (?) wills and I don't know what all. Show me in Scripture where that stuff is. I CAN, however, show you in Scripture where God states baldly that NOTHING happens against His will. That He creates disaster. That He directs men's steps. If it just weren't for James. Darn James, anyhow. Are we absolutely positive that that pesky bit wasn't written in a different handwriting or something?

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:41:50 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne--'The problem is, in Scripture we have the Lord continually urging His people to follow His laws and keep His covenant. Yet, if He had really, really wanted us to do that, we would have done it. Could not have done anything else.' Anne, Here's my take on that one. When God urges people to do something in His Word, He can use that 'urging' to bring out in us whatever reaction He wants to. That is, it might suit His ultimate purpose that we fail to meet His ideal as personified in His urging. In that case, in His ultimate will (whether that's decretive, permissive, or whichever one it happens to be) He will 'wring us out' to bring forth what is in us that will work His ultimate desire. If it's His foremost desire that we fail to heed His urgings in this particular case, He will direct circumstances so that our failure to obey Him will result. But it must be remembered that He does everything for His own glory and the ultimate good and glorification of His people. This is a part of His working 'all things,' as in, 'And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him' (Rom. 8:28); and it's all 'according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will' (Eph. 1:11). (BTW, did you notice I quoted the NIV just for you?) :>) In that manner we can see that it's true, as you said, that God gets just exactly whatever His will desires and his servant just lapses into sin in response to God's orchestration to fulfill that will of God. That would leave the individual morally responsible, but God would be responsible for achieving His ends. Personally, I'm not offended that He does that for the simple reason that, whatever He brings about, it is for my ultimate good, according to those two quoted verses. And He has promised to bring me to ultimate 'glorification' with His Son, my Savior, in Whom God has placed me in His family and secured my 'inheritance' (Rom. 8:14-17). Just as Adam was far better off after he sinned and was saved than he was in the beautiful garden in 'innocence,' so will I be better off after God has worked His complete will and purpose in my life. Who else but God could plan such a thing and then execute it?

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:53:31 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'BTW, did you notice I quoted the NIV just for you?) :>) ' You spoil me rotten, Rod, you really do. And I appreciate it. 'Just as Adam was far better off after he sinned and was saved than he was in the beautiful garden in 'innocence,' so will I be better off after God has worked His complete will and purpose in my life.' Whoa. That's a new thought. I hate those. ;-> I suppose I have always assumed that Adam was better off puttering happily around Eden, rather than scrounging out a living out here with the rest of us. Not disputing your assertion, mind, but it's going to need chewing on. Off to the shower.

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:38:44 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne, Maybe this'l help. What I'm getting at is, in a nutshell, this: An eternity in Heaven, glorified with the Lord Jesus, so far surpasses their status in the garden that the difference is of a magnitude which we can't measure.

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:24:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod/Anne, Also consider the fact that in the Garden of Eden, Adam was under the 'Covenant of Works' (a misnomer somewhat), and the possibility that communion with God and the curse of death was always 'at the door' so to speak. Even if Adam had lived 3000 years, there was still the condition of perfect obedience enjoined upon him, and thus the entire human race and it's communion with God was always tentative. However, with the coming of the second Adam, the Lord Christ, perfect communion with God has been guaranteed due to His perfect obedience and vicarious substitutionary death. The 'debt/ransom has been paid.' God has been 'propitiated.' 'Reconciliation' has been accomplished. And the 'sacrifice' necessary has been made. Thus we have a perfect 'Saviour' indeed. 'Who can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus?' Soli Deo Gloria. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:56:05 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Also consider the fact that in the Garden of Eden, Adam was under the 'Covenant of Works' (a misnomer somewhat), and the possibility that communion with God and the curse of death was always 'at the door' so to speak. Even if Adam had lived 3000 years, there was still the condition of perfect obedience enjoined upon him, and thus the entire human race and it's communion with God was always tentative. Good heavens, Pilgrim, that had never occured to me, but you are right! Just by existing there would have been perpetually present opportunities for disobedience, in thought as well as deed. Looked at that way it's amazing they lasted as long as they did! ;-> Anne

Subject: Exactly, brother! n/t From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:38:09 (PST) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:01:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, Have you read Calvin's Calvinism? If not DO! There just isn't anything better ever written than this in regards to a defense of God's absolute sovereignty and how it all works together with the creature's will Of course, Calvin doesn't go where 'angels fear to tread', but he does seem to exhaust the Scriptures on the subject. Arguments and counter-arguments are abundant throughout the work and I have little doubt that it will stimulate your gray matter and answer many of your queries. ENJOY! http://www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/calvin's_calvinism_index.html In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: john hampshire To: Anne Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 20:19:47 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'We know He doesn't create evil desires within us, they are already present. . . . . ' >>>>>>>How? From where? Can there be anything present in man that God did not originally put there? God doesn't have to 'put' evil into our natures, If we drop a rock do we have to make it fall, it does it because that is the way of a rock. Now, we can easily say God rules over even our natures, that is, gravity is God's law and the rock obeys. Like a rock we fall, or are upheld by God depending upon His will. Unlike a rock, we get our disposition from our parents, with Adam the first rock set on a mountain top. He rolled down the hill and all mankind went with him. The point here is God didn't push Adam down the hill, he went willingly. Sure God wanted it to further His plan and put a test in front of Adam so he would lose his balance, but that doesn't excuse the one who reached out and fell. Now why Adam chose to reach out rather than remain focused on God is another matter. Today we are a rock without potential energy, at the bottom of a pit, if God doesn’t raise us up (adding potential energy) we will roll right back down and stay there. We cannot fault God for creating gravity, we must fault ourselves for having mass (pride) and getting caught in its pull. Make any sense? john

Subject: Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) From: Anne To: john hampshire Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:11:03 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'By the way, if you disagree with these things, I cannot take full responsibility for them, my Malamute thought of them first so it's all his fault (hey this blame stuff works!). ' john Yup, it's john hampshire: Total Depravity poster boy! (snicker)

Subject: You are right to be confused From: E.V. To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 04:37:26 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Anne, Your questions show that you are really thinking this thing out. Adam fell because of his desire to sin. God gave him this desire, otherwise he wouldn't have had it. To say that God doesn't have to give it to him, but it is just naturally a part of who he is doesn't hold up. Strict Calvinism teaches that God decreed every single thought that he ever had. So logically, there can be nothing that is 'naturally a part of' something. Another point you made. Whatever God absolutely wants to happen, happens. Again, God wanted Adam to sin. But, we have God's holy Word telling us that Adam was commanded not to sin. So in my mind, we have God's Word saying one thing, and man's 'logical' definitions about God's sovereignty telling us that God really wanted Adam to sin. Which one to believe??? In Christ, E.V.

Subject: Re: You are right to be confused From: john hampshire To: E.V. Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:50:22 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I look at Adam's sin like this: He was created perfect, but that does not mean under certain circumstances he was not able to rebel. Logically God could keep him from falling, but it was not His desire. A perfect being is only perfect in the sense that it obeys God perfectly and is perfectly pleasing to God in every way under certain conditions. My belief here is that under different conditions, a perfect being becomes off-centered by this pressure (test) and sins. No test, no pressure, no sin. The test came from God. The pressure was exerted by the test. The sin was allowed to progress by God without halting the process. Did God give the desire to sin? Desire is an effect of spirit, we don't have desires apart from ourselves. If God gave an evil desire, then He would have guilt, He would be responsible for Adam's sin. It is one thing to entice, it is another thing to use Divine power to force someone to do what they wouldn't desire by their nature. So this is rejected. The conclusion then is that Adam was affected by the test so that, under this different environment, under this pressure, he failed. This goes to the heart of how God deals with mankind. God did not, nay could not, implant evil ideas into Adam or input evil desires by altering his will--this is nonsense. While the conclusion may not satisfy our intellect, it must be just the same, Adam fell because God designed a test that altered or challenged Adam's perception, he found sin more appealing than obedience. It is not a matter of wiggle room as Anne might say, Adam reacted to the pressure of the test by solving his problem via intellect rather than trusting God (that was Adam's sin). A bad analogy: I pet a dog, he loves and obeys me. I make him choose between obeying me and a T-bone steak and the steak wins. By introducing a test, I alter my dogs viewpoint, just the mere introduction of some foreign object (an apple) becomes a focus that pulls Adam into self-thought and internal struggle (which is not faith) and he doubts God (and the rest is history). A perfect being, dog or otherwise, does not mean desires or allegiances cannot be altered. Here's my point again: the means that God used to fulfill His will was a test, and not some implanting of evil thoughts. It doesn't make God less a God or alter His Sovereignty. Another analogy: a field is parched and dying. Does God have rain fall without clouds? Do the clouds form for no reason? Is not the whole event orchestrated so that upper-level wind flow will bring cold air down and create lift to cause clouds to form so as to bring rain upon a dry field. Why must we think Adam was implanted with evil by God, do we think God just freshens up crops without water?, doesn't He use various means to reach His ends (without implanting water directly into crops). This, I believe, is the means that God uses to rule His creation. There is no wiggle room, no escape from the resulting actions of men to God's test, they behave exactly according to His plan because God knows exactly which button to push to get the reaction and does so to an infinite level of complexity. john

Subject: Re: You are right to be confused From: E.V. To: john hampshire Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:23:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi John, I think I agree with much of what you say. However, if whatever happens is a result of God's decree/command, then there really isn't a 'test', because Adam was not able to do differently. He was created to sin, for if he wasn't, then he would not have. If I am reading you right, you would disagree with the notion of God commanding Adam to sin. If Adam was created perfect, then he must have a perfect will. And we all know that Calvinists teach that our will is directly controlled by our desires, but Adam didn't have sinful desires if he was created perfect. I would say that God created Adam with the ability to choose to rely on himself, or to trust God (but not perfect). Adam chose himself, and therefore lost the ability to trust God, as did the rest of humanity. I think this was a real test without a fixed outcome. In other words, Adam could have chosen to rely on God. But God being omniscient knew that he wouldn't. I would say that evil is always a possibility, as it is in fact 'non-goodness.' If goodness exists, I think evil is always a possibility, though in heaven, it won't be actuallized. Back to your dog analogy: are you angry with your dog if he chooses the T-bone over you? You might be, because he can ignore the T-bone, with a lot of training but his nature/instinct makes him desire the bone over pleasing you. Now, would you be angry with him if you created him with the exact nature that causes him to desire a t-bone over his desire to obey you? I doubt it. From my perspective, there is a huge difference between God commanding/decreeing and permitting sin. Though in actualality, the result of either of these options looks the same to us. My post is very muddled and unorganized, I apologize, but I don't have time to fix it. In Christ, E.V.

Subject: Re: You are right to be confused From: john hampshire To: E.V. Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:48:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi E.V., You wrote: I think this was a real test without a fixed outcome. In other words, Adam could have chosen to rely on God. But God being omniscient knew that he wouldn't. If there was no fixed outcome, then we have major problems. Any level of uncertainty would imply God does not know the future, does not control events fully, and we have raised Adam's will above God's. Even worse, if Adam could have, in his freewill, chosen NOT to sin, then how could he be the federal representation of the human race? He couldn't, for perhaps you or I, in the same situation, would have chosen to continue to serve God (you know, with our freewill). Rather, I say, there was only one outcome, and God designed His test to bring that about. Adam didn't have freewill, that idea doesn't really even make sense unless God doesn't exist (which makes less sense). Adam was bound by allegiance to God, he was free to be obedient totally to God in all things (have we all read Martin Luther's 'Bondage of the Will', I hope so). When the Bible says that God turned someone’s heart, or hardened a heart so it would not believe, I think (am not totally confident) that this is only true of unbelievers. The reason being, for a believer with a perfect spirit to turn from God (permanently) would require God to implant evil in a perfect nature. It is the wicked, with dead spirits, that God turns toward evil (or increased evil), for that is their natural (or unnatural, depending how you look at it) inclination. That is not to say a believer cannot be released by God so that the flesh nature rules over the spirit. But that is never a permanent situation, we fail the test and turn back to God. The wicked fail the test and turn to more evil to relieve the guilt. Adam must have sinned solely because of the test (which included both the object (fruit) and the serpent's introduction of a new paradigm to Adam's thoughts. Lucifer had an object too, the creation of God, with the focus on Adam, and I don't doubt that God instigated Lucifer by saying something like, 'consider my creation and the man, they are perfect in obedience to Me' (as He did to set up Job). I feel the instilling in Lucifer of the idea that God could be beaten was necessary, along with an object to desire, to provoke Lucifer to jealousy. Again, God did not implant or force Lucifer to sin, He just gave the opportunity and set up the test so that Lucifer fell headlong for the bait. We should say Adam was perfect under the condition prevailing, but when God altered the circumstances with His testing program, Adam found himself faced with a choice that he (and all of us) would solve by our own intellectual effort, and thus step right out of the perfect will of God, and we would cease to be perfect. You wrote: Back to your dog analogy: are you angry with your dog if he chooses the T-bone over you? No, but then my dog was not commanded NOT to eat it. It would be much different if forbid him from taking food from the dinner table, and he did it anyway. The punishment, of course, is banishment from fellowship with his master, he’d get kicked out of the house just as God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, they were sent essentially to the dog house. john

Subject: Re: You are right to be confused From: laz To: john hampshire Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 10:14:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...besides, how could Christ have been 'slain from the foundations of the world'(Rev 13:8, 1Pet1:20)... and us chosen 'in Him before the foundation of the world'(Eph1:4), if the future was not decreed/fixed? laz

Subject: Re: You are right to be confused From: Anne To: john hampshire Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:25:25 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Someone on the Renewing Your Mind message board suggested that we should, with Job, cover our mouths instead of uttering what we do not understand. I told him that he might just have something there. I am, as usual, amazed by the thoughtful, reasoned, erudite responses by you kind gentlemen! Please, please, guys, I do trust that y'all have understood that I am in no way, shape, or form trying to weasel out of my responsibility for my private, personal sins and failures? Certainly not! Men are most definitely culpable, and worthy of damnation. Even an occasion woman is. (Sorry! Couldn't resist the cheap shot.) Truly, it's more a matter of academic interest, so to speak. It's a fascinating conundrum, though, isn't it? One worries and probes it like a sore tooth. Anne

Subject: Ending the confusion From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:32:26 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne-'Truly, it's more a matter of academic interest, so to speak' Sorry, Anne, I can't agree. We are given the Bible, the infallible Word of God. We are granted the indwelling Holy Spirit Who regenerates us and then teaches us about our God and Savior. And God gives us gifted teachers who lead us to the 'pasturage' (pastors and teachers) we need to understand God's plan and precepts. I'm convince that God means for us to understand, not to the fullest, possibly, but sufficiently to be satisfied in our minds and to realize that His ways are true and just and merciful, full of His lovingkindness for the elect. Two things bothered me about E.V.'s post and john's. One is that Adam wasn't 'perfect' as I define the word. The other is that God most definitely didn't command Adam to sin. Adam was 'in the image of God.' Let's consider that for just a moment. He wasn't like God in all His attributes--God didn't create another God. No, Adam was a created being. He was creation was 'good' and 'very good,' but not perfect. Adam was 'innocent' (I recall we went through this on the board not too long ago). That is, he was free from sin, didn't know sin, had, at that point, no desire to sin. Consequently, he could commune with God in their daily business without fear of judgment, actually not even having a knowledge of judgment and its ramifications, never having experienced it. Yet, within Adam, there was an ability to sin. That isn't a 'sin nature,' as we know it. A 'sin nature' was what he acquired from his sin and rebellion against God. Rebelling, he was confirmed in rebellion, 'sold out' to sin. Every thought and deed and motivation from that point on was tainted with his sin and the desire to escape the judgment of God because of it. That is the 'first Adam.' And, 'in Adam all die' (1 Cor 15:21-22; cp. Rom. 5:12-21). The 'second' and 'last Adam' was, however, perfect. He was, 'the brightness of [God's] glory, and the express image of his person' (Heb. 1:3), terms designed to denote, in the original language, His exact and perfect representation of God. He could not sin, being absolutely perfect, not being 'created in the image of God," but being the actual image of God in Himself, being the eternal Son of God. He was the 'last Adam,' Who is the other and ultimate representative Man, the one to undo and correct what the first Adam's sin 'created.' It is through Him that the saved, the predestinated and elect, receive justification, adoption to His inheritance, and finally, glorification in Himself with God forever in Heaven. Adam, in his created state, even if he hadn't sinned, could only have remained n the garden. He had nothing within him which would have been a 'ticket' to Heaven, not possessing the actual righteousness of Christ which believers in the Savior have by imputation. Adam, without sin, wasn't 'righteous' as God requires to enter Heaven. God requires His own righteousness. Adam didn't have it, but those of his race who are redeeemed by the blood have it by imputation. That's why I say we are far better off than Adam ever was before the fall. We are perfect by imputation; he was not perfect, either by his 'innocent' nature or by the absence of sin. The 'created son of God' (see Luke 3:38), the first man was 'very good' in God's creation, but not 'perfect.' God has concluded all mankind 'under sin' in Adam (see Rom. 1:18-3:20, particularly 3:9-20). We are all, in a very difinite sense, 'little Adams.' But, wait, there is another Man, a 'last Adam,' (see 1 Cor 15:20-50), Whom God sent, and Who was and is God, to remedy Adam's calamity. In essence there have really been only two men, Adam the First, who wrecked everything by his sin and the imparting of his sin nature to us all, and Adam the Second, the 'last Adam,' the only other representative man Who can determine the outcome of those who are 'in' Him. God sent us Perfection: He kept the law perfectly; He was the Son 'in whom I am well-pleased;' He obeyed the Father's will perfectly in all things; by doing so He became the Perfect Substitute for sin; by His resurrection, He demonstrated His perfect power over death, the curse and dread of all mankind. Finally, His perfection was demonstrated with authority by His resurrection and subsequent ascension into Heaven: He was 'declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead' (Rom. 1:4). Adam, in concert with God's creation of the garden, was pronounced, 'very good.' The Lord Jesus was 'declared to be the Son of God with power,' His own power proceding from the nature of God (cp. John 10:17-18). ____________________________ On the subject of the 'command of God' and Adam's sin, Let me flatly state that God didn't give a command to Adam to sin. God gave every incentive to Adam not to sin! He was created sinless and 'in the image of God.' God declares that Adam was His 'created son' in Luke 3:38. He and Eve enjoyed the most auspicious of circumstance, she being taken from him and presented to him by God to fulfill him and 'correspond' with him. They were given the most wonderful of circumstances environmentally and were even privileged to have personal and direct communion with God. They only had a single requirement from God and as far as 'creature comforts' went, they wanted nothing. What incentive was there to sin? There was none. No, God didn't command Adam to sin; Adam was given a direct command, which was an admonition not to sin, not to disobey. And he was shown the consequences of his action if he did sin: 'In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die' (Gen. 2:17). But the very first time the temptation was presented, Eve ate, being 'deceived,' and died spiritually at that moment. Adam, his eyes wide open, observed the change in Eve, and when she, pitifully, probably pleadingly, extended the fruit to him, he willfully and knowingly chose to accept her offer of death over obedience to God. He, having every incentive not to sin, in a perfect setting, with all he needed provided by God, with he and Eve having 'dominion' over all things as God's regent (1:26) and steward of the earth, he, having all that, willfully took and ate. And died. God didn't command Adam to sin, but He so ordained and orchestrated the events and circumstances that He brought out of Adam that potential that he had within, that he was created with, the ability to sin in disobedience. God's will was done in that Adam did sin, but Adam did the sinning of himself and, though God had pre-determined that it would happen, He didn't cause Adam to sin in a manner in which He was morally responsible, having set things up so that the motivation of the man should have been not to sin. As john pointed out, human analogies are very poor, but consider this: When I was younger and able, I used to hike. Sometimes I had to cross a stream. If I got my boots and socks wet, I took them off on the opposite side and wrung out the socks. I wrung out what was in them, i.e., water. I didn't place that water there in the sense that I commanded the socks to get wet, but I chose that I would cross that stream, knowing that they would get wet. But it was necessary that I get across and I had a 'remedy' for the socks, I could dry them out and overcome the undesirable circumstances of the wetness. God knew all along what would occur. He had planned for it and orchestrated it just so. And he did it so that sin would enter into creation, that Adam would sin, and that man would be under the curse as a result. But, back of all that He had a remedy. And it wasn't some kind of 'contingency plan,' but the remedy was the actual plan all along! "For whom he did forknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born [the position of pre-eminence and inheritance] among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). 'God, who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began' (2 Timl 1:9). HJe will have all His good pleasure. And that for our benefit and for His glory.

Subject: Re: Ending the confusion From: E.V. To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:25:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, Just a couple of points of clarification. I agree with you that God did not command Adam to sin. However, God did ordained Adam's sin. And from what I have read strict Calvinists teach that whatever God ordained, he decreed. According to all definitions that I have read, command and decree are equivalent. God knew all along what would occur. He had planned for it and orchestrated it just so. And he did it so that sin would enter into creation, that Adam would sin, and that man would be under the curse as a result. But, back of all that He had a remedy. And it wasn't some kind of 'contingency plan,' but the remedy was the actual plan all along! I agree, as long as we allow for a real choice of Adam to sin. In other words, Adam really could have chosen not to sin, but this would have been known by God before He even created Adam. Or, God permitted the fall in order to show his mercy and glory to His creation. God bless you and yours, E.V.

Subject: Re: Ending the confusion From: Rod To: E.V. Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:55:25 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hi, E.V., E. V.--'I agree, as long as we allow for a real choice of Adam to sin. In other words, Adam really could have chosen not to sin, but this would have been known by God before He even created Adam. Or, God permitted the fall in order to show his mercy and glory to His creation.' I haven't got that one worked out yet and probably won't in this world, but I do believe and teach that Adam's choice was real, though inevitable, in God's plan. He chose as our representative, our federal head, confirming us in a lost condition (spiritually dead) as his offspring after he sinned. That situation, as we both agree, was the necessary occurrence if God's plan went forward unhindered.

Subject: Re: Ending the confusion From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 10:19:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi, E.V., E. V.--'I agree, as long as we allow for a real choice of Adam to sin. In other words, Adam really could have chosen not to sin, but this would have been known by God before He even created Adam. Or, God permitted the fall in order to show his mercy and glory to His creation.' I haven't got that one worked out yet and probably won't in this world, but I do believe and teach that Adam's choice was real, though inevitable, in God's plan. He chose as our representative, our federal head, confirming us in a lost condition (spiritually dead) as his offspring after he sinned. That situation, as we both agree, was the necessary occurrence if God's plan went forward unhindered. --- *********** Amen. And let's not forget the classic example being Act 2:23. blessings, laz

Subject: Agreed n/t From: E.V. To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:38:53 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ,,,

Subject: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Anne To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 06:28:35 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I've been giving some thought as to just how God would have His doctrine, message, whatever you care to call it, appear in Scripture. Presumably He did not actually dictate His words to Paul, James, John, etc. There was no 'writing on the wall' that could be copied down. I am truly not intending to restart the men/women roles discussion again.......that belongs, in any depth, to another forum. But the example I have been mulling over comes from there, by happenstance. Recently I have run into, in a couple of different places, the argument that when Paul wrote that women are to remain silent in the church, he was responding to the fact that, in keeping with Jewish custom, women would sit on one side, and men on the other. If a woman wished to communicate with her husband, she had to yell at him. Apparently it tended to get a trifle loud at those services. This, to some, proves quite nicely that this was a mere cultural restriction, not intended as a general rule against females preaching, etc. I have decided that their reasoning is silly, and here is why: Why does God permit heresies to rise up and drive His church nuts? So that rather vaguely held doctrine is pointed and sharpened. Arianism led to the firm doctrine of the divinity of Christ, for example. Pelagianism led to nailed down teaching of original sin and grace. To cause His church to focus on the doctrines He wishes, He allows the heretical teaching to rise up, just so it can be responded to. Now think about it. He wants His rule about male leadership in the church to be written down. Hmmmm........how to do this? It is my suggestion that He allowed the custom of men on one side and women on the other, so that it would be noisy from women shouting to their husbands across the room, so that Paul would direct them to, basically, sit down and shut up. ;-> And there ya go! God has neatly caused His directive about women being silent in the church to be put down in Scripture, for our edification. He used the cultural habits of the time to get His point across. Further, He CAUSED the cultural habits of the time, so that He could provide Paul with the situation required to write those words. On that CBMW list I've mentioned before, we have been talking a bit about the fact that it was not by coincidence that Jesus was born and taught, with the apostles after Him, in a patriarchal society. It seems to me that to suggest that the societal norms in place at that time were coincidental is strongly against God's sovereignty. Either He is the author of those norms and customs, or He is not. If He is not, then He isn't as sovereign as all that, now is He? What do y'all think? Is this a reasonable response to the 'Paul was just talking about lowering the noise in the church' argument? Anne

Subject: I'm glad to see you putting so much time into this. From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 10:06:12 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne, I don't know if I should even be answering you or not, as I'm not up to detailed analysis and discussion right now. I can't go into all the issues here, but I do want to make a couple of observations, though. I think this statement is right on: 'Why does God permit heresies to rise up and drive His church nuts? So that rather vaguely held doctrine is pointed and sharpened. Arianism led to the firm doctrine of the divinity of Christ, for example. Pelagianism led to nailed down teaching of original sin and grace.' Such verses as 1 Cor. 11:19 verify the truth of your statement, but we're so distracted and disrespectful to God oftentimes that we don't register what we read in God's Word, reading without deep discernment. On the subject of the woman's role in the church, a lot of 'revisionists' are always working on the Bible and the Enemy, the 'accuser of the brethren' loves it. In the 1 Tim. 2:9-15 section (one full of import), the bald and plain statement is: 'But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authroity over the man, but to be in silence' (verse 9). What's so hard to understand about that? It may be hard to accept for some women, and some men object strenuously to it also. That fact doesn't lessen the message. The next few verses indicate that it hs to do with God's original plan of headship; the fact that Eve was taken from out of Adam; that God dealt with Adam directly in the Garden; and the fact Eve sinned because she was 'deceived,' but Adam wasn't. In another epistle Paul indicates that women are to teach, but it is restricted to other women and children. And he 'doesn't stutter' when he says that, either. Anytime we fail to consider the whole Word of God and impose our culture, our 'I want it to be this ways,' and fail to just let God speak to us when we open His Word, no good thing (humanly speaking) can come out of it. I'm a participant on another board where they don't like to get into theology; where they like to sorta talk around the edges of God's Word; where the lost are tolerated when they ridicule God's Word and Christians; and where 'liberalism' is the rule. I may very well be the only sovereign gracer there and I think they sort of tolerate me as a 'crackpot.' I was the only one to object a few days ago on the issue of women 'behind the pulpit,' even the board owner supported it, stating that he had recently changed his mind on this issue. I think women should be 'behind the pulpit' at times myself, otherwise that area would never get cleaned! :>) Please let me hasten to say that wasn't meant to be offensive--I've done a lot of church janitorial duties, as one I used to attend had the people voluntarily take turns weekly or monthly doing the cleaning chores. I don't know if I cleaned behind the pulpit, but I remember cleaning toilets! :>) This was an interesting presentation, Anne. I hope someone will come along and answer with greater insight.

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Joel H To: Anne Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 09:48:08 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: First Timothy 2:13-14 more than clarifies God's reason for His rule that women should be silent. I see no reason why Paul ordered the Corinthian church to do the same for another reason (the noise argument). The reasons given in First Timothy certainly are not cultural. Even so, I do not think it safe to assume that any Scriptural commandment should voided unless other Scripture claims the regulation is now void (like animal sacrifice). I guess what I am saying is how can people be confident enough to assume they know for sure the reason behind why Paul (inspired by God) wrote them. The 'noise' argument can not be inferred from that passage of Scripture unless you impose it. Am I making any sense? Anne........interesting thoughts on why God permits heresies. I'll have to ponder that one a while. (my brain is in shutdown mode right now.....just got out of class...one more to go :) Joel H

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: john hampshire To: all Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:18:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Howdy, There is no reason to doubt that all events in history are His Story... it is all God's will being acted out. So if heresy rises or is put down, evil kings arise and are killed, it is all God's doing to further His aims. I personally don't buy the woman sat apart reasoning, even if they did sit separately would we expect woman to be shouting across the room? I don't think so. Do woman who sit apart from their husbands today, do they shout questions across the room? Not likely now or then (especially then when woman were not so liberally disobedient to men). When God wrote the Bible, those He used did not even necessarily understand what they wrote. It was at times written without their understanding because it wasn't the time to reveal its meaning. So I don't think it necessary for God to create a current problem in order to have it become part of scripture. Epistles were written to certain churches and yet the intended audience was all mankind, the intended meanings larger than any one congregation. How God weaves Scriptures together with and without human will is of course a difficult question. He uses human experiences and then turns it into something unrelated to human happenings (it becomes spiritual truths), go figure. He takes the common and makes it holy, common events become full of spiritual meaning, well beyond the originally inspired writer's understanding, so that they too have to diligently study Scripture to understand the mind of God! john

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Anne To: john hampshire Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:43:03 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Yo, podner! 'I personally don't buy the woman sat apart reasoning, even if they did sit separately would we expect woman to be shouting across the room? I don't think so.' I will thank all you ornery cattle rustlers to remember that all I am doing is repeating the excuses given by egalitarians to explain why Paul wrote such rather uncomplimentary directives about the fairer sex. Surely (said in tone of deep offense) by this time my credentials as a card-carrying, anthem-singing, I-can-out-submissive-any-woman-in-the-room complementarian should be well established. If anyone says otherwise, run 'em out here and I'll shoot 'em. Well, Don will. I am FAR too feminine. ;-> Anne

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Prestor John To: Anne Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 22:58:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well actually Anne I would like to see your response to the issue of head covering. Do you do it? If so why? If not why? Pestor John Archair Theologian, curmudgeon, and esperantist Servabo Fidem

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Anne To: Prestor John Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:54:55 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'Well actually Anne I would like to see your response to the issue of head covering. Do you do it? If so why? If not why?' No, I don't, mainly because no-one else does, and being a weak sheep (baa!) I dislike to stand out from the crowd. However, I was raised in the Episcopalian faith, and I most assuredly had to wear a scarf or some other headcovering in church. I possessed a selection of lace mantillas, and would wear one of those. You know, I really miss that. I wonder why churches got away from it? One thing that occurs to me is that since women have been allowed to go bare-headed to church, the dress code has dropped like a rock. I know I am dating myself, but I clearly recall when men wore suits, and women wore dresses to church. You know, I should wear a scarf or something to church, I think. Just cause everyone else wants to be a sloppy dog, doesn't mean I should be one, too. Thank you, PJ, for bringing this issue to my attention. Anne

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Rod To: Prestor John Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 23:42:30 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Prestor John, Do you do it? The women with whom you worship, that is?

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Prestor John To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:55:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No. I don't do it. However, I came into the Reformed community late in my life before this issue was really brought up. Do I support it is a better question . To which the answer is yes. Will I convince my wife to do it? Ahh there's the rub! After 24 years of marriage, is now the time for me to tell my wife wear a hat in church. Hmmmm that will be an interesting conversation I better make up the couch now and save time. Prestor John Servabo Fidem

Subject: Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... From: Rod To: Prestor John Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:21:02 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I understand your situation somewhat. It's interesting that my wife chose to do it due to the fact that one of the brethren 'characteristics' is that women do so. When we started attending an assembly where the women did so, she felt out of place the first time and quickly remedied that situation. We had a discussion about it and I tried to explain the reasons for all this, but I don't think she entered into it on a deep level, because, when she visits churches where the other women don't, she chooses not to.

Subject: recronstructionism From: Sis To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 18:44:11 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I was wondering if someone could give me A short version of this view.Is it biblical or not?thank you

Subject: Re: recronstructionism From: laz To: Sis Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 21:33:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Sis - I'm no expert but can say based on my limited exposure to it is that it depends on how far you want to take reconstructionist thought. Like lots of 'systems'...it too is a mixed bag and still being developed in parts. Crackpots exist too. Overall...it's biblical (some great thinkers have come from this 'movement') ...yet I don't agree with all of their conclusions...or at least I'm still on the fence....naaah, actually I'm not in agreement with their views on 'reclaiming America for Christ'....and their postmil views. But on the other hand...they tend to be maligned by liberals, messianics/jews, evangelicals, pagans,...gee, lots of folks......called names like racists, intolerent, etc, so you can't believe everything you read ABOUT reconstructionists. blessings, laz p.s. here is an example: This guy's not happy... Bahnsen www.chesco.com/~topcat/ap.html

Subject: Re: recronstructionism From: john hampshire To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:37:08 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Howdy Laz, From the site>>>>>They use the phrase 'inerrant Law-Word of God' to describe their biblical view. They do not believe in traditional American notions of Separation of Church and State or in public education. Gee, I like them already! >>>>>>They do not believe that 'governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed' as Thomas Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence. Probably because all governments derive their just powers from God and are setup or taken down as He see fit! >>>>>They promote an Old Testament, Puritan, theocratic view of government where the interpreters of God's will (the clergy) rule the state. As opposed to the current system, where atheists with depraved minds bent on self-indulgent power grabs make a government the giver of all gifts and organizer of all peoples (socialism) in an attempt to be gods to the people. Is it something to fear if politics is not only the medium of zealous left-wing religious whack-o's, isn’t there room for zealous right-wing religious whack-o's too? john

Subject: Re: recronstructionism From: sis To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 10:22:13 (PST) Email Address: lornekris@yahoo.com Message: Laz, Thank you for your comments. I agree like you I am not post-mil i'm a-mil and so far there ideologies don't seem to make sence to me,but half our church is recrons so we have to be tolerant.As long as they stay within peramiters of eesential doctrine I have no problem. I think recaiming america is great in theory but without the spirit it won't matter what we reclaim they will still continue to break the laws and be haters of God. So I believe we should continue teaching,praying and admonishing those who we come in contact with. This is how I believe we can spiritually reclaim america and the world if it be the will of our father. Again thank you. SIS

Subject: Re: recronstructionism From: laz To: sis Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:18:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Laz, Thank you for your comments. I agree like you I am not post-mil i'm a-mil and so far there ideologies don't seem to make sence to me,but half our church is recrons so we have to be tolerant.As long as they stay within peramiters of eesential doctrine I have no problem. I think recaiming america is great in theory but without the spirit it won't matter what we reclaim they will still continue to break the laws and be haters of God. So I believe we should continue teaching,praying and admonishing those who we come in contact with. This is how I believe we can spiritually reclaim america and the world if it be the will of our father. Again thank you. SIS --- HA! Sounds like you already knew the answer to your original question! ;-) blessings, laz

Subject: Rod and laz - I have not forgotten From: Dave B To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 18:34:39 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod and laz, I have been doing a lot of rescearch and some of the 16th and 17th cent writtings are pretty heavy. I now have to take what was stated there with some commentaries from todays authors and dive back into my Bible and do some comparing, lots of praying and meditation. As I said earlier I did not know what the word Arminian stood for,or how to spell it but now I find I am one. This has been enlightening to me to find that there was another way to seperate men from one another. I now have a book printed out with Calvin and Arminian teachings and now attempting to piece it together to see why this split took place.. laz you were correct in your observations on Cursillo, DeColores, Walk to Emmaus, we are also involved in a group for youth, DecoTEC(Teens Encounter Christ), I also work with a GEMS group at a local Reformed Church. I have Bible studies that include members from both CRC and RCA. I live about 20 miles from Calvin College and many of the youth we are involved with in TEC are now attending there or Hope College. A couple of young ladies that have been involved with DecoTEC and attend Calvin started a group they call Our Journey that uses the same Cursillo method to give college age youth a Christian support group to help them fight the temptations of college life. Sorry this was so long Dave B

Subject: Re: Rod and laz - I have not forgotten From: laz To: Dave B Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 20:12:08 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dave B - you call that a long post??? hehehe I wish we all could be as brief! ;-) I'm confused...you hang around 'reformed' folks....Calvin College, etc, yet are finding out now the diametrical differences between sovereign free grace and semi-pelagianism/arminianism? Now it's true that many supposedly reformed institutions no longer hold to the doctrines of grace but still....what gives?? blessings, laz

Subject: Dave B: glad to hear it! I posted a message below for you. n/t From: Rod To: Dave B Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 18:58:38 (PST) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: no man might buy or sell... From: jh To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 12:35:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi, I was curious if anyone has any ideas about this verse: 'And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.' Rev. 13:17 I've already heard the popular scenario, but I don't believe it's accurate. No need to repeat them please. I don't believe the 'mark' is a literal mark because the bible also talks about the saints having a mark on their foreheads. 'And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.' Rev. 14:1 In both instances I believe that this is a spiritual identification, but not a literal physical mark that is on the hand or forehead. Has anyone heard of a good biblical understanding of how this 'buying and selling' phrase fits in with the gospel? Thanks, jh

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: laz To: jh Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 13:20:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: jh - you looking for a 'spiritualized' interpretation of that passage...or would the scenario whereby believers are to undergo financial hardship in the latter days suffice? In Him, laz p.s. I would agree with you that this 'mark' is NOT literal...but symbolic...as we too are 'marked' with the very imprint of the Spirit...irrevocably sealed unto the day of redemption.

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 15:38:50 (PST) Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net Message: Laz Although what you said is what my understanding of the verses in question. What has always confused me, is that from the information that I have recieved from people who should know about this subject, ie. bankers and other financial people say that, soon cash will no longer be in use. A bar codes or the like will be used in place of cash. Eventually this will be replaced by a micro chip that is placed either on the hand or the forehead. They also say that anyone who doesn't recieve this chip, will not be able to buy or sell. I am not saying that this is what those scriptures are talking about, but it certainly makes me wonder. Tom

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 15:51:06 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hey Tom...that's just the old dispensationalistic premill/pretribulationary old man getting the better of ya... fear not, it will pass. hehehehe I am persuaded that Revelations is symbolic and so I am leary (sp?) of much of what passes as 'modern' interpretations which are often sensationalistic, near-sighted and thus missing the 'big picture'. blessings, laz

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 00:53:20 (PST) Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net Message: Laz I guess I can take that to mean that whether or not we have a cashless society, and whether or not we get chips placed on us. We shouldn't be concerned, we should just do what is nessasary since it obviously is not the correct interpretation of scripture. Am I correct? Tom

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 07:52:39 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom - I think you have the right idea. We may be wearing micro chips and going cashless in the future but I'm convinced that the Bible is NOT speaking specifically about such things in Revelations. ;-) blessings, laz

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 11:53:24 (PST) Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net Message: All the same Laz, I don't think I like the idea of getting a chip placed in me. Especially one of my kids or grandchildren. Tom

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: jh To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 14:28:46 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz, I'm looking for a biblical interpretation. Why would the saints face financial hardship? Are you talking about the scenario that has something to do with the sabbath days? jh

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: laz To: jh Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 15:42:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: jh - you wrote: 'Why would the saints face financial hardship?' Why WOULDN'T they? Unless you are a preterist...there will be hard times ahead as Revelation indicates. No? No, no sabbath inference on my part whatsoever. laz

Subject: Financial hard times? From: jh To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 13:19:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz: 'there will be hard times ahead as Revelation indicates. No? ' Financial hard times? Where in Revelation do you read that? jh

Subject: Re: Financial hard times? From: laz To: jh Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 14:06:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz: 'there will be hard times ahead as Revelation indicates. No? ' Financial hard times? Where in Revelation do you read that? jh --- ***************** jh - let me step out on a limb with this: Rev 6:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. 6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. After the first two horsemen of the apocalypse do their thing (or even all four horsemen working simultaneously to some extent through out this entire church age but greatly heightened in the Last Days before the Second Coming)... beginning with the white horse being Christ himself coming to conquer with the Sword of the Spirit, taking away Satan's captives through the proclaimation of the Gospel, the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church, etc...followed by the red horsemen signifying the physical persecution (often death) that always follows the proclamation of the Gospel by the Church...then you come to the black horseman with his balances depicting economic hardship against the people of God. Do we not find this pattern in history? Wheat and parley in the costs and quantities indicated are just enough to keep someone alive for one day or so (near starvation) .... yet the oil and wine belonging to the wicked rich will go untouched. In otherwords, persecuted (jobless?) believers will be hanging on for dear life with only the basics of life ... while the wicked will continue to enjoy 'oil and wine'....the good things in life. But I won't end there...for Revelation is a book of HOPE and the Lamb and His people WILL overcome in the end. It's been guaranteed, man! ;-) blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Financial hard times? From: jh To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 16:38:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz, 'A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny' That sounds pretty cheap. Buying wheat and barley for a penny. That doesn't sound like financial hardship to me. Actually, I don't think 'buy or sell' has anything to do with physical goods and merchandise. Thanks anyway. jh

Subject: Re: Financial hard times? From: laz To: jh Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:11:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: jh - a penny may not be much today...but 2000 yrs ago.... What do you suppose the wheat and barley are in reference to? laz p.s. ..do you by chance take issue with Gen 3:15? ;-)

Subject: Re: Financial hard times? From: jh To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 12:15:07 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ' a penny may not be much today...but 2000 yrs ago.... ' But laz, we're not talking about 2000 years ago. You were saying that the saints would face financial hardship in the FUTURE. Not only that, there were larger values of money than a penny at the time the text was written....such as pieces of silver. If the text was suposedly talking about high cost, then it would've said X number of pieces of silver or something of greater value than a penny. I really don't think economics, a one world leader, physical torture, or a literal war have anything to do with it. It's a spiritual warfare. jh

Subject: Re: Financial hard times? From: laz To: jh Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:32:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ' a penny may not be much today...but 2000 yrs ago.... ' But laz, we're not talking about 2000 years ago. You were saying that the saints would face financial hardship in the FUTURE. Not only that, there were larger values of money than a penny at the time the text was written....such as pieces of silver. If the text was suposedly talking about high cost, then it would've said X number of pieces of silver or something of greater value than a penny. I really don't think economics, a one world leader, physical torture, or a literal war have anything to do with it. It's a spiritual warfare. jh --- ...perhaps I meant a penny's worth at the time of the writing of the KJV? That's alot of money today! ... a commoner's one-day wage? ...maybe I'm just graspin'? haha laz p.s. I never said I necessarily believed in a 'one-world leader', etc (like many premill/trib/dispes)...I also am talking about spiritual warfare with a wounded/defeated Satan as it's being manifested in the physical realm throughout the Church age.

Subject: Re: no man might buy or sell... From: Prestor John To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 22:55:32 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: jh - you wrote: 'Why would the saints face financial hardship?' Why WOULDN'T they? Unless you are a preterist...there will be hard times ahead as Revelation indicates. No? No, no sabbath inference on my part whatsoever. laz --- Oh sure, pick on those that follow a preterist hermeneutic. Not to mention a Post-millennial view! Well, I'm used to being kicked around, so go ahead punt me a good one! In all seriousness jh when you call for a biblical view of this particular verse keep in mind these things: 1. This particular verse only occurs here. We have no where else it talks about buying and selling with regards to those marked by the beast's mark. 2. This book was written in an apocalyptic literature style. Highly symbolic. That doesn't mean that it may not have a specific meaning in this verse but in a big picture view it seems to go with the thought of a counterfeit of God's seal upon his saints. God owns His saints, the beast represents those that oppose God and the people that are owned by the beast. 3.As Las said: 'Why WOULDN'T they? Remember 1 Cor. 16:1 that collection of money was for the saints in Jerusalem who had fallen on some hard times. Material prosperity is not always a sign of God's blessing, in fact it can be a sign that God is about to severely judge you. (Take a look at any of the minor prophets and how they viewed 'the rich') Prestor John

Subject: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: Diaconeo To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:41:36 (PST) Email Address: mlbigelow@freewwweb.com Message: Greetings in Christ, I have noticed from reading this and many other boards a tendancy to equate Hades (rendered Hell by the English translators to the lake of fire in Revelation 19-20. While I don't want to come across a sounding contrite, or scholarly in any sense, there is a very distinct difference to the two terms. The wicked are not currently in the Lake of Fire, as noted in both Rev. 19 and 20, for if they were, then they would not be cast into the lake of fire along with Death and Hades (Hell) after the Millenial Kingdom. While Hell (Hades) is a very real place right now, with the wicked in very concious torment, it is not the ultimate place for the wicked, but rather a temporary holding facility until the Day of Judgement. It is at the Judgment Seat of God that they will be relocated to the Lake of Fire. The Antichrist and his messenger will already be there, having been cast into the lake of fire just prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of God (also read Heaven and Righteousness). At the end of the Kingdom, Satan will then be cast into the Lake of Fire, which was originally created for him and the fallen angels, then the rest of the wicked after being Judged and not found in the Book of Life. Additionally, I have noted that several actually believe that Christ went down into Hell (Hades) and suffered there for three days. It is thereby that he suffered our debt to God. However, Hell is not the price for sin, but death, this being not only physical, but also spiritual. Physical death being nothing more than the seperation of the soul, that which gives life, from the body. Spritual death is the seperation of the spirit of man from the Spirit of God. This must be the worste torment that could possibly imagined, but add to that the idea of suffering in a lake of fire and brimstone, and it only increases, for eternity. I do not believe that Christ actually went to Hades/Abraham's bussom to suffer for us, but to teach to the OT fathers what they were looking forward to, the promised Messiah. He then lead them up to heaven, to be with Him there and with the father. I say this, because hell is not the punishment for sin, but eternal seperation from God as well as a physical death. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: jh To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 13:24:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Diaconeo, Christ died the death of deaths. He suffered every kind of death required to make full satisfaction for the sins of the elect. Abraham's bosom and Hades is not the same place. Hades is a place of torment and Abraham (being a saint) could never go to a place of torment. Just because the rich man could see Abraham doesn't mean they were both at the same place. The text does not say that Abraham could see the rich man; and in fact, it says there was a great gulf between them. Clearly they were separated and therefore could not be in the same place. Moreover, The Lord Jesus Christ paid for the sins of elect only. He did not die for anyone else. If He was a substitute for every single individual, then every single individual could not be found guilty and that equals universal salvation, which of course is a great error. Christ made full payment for the sins of the elect (including eternal torment in the lake of fire). He was a SUBSTITUTE. That means He had to make the full and exact payment for each individual the Father chose to save from before the foundation of the world. Christ paid for the specific sins of specific people and He paid for ALL their sins thereby guaranteeing their salvation. Christ was able to complete the eternal payment by the time He said 'it is finished' because He is God. How could Christ complete an ETERNAL payment? Jesus Christ is God. It was a miracle of course. Only God could do it. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Savior. jh

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: Rod To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:02:14 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Matthew, Since you have been here previously, you may be aware that when you reveal that you are a 'dispensationalist' by expressing a belief in the 'Millenial kingdom,' you are probably going to be in for a lot of opposition, as that is not the position of the Reformed people. Just a tip that, though I certainly wouldn't want to say you shouldn't express your convictions, it is wise and prudent to know the situation and to be ready for the potential 'avalanche' of opposition which may occur. Also, since the board is owned and maintained for the Reformed view, a dedicated presentation of the Dispensationalist view isn't well tolerated. {This isn't a condemnation, but a friendly piece of advice.] Also, I haven't noticed 'several' people equating hades with hell. I have seen john hampshire indicate that seems to be his belief in a post to me. Sometimes you just can't deal with everything which comes up, i.e., it's impossible to 'douse every fire with water' or the main topic will not ever be considered. For the record, my personal conviction is that the Lord Jesus suffered the pangs of hell for His own in the three hours of darkness, and when He pronounced, 'It is finished,' that punishment was over and 'There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus' (Rom. 8:1). I am in general agreement with you here, but I must question one assertion. 'At the end of the Kingdom, Satan will then be cast into the Lake of Fire, which was originally created for him and the fallen angels....' This statement is true, except the text doesn't say, 'fallen angels', but 'his angels' (see Matt. 25:41). When He made that statement, the Lord Jesus was judging men and pronouncing that they were to depart into hell. It seems to be the implication that 'angels' includes all Satan's 'messengers' and servants. To say that God didn't 'originally' create hell for those who would eventually inhabit it, is a declaration that God erred, not having enough foresight, and had to go back and correct His error, having learned that others would be there also. Don't you think that's a fair assumption? I used to say that also about hell, but have been, by the Scriptures, convinced otherwise. God never learns anything and He never errs by oversight. His is a perfect plan and He got it right the first time in the beginning of eternity. [As an aside, I'd still be interested in hearing your explanation of how men have an opportunity to seek God without the interference of Satan, that 'window of opportunity' you spoke of below, when God says that 'there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:11). If you'd care to open another thread, I'll be watching.]

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: Diaconeo To: Rod Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 07:43:28 (PST) Email Address: mlbigelow@freewwweb.com Message: Rod, Thank you for the fair warning, but I am fully aware that this is a board dedicated to the Reforemed view, and I post everything with that idea in mind. I'm sure that Pilgrim will attest to the fact that he understand that I am a dispensationalist, which is niether good nor bad, just a different view. And to clear up a bit...I did not actually say that everyone would be given a 'window of opprotunity' to seek the Lord without the intervention of Satan. If that is how it sounded, then I must have used wrong words. But I'll go into that on another post. Now as to this thread... I did not mean 'originally' with the idea that God goofed. What was meant is that the Lake of Fire was created for the devil and his angels. And I do not beleive that angels here refers to human ministers and servants of his. The context just doesn't fit (at least to my thinking). While the teext doesn't say 'fallen' angels, I believe that the implications are there, and fit contextually. Of course, 'his angels' could refer to human messengers and servants, we'll only know for sure when we see Him face to face. Also, when I said 'several people' I was not meaning particularly this board, on the boards that I visit in general. There are actually very few who equate the two. And when I wrote Hades/Abraham's Bussom, I was not inferring that the two are the same, nor even in the same place. I think that if you read the story of Lazarus and the rich man, you will see that at least Abraham was able to communicate with the rich man, so I do not see why he was not able to see the rich man, when the rich man could see him (Lk. 16:23) I hope that this has cleared up some things that I have said. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: Rod To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 09:05:03 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, Matthew, Yes, that helps and I'll be looking for the 'windows' thread. (Will Bill Gates get royalties on that?) :>) It seems to me that hades was 'two compartments' at one time, according to Luke 16, the general word referring to something like, 'the place of the dead.' I hold to the interpretation that the Lord Jesus 'broke away' Abraham's Bosom and took those spirits to Heaven with Him, as Eph. 4:7-10 seems to indicate. If so, that would mean that today hades is only the place of torment for the wicked dead. I hope this clears up some of my views.

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: Diaconeo To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 14:15:52 (PST) Email Address: mlbigelow@freewwweb.com Message: Rod, Yes, I suppose that is what I was meaning. Sometimes I do not express myself quite as eloquently as others, so please forgive me. In Him, Matthew

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: john hampshire To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 23:28:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, >>>>Also, I haven't noticed 'several' people equating Hades with hell. I have seen john hampshire indicate that seems to be his belief in a post to me. It is unfortunate the KJV used hell for sheol, hades, gehenna, Tartarus, pit and confuses the *** out of people. For what it's worth, I don't like to use the word 'hell' and denote it with quotes. My preference is simply to say Lake of Fire when speaking of the final abode of all the wicked (body and spirit) and Satan. People equate all this with 'hell', but the imagery is actually Gehenna, a rubbish dump. So if Gehenna is used, it is symbolic usage meaning basically the Lake of Fire. Hades is another matter, I don't equate Hades with Hell (or the Lake of Fire), for I think that to be incorrect. Hades is a general purpose term to denote the temporary abode (IMO) of the spirit of the wicked. It includes the pit where their bodies go (to be eaten by worms) and a “waiting room” for the spirit (which is without conscience existence) I do not take the parable of Abraham/rich man as a representation of Hades, even though it is said he was in Hades, rather it seems to blend future Judgment with Hades. On one hand Hades is like a prison holding those awaiting Judgment, and in God’s eyes it is as if they were already found guilty and cast into the burning Lake. Notice in the parable, folks in Hades would not be have lips, eyes, and tongues as the parable implies, it is just a ‘what if’ kind of story to make a point Today there is no one suffering in the Lake of Fire or Hades. Upon Judgment Day the wicked are brought out of Hades (body and soul united) to Judgment and then go to the Lake of Fire. Another sense I get is that Hades represents the state of being under God’s wrath and subject to Satan’s control. Christ has the keys to the gates of Hades, that is, He opens the prison door and let’s out His redeemed. Obviously this is not done after we die and go to Hades, we were brought out with Christ who led captivity captive (all His elect) at the cross. We are in that manner translated out of Hades (God’s wrath and Satan’s dominion) into God’s Kingdom. The heart of the earth (IMO) is terminology to represent being under/surrounded by God’s wrath, just as Jonah was surrounded by the sea (sea can picture the Lake of Fire). Christ was in the heart of the earth from Thursday evening until Sunday morning. During this time he was completing our salvation (not preaching to lost souls) and as such His body was dead (no King, no salvation), and for a time His Spirit underwent God’s wrath (second death). When Jesus said it was finished on the cross, God finished cutting off His Son and restored Him to His presence in Heaven. Yet Christ rested (dead in body) Saturday to complete the OT picture of a salvation rest, and rose Sunday with the rising of the sun (He is represented as a healing Sun too). Hope that helps clarify, john

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: Rod To: john hampshire Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 09:20:54 (PST) Email Address: na Message: john, Yes, my friend and brother, it clears up quite a bit. And it's obvious that you haven't been casual in studying this matter. Are you ever casual about any subject, john? It seems not; you seem to be very thorough! :>) On my opinion of what you've written, aside from your attention to detail and thoroughness, it's sorta like what my barber does when he cuts my hair, I take some and I leave some. That is, there are areas here where we agree and areas, where we differ quite a bit, I think. I hope you won't interpret this as 'running away' from an issue, but my spirit just isn't into taking up the issue right now. I do want to say that I appreciate your explanation and the manner in which you went about it, brother. If I were fresh and rested, I would probably go into a discussion of it with you, as it's always enlightening to do so. You, as well as others here, often 'stretch me' and that's when I grow the most in knowledge. I am grateful for that.

Subject: Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire From: Brother Bret To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 20:16:46 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com Message: Since you have been here previously, you may be aware that when you reveal that you are a 'dispensationalist' by expressing a belief in the 'Millenial kingdom,' you are probably going to be in for a lot of opposition, as that is not the position of the Reformed people. Just a tip that, though I certainly wouldn't want to say you shouldn't express your convictions, it is wise and prudent to know the situation and to be ready for the potential 'avalanche' of opposition which may occur. Also, since the board is owned and maintained for the Reformed view, a dedicated presentation of the Dispensationalist view isn't well tolerated. {This isn't a condemnation, but a friendly piece of advice.] Hello Rod: As someone who has frequented this board off and on for almost 3 years, and used to be a monitor, albeit for a short time, I figured I would interject here. Most but not all the monitors and helpers have been those of covenant and reformed theology, for sure. But one needs not to be concerned about sharing those views that may not line up with, as long as it is not a malicious attack against such views. Unlike some of the complaints I have seen on here by some, I know that that God has used Pilgrom, Mebaser, Laz and others in my life to help open my eyes to the doctrines of sovereign grace. They were patient in the sharing of the word of God with me. I am still credobaptist, premillenial and pretribulational (although taking a hard look at the latter). They do not look at these as essential, and therefore allow plenty of latitude for discussion and disagreement. Of course they will share their's and the reformed position in those areas. Now when it comes to the doctrines of sovereign grace/5 points of calvinism, that's different, if people are blatantly attacking or refusing to see the Scripture that is constantly set before them. If I have incorrectly represented Pilgrim and company, I hope they will correct and interject :^)...........Brother Bret

Subject: I appreciate that, Brother Bret! From: Rod To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 21:25:16 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thank you, Brother Bret, for your patient and kind explanation. I was trying to tell Matthew that, though he shouldn't sacrifice his core beliefs, he was very likely to be severely challenged on the issue of Dispensationalism. I was inviting him to realize the nature and purpose of the board (which I recognize isn't censorship) and to be aware that this is ground where I, for one, soft-pedal the eschatology aspect because I am firm in my 'stinking Dispensationalism,' but I don't want to antagonize or encourage fruitless debate on the subject. Pilgrim and I agreed some months ago that we were both "too old and too tired" to debate this! :>) Both he and the monitors and the members here have been very gracious in accepting me in spite of my 'abberation.' :>) Thanks again for your spirit. BTW, as some wag said, 'I'm so pre-Trib, I won't eat Post Toasties!' :>)

Subject: I've been giving it some thought... From: Anne To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 11:02:38 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I have been puzzling over what has to be the most baffling puzzle of all: God's total sovereignty over mans's actions, and man's responsibility for those actions. I am wondering if we don't rolic along as if we were slot cars . . . . on a God-ordained track, but with a certain amount of mental/moral wiggle room. God knows our thoughts, and the state of our hearts and souls at all times. He knows our thoughts before we think them! Therefore, perhaps what He judges is how hard we tried, within the parameters of the allowed wiggle room, to obey His laws. This applies primarily to the as-yet unregenerate, I'd think. Could be wrong, of course. Still, I was thinking about Larry Ashbrook, the one here in Fort Worth that shot up the Wedgwood Baptist church last fall. God must have created Ashbrook to do that very thing. Had to, otherwise it would not have happened. Now, a couple of days before the shooting, he was apparently at a park, watching kids play. You know how people are, the newspapers and such were full of portent about how scary this was, in retrospect. The Mass Murderer was close to Innocent Children! Who knows what Evil he was Planning! You know, we are so uncharitable. I think it is just as likely that he was watching the kids at play, trying to convince himself not to go out and kill people. Perhaps that was him making an effort to keep from the evil action, by watching a bunch of kids having fun. We don't know, do we? But God does. This must be why He is so adamant against us judging other people, especially non-Christians. If He judges based on factors we cannot see, then we cannot possibly be fit judges. He knows precisely how much hardening was required; there is no way we can know this. This also fits in with the bit in Jerimiah where God says 'I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.' (Jer 16:10) Yes, he determines our actions, but we determine how hard we tried to do right or to not do wrong, as the case may be. That is where our free-will, such as it is, lies, and on what those facing judgment will be judged. And that's how someone who looks positively ghastly mayn't be dealt with quite as harshly as someone who, to our eyes, looks like a pretty morally neat individual. God knows the effort each expended to obey His written (both in nature and in Word) laws. Darn shame y'all weren't able to hear me in the shower as I worked this all out. I was positively eloquent, I tell you. . . . eloquent! How Pilgrim and Rod and John and Laz and Co. manage to write so clearly and logically beats me. Anyway, perhaps I've managed to get the gist of my notion across. Anne

Subject: Dear Anne and john, (warning: very long!) From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:55:29 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I've been reading what the two of you have written with some interest. You are both my friends in the Lord; you are my brother and sister; you both are fine students of God and His Word; and you both express yourselves well. I admire and respect each of you. However, I disagree with several of your conclusions on this matter. I've been waiting for someone else to object who is 'fresh' in mind and outlook, but no one has stepped up. Now before I go into detail, let me say that I'm absolutely drained from dealing with those who are non-Christians and professed and real Christians who discount the sovereignty of God, which I think is the cornerstone of all conclusions accurately drawn about God. I've tried to stay out of this because I didn't feel I was up to doing a good job of representing 'my side' (actually, as you two must also feel, I don't want any 'side' except God's!) in all this. And, as is the case in every disagreement among true Christians, if we disagree while each being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and taught and led by Him, one or all of us must be wrong. The simple reason is that the Spirit of God doesn't disagree with Himself. I know each of you want to join me in searching for the truth and to achieve resolution, if possible, in God's will. I won't try to speak to every point each of you has made where there is not agreement among us, but to deal with a very basic one of two. I think the place to start is with the 'rewards' subject. John has made a statement, if my memory is accurate, that he's studied the 'rewards issue' (my term) and has concluded that there are none. (I hope I've been accurate to what you stated, john.) Anne has agreed with that, as I read your posts, my sister. Without wanting to be mean and ugly, I have to take serious exception to that conclusion, based on what seems to me to be the clear teaching of the Word of God. The Apostle Paul seems to me to write undeniably that Christians will be rewarded based on their 'build[ing] on the foundation' of Jesus Christ, our Lord. This, of course is the subject of verses 11-23 of 1 Cor. 3. (Incidentally, I don't intend to do an exhaustive study of the Scriptural support for this at this point. I will try to concentrate on what seems to be most prominent.) 'Let's concentrate on verse14 for awhile: 'If any man's work abide which he has built upon it [that foundation 'which is Jesus Christ'--verse 11], he shall receive a reward.' 'If any man's work abide' is a statement of condition. The condition is, naturally, does the man's work abide in spite of having been subjected to the firey test of the judgment of God in Christ? But, before going into detail of that aspect, we must determine the meaning of 'any man.' It seems to be a given that the 'any man' isn't any man who ever lived, for the eleventh verse makes it clear that the subject under discussion is the one who is building upon the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ. The person is a Christian. So, the question is, is this every Christian, everyone in Christ, or does it apply, as some have maintained, to 'ministers' alone? The context of the previous verses of the chapter lend support to the fact that it has to be speaking at least in part of preachers and teachers, those gifted by God to deliver the message of Jesus Christ. But, if we look at Eph. 4:11-12, we find this same Apostle stating this: 'And he gave some, [here we have a description of those he gave], apostles; and some; prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.' There are the offices and the people He gave. Now to what purpose are they given? 'For the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ.' In a very real sense, every saint is a 'minister,' though not all have the same gift and/or office. Paul could have used words other than 'any man,' but the Spirit guided him to use that designation. I don't think that is insignificant. And I don't think that it's warranted to preclude anyone who isn't a 'minister' from this text. In verse 14 of the Ephesians passage, Paul writes, 'That we be henceforth no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ.' That sounds like an apt description of building on the foundation of Jesus Christ and its being required of all who are in Him. I conclude, then, that the subject is the believer's service to Christ and the judgment of it. If we are in agreement so far, we have to look at when this judgment for the purpose of determining reward occurs. Does it happen during this life and is the reward here alone? Or is it future and only to be realized 'up there?' Or, is it both present and future? We know that there is ' now no condemnation' for those in Christ (Rom. 8:1) and we know that nothing 'shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord' (verse 39). Therefore, this is not a discussion of salvation. That is doubly emphasized by the fact that salvation is conspicuously described as 'not of works, lest any man should boast' (Eph. 2:9). But the 'reward' of this 14th verse of First Corinthians is synonymous with 'wage,' or 'hire.' Young's literal translation uses the word 'wage.' Couple this with the fact of the 'chastening' described in Heb. 12: 3-15, in which the Lord corrects, with sometimes harsh measures, those of His own in this life, and we see that the rewards may endure into eternity, but the disciplining will not. It may be that some of the rewards are temporal, as in the wages paid to one who is a faithful preacher/teacher. But the fifteen verse of the 1 Cor. passage mentions the enduring salvation of the individual, so it seems safe to assume that eternal rewards aren't ruled out. Furthermore, it seems to be the emphasis here that the results of a person's life will endure in either the loss of reward, though secure in salvation, or the reward for works done in Christ's will in the enduring salvation of eternity. Tracking in a different direction, it's important to identify the source of the energy, impetus, and will to do these 'abiding works.' We read in Eph. 2:10 that it is from God Himself: 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' Here we're left with what is curious and unfathomable to man: God requires us to do His will; God enables us to do the good works we do; and has already determined that we will do them; and God rewards His children for what He has ordained and enabled them to do! Is that consistent with God's nature? Why, yes, it is. He requires that man be accountable for his sin and that He accept the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior in faith for salvation, but His grace provides the new life and the will to do just that for His elect.' We have God, because of His mercy and love, saving by grace. Likewise, we have God extending that grace even more by enabling some of the elect to receive higher rewards than others of the same company. It is God's way, His decision, and His purpose. So we have the believer's 'reward' pictured as a 'wage' of God's gracious provision. What about the non-believer? 'For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord' (Rom. 6:23). Here we see that the unbeliever receives his due, his 'wage,' his 'hire' from God. He has worked to serve sin and he receives the 'reward' of that labor. The sum total of all his work is death, that is his 'wages' (and please note that it is in the plural, that the 'wages' is the same for his whole life and each of his deeds motivated by his sin nature). He cannot earn salvation and isn't gifted with it by God. He can only earn the wages of death, an eternity of torment in hell. In a sense then, every single person who ever lives will receive a 'reward' from God. The wicked will receive 'the wages of sin,' while the faithful will receive 'a reward' for work which abides, being in Christ's will. This is the grace and the justice of God.

Subject: Re: Dear Rod, (warning: kinda long!) From: john hampshire To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 21:47:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, 1 Cor 3 has been interpreted in many ways to teach we get rewards, it is just that I don't find that to be taught here or anywhere. >>>>So we have the believer's 'reward' pictured as a 'wage' of God's gracious provision. I don't think we're that far apart, this is the way I see it: 1 Cor 3 is speaking of servants building the spiritual church of God. It speaks of neither the one who plants nor the one who waters as anything, but only God who gives the increase. The one who waters or plants have a common purpose in that they receive wages according to the labor of each. Planting has to do with Paul establishing churches in hostile environments and Apollos waters, that is builds faith through teaching. In both cases they are building the house of God on the only solid foundation which is Christ. As it clearly states, and you have too, the increase (salvation) is of the Lord, not Paul not Apollos. The building is composed of the elect, chosen stones which are fit together. Now Paul hints that we must be careful what type of building we are building, for obviously we can assemble unbelievers into a mock church watered by poisoned water of false gospels and planted by false prophets (something we all know too well today). In Vs 11 we are reminded, despite deceivers hiding as stones of God, the true church is only laid on a foundation of Christ. Vs 12 speaks of the believers, as God does many times, as gold, silver, precious stones (example: the 12 stones in the ephod represent the fullness of believers). These are the materials God builds his temple, similar to the materials used by Solomon to build that temporary representation of that spiritual reality. The wood, hay, straw represents the wicked non-elect who are suitable for burning, as Jesus made parables many times to infer. Now the fire “revealing the work on that Day”, what is this thing? In one sense, Christ went through the fire on our behalf, so that we are purified of our dross as fine gold. It was on the day Christ died—there was Judgment Day for Jesus Christ. We all know there is a day of judgment awaiting the wicked, but the same thing occurred already for the elect, for we must all be judged. On the day Christ went to the lake of fire for His sheep, we went to ‘hell’ with Him. On that day our dross was purified, we were refined of our iniquity. Notice on that day that there was lightning, earthquakes, darkness, moon as blood (showing God’s anger is being poured out)... all the signs that accompany Judgment Day for the wicked. On the last day of earth’s history, the wicked stand for judgment, the righteous are caught up to be with Christ, and there they will remain with Him eternally. That day is pictured many ways, in the OT as a scorching sun [Christ] that burns the wicked, but the righteous are protected in the cleft of the rock [Christ]. Well when the dust settles, that day will show who was gold and who was grass. If as builders of Christ’s church our work [as ambassadors of Christ] remain, we receive a reward. That is, if we have been faithful workmen in Christ’s vineyard we receive our pay [wages] which is eternal life. However, and this is a warning too, if our work is burned up on that Day of Judgment, then we our not condemned, but only “as through fire”. That is, there are false prophets and teachers who have NOT been through the fire (with Christ) and as such are subject to the second Judgment with the wicked. So we are not perfect builders, and we make errors, teach erroneously, add wicked people unknowingly with much assurance they are God’s elect-- only to find they were not. The warning is continued in Vs 16. Paul reminds again that the elect are God’s temple and “if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person”. That is, there are the foolish workman full of pride who forget that they can deceive men but not God, and He will repay. As Paul says in Chapter 4:2, “Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy”. That is the point of all the preceding, we are stewards of truth to buildup the church, there is a large price to pay if we are bad [evil] stewards (see Jesus’ parables to see what happens to foolish stewards). The reward we gain in these verses is eternal life, the reward for the wicked is eternal damnation. The reward is also called the crown of life (which we must figuratively cast before Christ). If we run the good race and are found obedient to the end (have a regenerated spirit that continues in truth) then the life bought by Christ has been made manifest (though we have our doubts in the here and now). No rewards, no special gifts from God beside salvation and life eternal with Christ in our midst in the new heavens and new earth. Are we fairly close on this? john

Subject: john, 'kinda' long!!! :>) From: Rod To: john hampshire Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 00:50:36 (PST) Email Address: na Message: john, I've read your post 3 times, but I'm still not certain about understanding all of it. I'm pretty dense, but I'm not trying to be so on purpose. I think we're in agreement on many things, but one thing especially troubles me. It's this statement: 'If as builders of Christ’s church our work [as ambassadors of Christ] remain, we receive a reward. That is, if we have been faithful workmen in Christ’s vineyard we receive our pay [wages] which is eternal life.' I understand and appreciate your point about the 'crown of life,' but I don't think that eternal life is the reward spoken of here in chapter 3. The reason I say that is that I can't recall eternal life being spoken of as 'earned' or as 'wages' in the Bible, but, instead, as a 'gift.' '...glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, the he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent' (John 17:1-3). When one is saved by faith, he knows God and His Son by the revelation and teaching of the Spirit because of the new birth--he possesses the eternal life from that moment, being indwelt by the Spirit, Who is the 'seal' of God upon us as identification of God's property and the 'earnest [pledge or security] of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:13-14). This is an 'inheritance' and not a 'reward' or 'wage.' An 'inheritance' is determined by the person's being born into a family and also by his being adopted as an adult son, which is the way the elect are described in Rom. 8:14-17. This wouldn't be something earned, but something gifted by virtue of being one of the 'many brethren of the first born' (Rom. 8:29). 'Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9), a reference to the indwelling brought by the new spiritual birth which entitles the saved person to the inheritance. Additional proof that eternal life isn't a 'wage' is given in the contrast between the 'wages of sin' and 'the gift of God [which] is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord' (Rom. 6:23). The word 'wages' refers to a soldier's ration and is taken to mean a 'stipend,' while the word 'gift' refers to just that, something undeserved, unearned. When the crown of life is given at the entrance into the Lord Jesus' presence, it isn't because that person has earned eternal life, but because the evidence that he was truly God's is that He wasn't allowed to leave the company of believers in the Church of Jesus Christ. See James 1:12; Rev. 2:10; and compare 1 John 2:18-20. Here is an example of the use of the word 'reward': 'Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and they shall...reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy, for your reward is great in heaven; for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets' (Luke 6:22-23). Another is, 'He that is unjust let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me to give every man according as his work shall be' (Rev. 22:11-12). Brother john, where do we stand on agreement now? I hope we're coming closer. :>)

Subject: Yes but.... From: george To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:56:43 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, I like what you wrote, but you end up agreeing with Anne and john, once you do circular reasoning as you stated;'Tracking in a different direction, it's important to identify the source of the energy, impetus, and will to do these 'abiding works.' We read in Eph. 2:10 that it is from God Himself: 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' Here we're left with what is curious and unfathomable to man: God requires us to do His will; God enables us to do the good works we do; and has already determined that we will do them; and God rewards His children for what He has ordained and enabled them to do! Thanks though, george

Subject: george, Oh, no, not another 'yabbut!' :>) From: Rod To: george Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 21:31:30 (PST) Email Address: na Message: george, If John said there were no rewards and Anne agreed, how then do you have me agreeing with them when I wrote that there were rewards given by God, the whole point of my post? God gave us grace and used it to save us with the gift of faith. He rewards us for His gracious action with salvation. He continues to reward His servants for their works which He empowers after salvation, in fact, because He gifts them with the works to do and the ability and desire to do them. I see consistency, not 'circular reasoning.' I believe you missed the point.

Subject: Re: george, Oh, no, not another 'yabbut!' :>) From: george To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 06:31:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Because God gifts us with the very gracious works that we accomplish and at the end of this age we will take those gifts (our crowns with precious stones) and give them back to Christ who was the cause of those rewards. So, yes but... rewards yes, but who gets the glory for those rewards? I am on a free internet service, so I have to keep my replies short, or I get disconnected. How have you been? Do you still visit Barry's site? In Christ, george

Subject: george, I'm fine, in the care of the Lord Jesus! From: Rod To: george Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 07:06:08 (PST) Email Address: na Message: george, Yes, that is exactly right and what I've tried to say, but probably poorly. God gives us everything, from salvation to the works we do, a truth expressed never better than in Eph. 2:8-10. And we will gve Him the praise and glory due Him in that day and our crowns will be cast at His feet in adoration and praise as we demonstrate recognition of that truth. I am still active at Barry's off and on, very active the last week or so. Yesterday, a lost homosexual man threatened to have me arrested for 'threatening him' with the gospel and the condemnation in hell if it were refused! (I would ask that all who are moved to do so pray for this pitiful person. He's not only lost, but pathetic in his need for recognition.) David M., the atheist everyone else seems to enjoy so much, is still there and Mike Night, the archangel, showed back up last night after a prolonged absence. There really is 'nothing new under the sun!'

Subject: My prayers have been sent. NM From: george To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 16:54:26 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Dear Anne and john, (warning: very long!) From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:25:02 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'God requires us to do His will; God enables us to do the good works we do; and has already determined that we will do them; and God rewards His children for what He has ordained and enabled them to do!' Well, sure. Naturally. I apologize to anyone who thought that my words could be construed as disagreeing with this! Heavens to Betsy, as my mother would say. (Who do suppose Betsy was? I've always heard this phrase, and have never known.) I'm going to have to sift through your post a bit, Rod, as there is a lot of meat on those bones. My writing leans more toward Kibbles & Bits, as you've undoubtedly noticed. Old 5 watt here can't think as lucidly and with as much depth as you do. Really, after the first reading, I don't see anything in your message with which I am not in agreement, so perhaps I'd best reread my posts, and yours, and see where the apparent conflict lies. Ciao! Anne

Subject: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :>) From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:34:38 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne, Neither I, nor anyone else, is buying that! :>) I think that you and I are not in agreement on the 'wobble room' issue, if I read you correctly. I also sensed, as I posted before, that you agreed with john that there were no rewards for the believer. At least I don't recall your disagreeing with that. I'm not at the top of my game right now, so I might have missed something. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted.

Subject: Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :>) From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 14:09:42 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'I think that you and I are not in agreement on the 'wobble room' issue, if I read you correctly. I also sensed, as I posted before, that you agreed with john that there were no rewards for the believer. At least I don't recall your disagreeing with that.' That's 'wiggle room', sirrah! ;-> Oh, heck, what do I know? Nothing more likely than that I'm wrong. Still, I thought my suggestion that the various emotions expressed by God in the Bible could be anthropomorphical (ha!), like the various body parts, etc. had some validity. By using such terminology, He is communicating with us in a way we can understand. Sort of. Which leads smartly into the idea that God has caused the Bible to be written for us, as the method for Him letting us know HOW He wants us to behave. How? As if we have free will, and are capable of screwing up His plans, that's how. Which is rank nonsense, but it does appear to be how we are to believe, and act. AS IF we have free will. Intellectually knowing that we don't, but behaving, on a day to day basis, as if we do. You know, like in school, when the teacher would urge us, when writing an essay, 'Now, pretend I don't know anything about the subject!' He knows he knows the stuff, we know he knows the stuff, but we were to act as if he did NOT know the stuff. BTW, on the subject of wiggle/wobble room . . . . you aren't in agreement with me, you say? No prob, but may I ask, um, how you disagree, precisely? I can't tell if you deny we have any wiggle/wobble room a-tall, or if we have heaps more than I was saying (which was mental, so there isn't a lot of room for less, actually).

Subject: Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :>) From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:16:47 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, Let me be the 'theological-techie' and ask you to be corrected in too quickly adopting the 'anthropomorphisms' in relation to God's 'emotions'... hehehe. The appropriate term is actually 'anthropopathism'; from 'pathos', like in 'passion/feeling' and not 'morphos' relating to 'form/type'! :-) Okay, I'll crawl back into my hole and listen some more! In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :>) From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 15:47:19 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Sister Anne, You've struck at the heart of the sovereign grace/Arminian issue with some of your statements, did you know that? It's the reason some people can't accept sovereign grace. The Bible presents things as God sees them in some places and as man views them in others. The Arminians don't recognize that fact and worry a great deal about 'contradictions' when they are presented with the truth of sovereign grace. Where better is this illustrated than in Phil. 2:12-13? The Arminians love to quote verse 12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.' They love that particular verse so much that many of them are astounded when quoted the next verse: 'For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' I believe that God gave us the Bible and the Holy Spirit within as our Guide and Teacher (see John 16:13-15 and 1 John 2:24-27 exactly because He wants us to understand it all. And I think we are to understand that in the very exhortations, such as Phil. 2:12, God is working and empowering us to do His will and pleasure, just as He says in verse 13. If 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God,' is it confined merely to 'saving faith?' Doesn't it also apply to 'the faith which sustains,' keeping us saved? God's power is released in His word, including the parts which enjoin us to 'work' or 'act,' etc.. It is the method He chooses to work His will in us. Let me wiggle/wobble over to a few other verses and ask you to give me your impression. 'The preparations of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord' (Prov. 16:1). Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established' (Prov. 16:3). 'A man's heart deviseth his way, but the LORD directeth his steps' (Prov. 16:9). 'The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, like the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will' (Prov. 21:1). 'As [God] hast given [the Son] power over all flesh...' (John 17:2) 'And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God...' (Rom. 8:28). '...having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself...in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will' (Eph. 1:9-11). 'Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created' (Rev. 4:11). To say that our struggles and our efforts aren't real is an error. To say that they weren't planned and ordained by God who orders 'all things' is a serious error. I struggled and fought against coming to Christ. Yet, at the proper time of God's choosing, I came irresistibly, though still hurting, struggling, and searching. I still fall into sin, yet God, just as He did with Job, ordained all that so as to work out His purpose in my life. 'Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death' (James 1:14-15). God isn't the direct, evil cause of sin, but the God Who works 'all things together for good to them that love God' has provided that the sin will take place and uses it and all the other circumstances of the world for the good of the saved/elect. He has ultimately been behind all occurrences, working out His pleasure in all things. For the believer, the sin of rebellion against God's will results in chastening, but the chastening is in God's will, as was the sin, for the purpose of benefitting His child. I see no 'wiggle/wobble room' in that at all. All of life is very real and full of choices and decisions and feelings, good or bad, but God is working overtly and behind the scenes, orchestrating it all. And all that is for our benefit and His pleasure. It's too wonderful for me!

Subject: Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :>) From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:28:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Amen Rod! You preach it brother! I stutter! hahaha.... It is often an overlooked truth that 'God' is nowhere mentioned in the book of Esther, and thus it was one of those issues of hot debate when the Canon was yet undecided. Yet, in my mind, the book of Esther is one of the most telling of Biblical books concerning God's absolute sovereignty. For while we most often are captivated by the 'painting' of the historical account of all that took place during that time in redemptive history (note it is REDEMPTIVE history), we even more so fail to see the 'Artist' behind the painting itself. Perhaps even better?; the book of Esther is the 'canvas' upon which God has placed His painting! :-) The point being of course, that although what we initially see with the physical eye is a story of the Jews under the domination of the Persians and a 'sweet little girl' who sleeps with the Persian king so as to become Queen, all that transpired during that time was the direct result of God's sovereign decree to bring about the preservation of the Jews so that the Lord Christ would eventually come into this world according to God's infallible prophecies for the salvation of His elect. (Rom 11:33, 36)! God is greatly to be praised! In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :>) From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 16:41:14 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Rod, you managed to list many of my very favorite Scripture passages! Proverbs 16:9 is one of which I am especially fond. Now, re: Romans 8:28 . . . . there is, according to the footnotes in my NIV bible, an alternate wording that runs: 'And we know that in all things God works together with those who love Him to bring about what is good - with those who have been called according to His purpose.' There was one or two additional alternate renderings, but I think I got that right. Actually, I rather prefer the above translation, as it seems a bit more God-centered to me, with man as the instrument/helper in forwarding God's plans. Don't you think that sounds more likely? What do you think? Now my wiggle/wobble room does NOT apply to actions or behaviors, you realize. Only the motivation and thought patterns and effort expended in avoiding sin/performing a right action . . . . whichever is scripted. Actually, that quote from James drives me nuts. It doesn't seem to 'fit' with the others, does it? Yet it must, somehow! There is at least one or two places in the OT where God flatly states that He causes evil (or disaster, depending upon one's translation), but then there is James, serenely seeming to state that God has nothing in the world to do with anything sinful that happens. Which is, of course, the antithesis of absolute sovereignty. Still, I wonder if his point is that we are not to use God, ever, as an excuse to sin? That would be unacceptable, yet let an unregenerate soul get the idea that God wrote the sin into the script, he could easily decide, 'Well, then! Heigh ho, off I go!' and make no attempt to rein in his sinful desires. Rather like parents who don't want their son to know that Uncle Edwin left him a fortune, to take effect when he is 21, for fear that he'll be a lazy lout, since he'd know he needn't work to support himself. And they'd be right. Sometimes - heck, often! - having all the facts can cause weak, depraved human beings all kinds of trouble. Such as knowing that they are coming into a pile of money. Or that their unborn baby has Down's syndrome. Or another example that came and went before I could type it in, darn it. Oh, well. Use your imagination! You can probably think of situations that meet the criteria. Bother, bother, bother. I be a bear of little brain, indeed, when it comes to this stuff! Anne

Subject: In all honesty... From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 17:53:05 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I have a personal distaste for the NIV, finding it to be lacking in several places, in careful comparison to other translations, including 'literal' ones. 2 Peter 3:9 is especially bad, it seems. If I read the way you see the alternative reading in the NIV correctly, it makes man a 'junior partner,' and portrays God as needing man's help instead of giving the helpless man what he needs. That would be a serious misrepresentation. Please don't regard this as a personal attack on you, it isn't. Let me quote the NASB which I think catches the meaning and is accurate: 'And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God....' Looking at that rendering, we see things exactly as they are. God is the cause. His causative action and work is directed at man, 'to those who love God.' This is consistent with the next two verses, where God is the Actor and Initiator, while man's role is that of recipient and beneficiary alone: 'For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His son that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called, and whom He called, these He also justified, and whom He justified, these He also glorified.' There is no room here whatsoever for man to be praised for helping out or cooperating. The emphasis is upon God's direct, determinate action. And please notice that, from the time of the foreknowledge and predestination (before man was created), the process was already set in motion by which it was foreordained that all things would result in good for the persons of God's love and mercy in grace. 'All things' are caused by God to work together for good for us. We had and have no part in it, but to bask in His glory and receive His provision. We, of course react with gratitude and love, but that is because: 'We love him because he first loved us' (1 John 4:19).

Subject: Re: In all honesty... From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 18:58:57 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'If I read the way you see the alternative reading in the NIV correctly, it makes man a 'junior partner,' and portrays God as needing man's help instead of giving the helpless man what he needs.' I see what you mean, Rod, but how does what that NIV alternative say differ from the Gospel being spread by our preaching and sharing it, and perhaps God responding to our prayers (the ones He inspires in us), for example my prayers for my family's salvation? Actually, I believe that God does frequently make us His instruments to effect His will, does He not? We must also be careful not to start suggesting the 'hypercalvinist' POV that we needn't evangelize, for instance, since God doesn't need our help. Hmmmm? I'll bet you've heard that before! Anne

Subject: Irony again :>) From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 19:37:54 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I just this moment came from another board where I gave the explanation of salvation, in the hope of God that Christians would be enabled to understand that faith doesn't produce grace, but that one is saved by grace. My further hope in the Lord was that some unbeliever would see the post and receive grace he needs for salvation. I frequently give the gospel to 'professors' and those surely lost alike, so I think I'm avoiding 'hypercalvinism.' :>) (I also used to end each preaching message with a simple invitation containing the gospel truth.) Actually, Anne, my friend, I have no quarrel with the word 'instruments' of God, for I believe that's what we are, 'vessels' of His creation, 'vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared into glory' (Rom. 9:23). That's why we act out our faith, not as 'helpers' of God, in my opinion, but servants and instruments to glorify Him because He will glorify us in eternity. As such, we realize and put into practice these principles, based on the promises of God: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For in it is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith' (Rom. 1:16-17). We are additionally spurred to action in delivering the gospel by this truth: 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God...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. 1:18, 21). I trust that helps.

Subject: Re: Dear Anne and john, (warning: very long!) From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:03:50 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'I've been reading what the two of you have written with some interest. You are both my friends in the Lord; you are my brother and sister; you both are fine students of God and His Word; and you both express yourselves well. I admire and respect each of you.' This is as far as I've gotten (truth!), but I am assuming (what say you, John?) that you ain't gonna agree with me. Soon as someone starts calling me his or her 'sister', not to mention a 'friend in the Lord', I duck. I'll go back and finish reading your post now, Rod. ;-> Anne

Subject: Re: I've been giving it some thought... From: john hampshire To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 06:50:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, I used to walk my Malamute for a couple of hours each night in Omaha, I would walk and think about God's Sovereignty VS Man's will, when I stopped pondering and looked around my surroundings, often I’d lost track to where I was walking and be lost (you know like Leslie Nelson in one of his movies pondering a detective case; starts walking the streets of LA until the sidewalk ends and he is in a forested hillside). In any case, I explained it to my dog who thought my ideas were fabulous (at least he always seemed to agree with me). I have concluded over the last 20 years that there is no wiggle room as you stated, that we walk exactly in the steps God has foreordained for us to walk (including the unbelievers). Our individual effort to study God's word or the ability to learn is God given, even the capability to perceive spiritual ideas comes from God. I am reminded of how Jesus would pass through the midst of an angry crowd without detection or walk with two disciples and they are unable to comprehend or perceive. God opens or closes perception according to His higher plan. Someone may ask, then why bother praying if God does whatever He wants. That question got me and my dog lost more than once. But I think prayer is much misunderstood. It is not that God gives things to us as we pray, but rather He gives what He has already chosen for us at each moment, and we receive what we pray for IF we are praying IN God's will [our will in prayer is God’s will, so we receive it]. That is, prayer is for us to align ourselves with God, not the other way around. As an aside, I think it is not a true statement to say the elect will be judged by God in any manner (for punishment or rewards). I know the verses people use to prove this, but it can be shown that there is no judgment waiting for believers, the Father has already judged them IN CHRIST (yes, all will be judged but the elect are IN CHRIST). So in the final analysis, whether we expend energy or sit motionless until we die, the motivation comes from God. There is no reward for our effort, because our effort is God working His good pleasure through us. Does that make sense? The only reward, the crown of life, is eternal life in Christ Jesus, and is given to all alike (remember the workers who labored all day VS the one hour laborer, they got the same pay). Moses and me get the same reward! Now here's a problem my dog used to wonder about. If God is Sovereign (He is) and we do only as He planned it, why does God fire-up a Paul, Abraham, or David and not motivate me (or you) to great things too. There were many great Christians like Jonathan Edwards for instance, who did great things with their God given talents, but what can I do to raise myself (or yourself) up to higher levels of spirituality IF God has foreordained all things? [By the way that was a question]. The obvious answer would be that we CAN make ourselves better, but I do not believe that to be true. So how do I improve (defeat laziness and overcome entropy) when my slot-car isn't meant to travel that direction? [same question twice]. Any ideas? By the by: Anne you write very well and with much expression (we are not all a hand or a foot are we?) I think you may have had a job writing at some point, nay?. john

Subject: Re: I've been giving it some thought... From: Anne To: john hampshire Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 08:29:05 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Bud, that's one clever dog you got there. ;-> ' There is no reward for our effort, because our effort is God working His good pleasure through us. Does that make sense?' Perfect sense. Absolutely! As I said, though not especially well, I was pondering more the unregenerate/reprobate, and their lot, and how they must bear the judgment for their decisions. That's where I came up with the 'wiggle room' angle, you see! Their actions (and ours, naturally) are determined by God, but their response to the the unlawful desire is their own, to some degree. God knows how hard they tried to resist, and that will be taken into account at their Judgment day. This should put paid, I'd think, to any foolish thought of an unsaved person that, well, if I'm going to Hell anyway, who cares! I can go my length! Makes no difference! I say, Oh yes, it does. Hell is going to be dreadful, regardless, but just HOW dreadful is up to each individual. Just as Heaven will be more glorious for some than for others, though glorious for all, depending upon their deeds after their regeneration. So far I'm going to be fortunate to be in the nosebleed section. That's fine, though! So long as I can see and Hear Him. Your comments on prayer are dead-on, John! It is difficult to grasp that we aren't really supposed to pray so that we can have whatever we want, but to provide an another avenue for God to receive the praise due Him. Once again, as in everything else, our prayers are to honor Him, not benefit us. That really chaps our hide, too. We want everything to benefit US. We are the main attraction, the big noise, the raison d'etre. At least, we behave so, most of the time. To have God take our viewpoint and wrench it around so that we are seeing straight, and finally understand that all creation, the fall, the redemption, our prayers, everything, was designed to and for His honor, is to truly become 'born again.' I do love your posts! Anne

Subject: An additional thought or two . . . . From: Anne To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 09:46:14 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Two things: 1) Once we grasp that we pray to further God's purposes, then that should make us feel much more optimistic about loved ones who are as yet unsaved. If I am strongly desirous of my husband (the treasure!) to be saved, then that very impulse to pray for his salvation must come from God, right? Our prayers and efforts are God's tools for attaining His ends. If He is planning on saving Don, then I should logically expect God to drive me to pray for Don's salvation. Which I certainly do, daily and constantly. Along with my children, parents, etc. Think about St. Monica and the years she spent praying for her wayward son, Augustine! You know she must have doubted at times that this conversion would ever happen, but by gum . . . . it did. It followed a set pattern. God likes patterns, doesn't He? Of course, it is not a sure thing. I suppose that occasionally someone who is destined to be lost has believers praying for them. But I daresay that statistically, the odds are in our loved ones' favor, don't you think? 2) What's that big word used to describe the fact that God doesn't really have eyes and ears and hands, etc., though the Word says He does? Anthropo-something? I forget. Anyway, I wonder if His anger, and regret, and all are part of the same thing? IOW, He says things upon which we are to base our thought and behavior patterns. He wants us to work on the supposition that we are able to choose, even though, in reality, we can't. Even though I believe in His absolute sovereignty, it truly does not stop me from attempting to make the most pleasing (to Him) choice. Don't always manage it, naturally. I think of Him as telling me that I am to just never mind about what He has planned, that's not my business. Just listen to Him, and pray to be permitted to make the correct decisions. He'll handle the rest. I wish I could remember who it was that wrote that God is willing to be argued with, up to a point. He doesn't object to a certain amount of criticism from us. Well, that makes heaps of sense if you realize that He is perfectly aware that He is directing our actions, yet telling us to make certain choices. He's fair. So, fine . . . . we can gripe a bit. Just read Jeremiah! One of my favorites. It's marvelous, isn't it, how he managed to blend really splendid grumpiness with praise? All in the same prayer? God does get hacked when we start telling Him He has no right to do something, though. We can tell Him we don't like something He did, but not that He had no right to do it. Two completely different things! Well, I'm a parent of five, and I feel the same way. They didn't have to have always agreed with all my decisions, and within reason, they could share that info with me, but I got frosted if they crossed the line into telling me I had no right to make the decision. Grrrrr. Reading His Word, I am just imaging God in that. On that CBMW list, there is a woman who really trod that line a day or so ago. She told us that if God had actually arranged that males should be the leaders, then He would be a bad god. Oof. I felt like telling her, um . . . . you stand right there in front of your tent, and I'll just back away as far as I can. Telling God that you think it is stinky that only males get to lead churches, etc. is one thing. Telling Him He has no right to do that is something else again. Okay, I'll shut up now. Anne

Subject: Hypercalvinism From: george To: Anne and john Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:25:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear Anne and john, Do you ever feel like hypercalvinist, in that if God has ordained all things, then why bother to work at being good? Don't get me wrong, I agree with God's sovereignty in all things, I just struggle with the notion, that the only good I possess comes from God (which I believe), which also causes my motivation to wane. By the way, it's 'anthropomorhic'. In His Grip, george

Subject: Hey, george, From: Rod To: george Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 16:18:15 (PST) Email Address: na Message: What a surprise to see you again. Long time no font, as they say. I wondered where you'd got to. A real old time Texan (not a kid like me) would have said, 'I thought mehbeh the hawgs ate you up!'

Subject: Hi Rod, just keeping my head above water,NM From: george To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 18:37:02 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Hey, george, From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 16:46:50 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'A real old time Texan (not a kid like me) would have said, 'I thought mehbeh the hawgs ate you up!' George, pay Rod no mind. I'm 48, lived in Texas my whole life, and have never ever said that, under any provocation. ;-> Anne (born in Texas, bred in Texas, raised in Texas, and dodging Fort Worth Stock Show traffic)

Subject: Texas, From: george To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 18:39:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, It's ok, I am a long tall Texan also, but much younger (44)than Rod. In His Grip, george

Subject: Re: Hypercalvinism From: Anne To: george Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:46:27 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'By the way, it's 'anthropomorphic'. ' That's the one! Thank you. 'Do you ever feel like hypercalvinist, in that if God has ordained all things, then why bother to work at being good?' Fair question, and you'd think it'd work that way, wouldn't you? But, at least for me, it doesn't. For one thing, I have been humbled by the several passages in Scripture that assure me that it is only with God's help that I can be 'good.' That the ability to follow His law is a privelege, and not the burden the world thinks it is. Astounding the difference it makes, to consider that the ability to follow Him is a gift! Rather than expecting a pat on the head for behaving myself, I now thank Him when He permits me to avoid sin. Obedience is truly its own reward! As for those who are destined to be vessels of His wrath . . . . no point giving Him any more ammunition than necessary. Even if you wind up committing the sin, if you resisted and struggled, and God really had to 'harden' your heart, it seems that that would count in your favor at Judgment. Well, perhaps it would be better to say that it might help off-set the sin a bit. It rather reminds me of my children, when they would do something really idiotic like, say, run my car into the back of a Cadillac. That was Jessica. Among the first words out of her mouth were 'I didn't mean to!' To which I gave my much-practiced, standard response: I am ASSUMING you didn't mean to, 'cause if I thought for one minute you DID mean to, you would be in heaps more trouble, and if the police thought you MEANT to, you'd be under arrest. Actually, the bit about the police wasn't part of the standard repetoire. Thank God. ;-> So whether she 'meant' to or not, the Cadillac was hit, and my nice little Prizm was totalled. From most points of view, her intention, or lack of, was moot. The end result was the same. But from God's POV, there is an enormous difference, don't you think? This is an extremely simplistic, macro-example, but I thought it might help clarify my thinking for you.

Subject: Re: Hypercalvinism From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 19:38:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Well, as I was reading this thread the 'pastoral' voice within me was bursting at the seams. Among some, I am known more as a theologian (whether that's complimentary or not I am want to know), but the majority of people seem to think that theologians are dry, sober and enamoured with the academia, having no interest in real life. 'O contrare!'. One of my theses was on the 'Quinquarticular Controversy of 1618-19', better known as the Canons of the Synod of Dordrect or even more in the vernacular, 'The Five Points of Calvinism.' Now to most, this document is something to be avoided like the plague. To others it is an old dusty document that is fine as a historical resource. But to me, it is one of the most practical and beloved statements of God's truth ever written. But enough of that! On to the point . . . There has been some mention of God's sovereignty being somewhat of a deterrent to pray or to 'press on towards the high calling of Jesus Christ' as Paul would have it. Another mentioned the possibility that it is fine to argue with God, to a point. And then again, its our 'intentions' that God looks upon somewhat rather than what we actually do. If I may, I would like to attempt to address these issues in a pastoral fashion, using God's precious Word and the Canons of Dordt as a reference point. First, let's consider the aspect of prayer, and more specifically, praying for those who are yet outside of Christ and running headon toward the Judgment and Hell itself. We are enjoined to 'pray for those who persecute you' (Matt 5:44) and even for those lying, cheating and evil politicians (1Tim 2:1-3). It was Timothy's grandmother Lois and mother Eunice that with unfeigned faith raised this boy by instructing him in the ways of God and surely prayed constantly for him from his birth, (2Tim 1:5), as did David for his own son (Ps 86:16). These are but a few examples of thousands of parents who have prayed fervently to the LORD that He would raise up their children unto salvation. Doubtless, there are many children who have been brought to Christ who have likewise prayed for their parents who were yet rebellious servants of sin. And what has been the outcome of all these heartfelt petitions before the throne of grace? Well, God has done exactly that which was good and right. And this should be the fount of our every joy! The goodness of God is everywhere spoken of throughout Scripture by peasant, poet and saint alike (Ex 18:9-11; 2Sam 7:28-29; Ps 21:1-6; 27:13, 14; 33:4, 5; 103:1-5; 107:8, 9; 135:1-3; 145:5-9; Zech 9:16, 17; 2Thess 1:11; et al). We should never doubt that whatever the LORD brings to pass it is GOOD and RIGHT (Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4) Now this leads me to my second point (see, another pastoral phrase!), which is in regards to the rightness of wrongness of 'arguing' with God. I realize that the contemporary notion is that God is our 'friend' and therefore we can be 'buddy-buddies' with Him. Let's not even entertain such a blasphemous idea. God is 'high and lifted up' and far beyond all that which He has created. I am sure that Job could speak a few terse words on this subject if he were here with us today. (cf. Job 38-42). And let's not forget the painful lesson that Nebbuchadnezer learned when he was the recipient of God's wrath and power, yet not unto death but unto the praise of His glorious and sovereign name. (Dan 4:31-37) Those of us who have been given to know of God's majesty and holiness are not likely to speak with an 'all too familiarity' as is the manner of some today. No! we are to be as all the saints and fall prostrate before Him in fear and reverence (Is 6:1-5; Ps 89:6; Luke 5:8; etc.). Although God has befriended us due to the great sacrifice of the Lord Christ on our behalf, we are not to imagine that we are no less the creature and He the Creator. Thus it behooves us to 'take our place' before the King of King and Lord of Lords. Yet there is at least one instance recorded in Scripture for us that does record where one did 'argue' with God. I referenced this event above, in Gen 18:25. I will assume that you know this historical event well and thus I won't take up valuable bandwidth and your time rehearsing it for you. It is the record of Abraham, who was distraught over the destiny of his nephew Lot and his family, but the very thought of God destroying thousands of people in that city in an instant. Thus Abraham, pleads and yes even argues with the Lord God; the pre-incarnate Lord Christ in an almost comical manner; at least to us. It is evident that the Lord gave ear to Abraham and let him speak his piece; several times in fact. And with each appeal/argument, Abraham pleads the mercy of God to be even more merciful by changing the number of 'righteous' should the Lord find there, and thus staying the destruction of that entire city and the residents therein. I remember the very first time I read this story and thought that surely, Sodom and Gomorrah would be spared! Surely, the Lord would have found fifty, forty-give, forty, twenty, nay TEN!! righteous men and or women in two metropolitan cities and not destroy all? But alas, I was of the same mind as father Abraham at that point and time and had no knowledge of the depth of sin that resides in the hearts of men; in MY heart. Neither did I have a proper knowledge of the holiness of the Most High. And this is what struck me most: not that God actually destroyed all the residents of those two cities, but that there was not to be found even TEN righteous people among them. And this is the lesson to be learned; we are at best wicked and evil in our thoughts and works. Ps 130:3 'If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?' If we are to 'argue' with God, let it be with great fear and supplication to the end that He would not deal with us as we are! (I know! there are hordes of deceived individuals who love to shout, 'God loves you just the way you are!'). Let none of us ever utter such horrid words! For what purpose then did Christ suffer untold agony upon the cross? Was it not for the reason because of who we ARE? Should I argue with God over His works or His eternal and sovereign decrees? I am persuaded that we should never do so, but rather, let us continually petition the Lord that He do exactly as He has determined to do with us, our families, friends and indeed the entire world. For all things were created for His glory, and far be it from me that I should deny the LORD God that which is His due! :-) Lastly, let me briefly say something about God's sovereign election and how it is not something which should deter us from praying for our loved ones nor to hold us back from 'pressing on to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.' I could just refer you to that magnificent passage in the book of Romans (8:31-39) and end here! This greatest of motivational passages concerning the love of God for His elect is of course prefaced by the 'Golden Chain' of salvation, which is one of the most perspicuous passages concerning God's eternal election to be found in all of the Scriptures. Not only do we know that 'if God is for us, who can be against us', but the Lord Christ too is continually interceding for us before the throne (Heb 7:25). And not only this, but the Holy Spirit, being God of very God Himself also being in harmony with the Father and the Son; He who dwells in the hearts of those whom God has predestinated to life in Christ, works within us to do that which is right and pleasing to God (Phil 2:13; Joh 14:21-23). The writer of Hebrews also would encourage us to endure in all things in this way: Heb 13:5 'Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.' We have been called to be 'holy', and thus we must strive to be conformed to the image of Him who gave Himself for us, as we have been given to be partakers of His divine image (2Pet 1:4). And now what of these 'Canons of Dordt'? Article 14 As the doctrine of divine election by the most wise counsel of God was declared by the prophets, by Christ Himself, and by the apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures both of the Old and the New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God's most holy Name, and for enlivening and comforting His people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High (Acts 20:27; Rom. 11:33, 34; 12:3; Heb. 6:17, 18). As you can plainly see, the doctrine of divine election is to be preached and spoken of everywhere as being the very truth of God, particularly in the church. And for what purpose? For the upbuilding of the saints; 'enlivening and comforting His people', for we all have periods of fainting and weakness in this life. As God's people grow in grace; having a higher and higher vision of Him Who is seated on high, they also have a deeper and deeper realization of their own unworthiness and the blackness of their own sinful hearts. To focus upon the realization that we are each 'the chief of sinners' would surely bring us to the point of sheer desperation, knowing that 'no good thing dwells within' (Rom 7:18). And if that was all we were to train our thoughts on, then indeed who could be motivated to even try to 'do good'?? But when God speaks to us through His Word and His Spirit and penetrates the darkness of our minds with this great and wondrous truth; that before time itself, the God of all mercy and goodness predestinated us to be reunited with Him, to live in perfect harmony and joy with Him forever more, through our Lord Jesus Christ . . . I ask you, 'What more could one ask for as a motivation to live righteously before Him?' Well, that's all! :-) Am I preaching to the choir? Personally, I really haven't given that much thought, for it is 'I' who have been most attentive to these words and thus I know that at least one person has been truly blessed. J In His Electing Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Moses 'argued' with God also, From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:14:44 (PST) Email Address: na Message: As I'm sure you know, brother Pilgrim, and probably everyone else. And he did it to the point where God's anger flashed. The well-known incident is recorded beginning in Ex. 3. In verse 6, we see Moses, upon the revelation of Whose presence he had entered, 'hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.' From that healthy attitude, he went to the ill-advised protestations of chapter 4. In verse 1, he protested that the people wouldn't believe his witness. God demonstrated to him the power he would give to convince the people with his rod: 'that they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, an the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee' (verse 5). Then in verse ten, Moses takes up his objections again, protesting that he wasn't 'eloquent.' The LORD God explained that the God of all creation was in control of that creation, concluding, 'Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say' (verse 12). But Moses, doubting still, said, 'O, my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send' (verse 13). Now that was really an affront to God who had given a physical signs of His majesty and power and spoken assurance of strength for His servant, along with definite direction to go in service to Him. 'And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron, the Levite, thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart' (verse 14). Moses, by his refusal to acquiesce to God, lost the right of being the direct spokesman for Him, that right going to Moses' mouthpiece, his brother Aaron. When we provoke God, we will always suffer some loss and rebuke. God still made Moses His chief representative, but He lessended his direct role. (Of course, all this was foreordained as Aaron was to be elevated to High Priest by God through Moses' appointment and action of annointing. We can study the example of Abraham, the 'friend of God,' and Moses, 'my servant,' as God designated him, and learn some imporant lessons about the patience of God and what not to do in our dealings with Him. It is true that 'All Scripture...is profitable.'

Subject: Re: Moses 'argued' with God also, From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 01:04:55 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: You know, guys, the illustration I used was Jeremiah, who seems to have mainly just grumped and grumbled to God about his lot, not really 'argued' with Him, per se. What I get a kick out of is Jeremiah's griping and praising in the same prayer. Jonah tried to evade the responsibility given him by the Lord, and found God easily capable of arranging alternate transportation. Telling the Lord 'No, I won't!' is tantamount to denying Him the right to arrange matters in a manner most pleasing to Him, I'd think. In both these cases, He can show hackle. He is a good bit more long-suffering toward one who complains, but doesn't seriously suggest that God change His plans. Which leads right back to my notion that God's purported emotions are literary devices, those anthro-thingies, intended to inflluence OUR behavior, not literally record His feelings. Surely we are all in agreement that God had no intention of insisting upon sparing the city unless there was 50 righteous men in it? That Abraham did not truly 'talk Him out' of it?

Subject: Re: Moses 'argued' with God also, From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:14:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, Yes, I for one am in agreement that God had no intention of sparing the two cities from destruction. But I must insist that if He had on the condition that there were indeed 50 righteous men in that city, it would have been because that is what He intended to do from eternity. I think we need to consider that God works with His children in a way that both exposes their own pride, stubbornness and ignorance many times and at the same time impressing upon them His own Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence which is displayed in His marvelous works of compassion, justice, goodness, covenant faithfulness, mercy and so much more. There can be no doubt, at least in my own finite mind that all contentions that men have with God are but the fruit of the 'curse' in that man is always striving to usurp God's indisputable sovereignty and exalting himself; autonomy is the word. But God, Who has loved His own from the beginning uses various means of teaching and moulding them to be conformed to the image of Christ. One of these ways is to allow them to 'have it their way' for a time knowing full well that it will end in failure. A good example of this is the appointing of Saul as King of Israel. The people got what they wanted and God allowed them to suffer under this King's government for a time. And then He brought in His own man to teach them what a man 'after God's own heart' is far better than what the people's choice brings about. Lesson, among many, 'Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding.' :-) Anyone, yes even Jeremiah, who moans and groans and argues with God is simply showing forth their own pride; saying that 'IF I were running things around here, I'd not only do it differently, but better!' hehehe. Haven't we all uttered that statement, even if it was silent and 'unheard'? Yes, this is that 'autonomy' asserting itself again. God is so patient and long-suffering, for if He were not, I would have been dust more than 50 years ago. One of my favourite words in all Scripture is the Hebrew word 'Hesed', which is most often translated as 'lovingkindness' but can be just as correctly be translated as 'Covenant Faithfulness', which for me better illustrates what it is exactly God is like. It is His faithfulness to His covenant, both with the Son and with those whom belong to Him. My God is a God of never ending faithfulness, even when I am faithless. He is a God of promise, Who will always keep His word. And thus my hope, heart and love is for Him. (Ps. 73:25, 26). In His Precious Name, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Moses 'argued' with God also, From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 09:33:46 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: 'I must insist that if He had on the condition that there were indeed 50 righteous men in that city, it would have been because that is what He intended to do from eternity. ' Just so, Pilgrim! And by the way, I am not recommending grumping and griping at God as a preferred communication style. ;-> His willingness to allow His creatures such latitude is another sign of, as you said, His longsuffing, or Covenant Faithfulness. It's really quite dear of Him, is it not? Heaven knows there are enough earthly leaders who do not tolerate even a breath of criticism! Yet here is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who kindly permits His creatures a certain amount of griping, even though He isn't enthusiastic about it. This leads me to mull, unhappily and uncomfortably, on how impatient I am with others' grumbling. 'Oh, get over it!' 'Welcome to life on the planet.' 'If you ever find anything perfect, let me know, and I'll take two.' Not very godly in my responses, am I? Drat.

Subject: The source of God's grace From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 10:37:28 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne, It's self-evident that your desire is to godliness. I praise our God for that and for you, sister! Anne--'It's really quite dear of Him, is it not?' Yes, it certainly is! I think we could 'mine' Ephesians 2 forever and not really exhaust the 'vein' of pure gold in it. Paul says, in verse 4, 'But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us....' This verse illustrates the foundation of God's gracious dealings with us, 'mercy,' and 'great love' for us. Grace literally gushes from it for our benefit. Who among us can take that in? I know it. I believe it. I understand that He had love for me from the earliest moment of eternity (a contradiction, but I don't know how else to say it). But I'm still 'blown away' by the concept. That's the reason 1 John 4:19 is so precious to my old heart: He demonstrated to me His 'great love,' and when, I finally saw that in my Christian walk, what a difference! My feeble words are totally inadequate to express the joy I feel over that marvelous fact. I am overwhelmed with joy, love, and deep gratitude, especially since I've been dealing fairly extensively with some lost people over the last several days. Knowing their awesome eternity of torment and my awesome deliverance from it, I'm filled with thanksgiving. I also thank God for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, whom He has rescued along with me. 'By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another' (John 13: 35). [BTW, Anne, I wish I could turn a phrase like you do.]

Subject: Re: The source of God's grace From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 10:42:51 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: '[BTW, Anne, I wish I could turn a phrase like you do.] ' Thank you, Rod, but I would gladly trade it for the depth of understanding and Scriptural knowledge you possess! It is kind of you to say so, though. ;-> This meeting of the mutual admiration society will now come to order . . . .

Subject: Re: Hypercalvinism From: george To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:11:22 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Thanks for the gentle reminder of what it is all about, in regards to our motivation to please our Lord. In His Grip, george

Subject: 'to take all the sin ... From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 15:38:16 (PST) Email Address: na Message: ...away from the world.' I asked Dave B. to give Scriptural evidence for this assertion that he made about the Lord Jesus' purpose for mankind in a post of a day or so ago. He cited John 1:29, as I suspected was his reference point. It would be a good thing, I think, for all of us to look at this verse to see if it backs up that statement of Dave's and whether the treatment of the subject in the Bible backs it also. John 1:29: 'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.' This particular wording is pretty basic, being essentially the same in the NIV, KJV, RSV, and other translations. It is a straightforward statement and simply made, but it seems to me to be full of misapplicatons by men and full of implications based on related passages of God's Word. First, it is significant for what it doesn't say. It doesn't say, for example, '...the lamb of God who takes upon himself all the sins of the whole world.' Nor does it seem to even suggest that, for the word used, 'sin' is singular, not containing an 's' at the end, as does Eph. 2:1, where the same word is employed. The fact that the plural could have been used, but wasn't, must be noteworthy. So, then, we are dealing with a particular kind of sin, a specific sin. Also, the verse doesn't say, 'the sins of every person in the world,' or even, 'the sin of all the people of the world.' The word used and translated 'world' is 'kosmos' just as employed in 3:16. Now the question becomes, since the text says 'kosmos,' is this a reference to everyone in the entire world without exception? A great many people jump on the bandwagon and immediately say,'Yes, how can a word meaning, essentially, 'the universe,' not include everyone?' Let me encourage anyone who thinks that way to take an exhaustive concordance and look at the NT use of that word 'kosmos' in other verses. Is it true that the use of the word is always, and in every instance, inclusive of every single individual in the entire population of earth? That application isn't true. In this same gospel of John, the word is used in this sense: 'The Pharisees, therefore, said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold, the kosmos is gone after him' (12:19). That absolutely cannot be true in the sense that every person in the world had gone after Him, for He had not dealt with any but the area of Palestine. It wasn't even true in Judea, because there were many, such as the Pharisees themselves, who hadn't 'gone after him.' So, the NT uses the word in the sense where it doesn't mean everyone in the world, without exception, in each instance of its use. Also, note the use of this word by the Lord Jesus, 'I pray for them (those who have believed Him); I pray not for the world' (John 17:9). The word in this sentence doesn't include every person in the world for the simple reason that the believers are people of the world population, but they are being prayed for and not 'the kosmos.' Well, you get the idea: 'kosmos' doesn't necessarily refer to the entire population of the earth. So, we have established, then, that it is a specific sin being spoken of and it is a sin common to the world of men apart from God. What can that be? It seems to me the best interpretation is that it refers to the common sin of mankind of disbelieving God. That is the thing which causes men of Adam's race to be rebels, causes them to be guilty of sins (plural) which are offenses against the Lord God. Turning to Genesis 22:7-8, we find an all important exchange between Isaac and his father, 'And Isaac spoke unto Abraham, his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.' We read on in this chapter to find that God did provide a substitute sacrifice for Isaac, but it wasn't 'the Lamb', but a 'ram' (which had, of course, once been a lamb) in typical representation of the substitution which was to be in the future, once and for all time (see Heb. 10:18). In the Mosaic Law, the 'burnt offering' was of a lamb of sacrifice which was a 'sweet savor' unto God, depicting, in part, God's satisfaction that the offering was pleasing and acceptable to him, a lamb 'without spot or blemish,' a sacrifice denoting a perfect nature. It also was 'sweet' because it was part of the prevention of God's anger with sin and 'the wicked' (see Ps. 7:11) from being exercised on His chosen people. It was a 'looking forward' to the substitution of the Lord Jesus. The other Levitical offerings also typified the Lord Jesus and His work in various ways, all pointing to the actual day of 'the Lamb of God.' Now, having laid this groundwork, turn to Romans 5. Here we have the saved, the 'us' and 'we,' not 'the world,' but those out of all the world who are saved by God. The work and benefit which God accomplished for us in Christ is described, as to its purpose and effect. But God commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (verse 8). 'Us' specifically, conciding with 'the sheep' of John 10. 'Much more then, being justified by his blood [again, this reinforces that he is speaking specifically of the saved], we shall be saved from wrath by him. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus, by whom we have now received the reconciliation' (verses 10-11). The 'reconciliation' refers to being brought into line with God's standard for righteousness. That proper 'alignment,' that being reconciled to God, is because our sin has been judged in Christ at the cross. For more on this, see Rom. 3:24-26: 'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remissions of sins that are past, through the forbearing of God; to declare I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.' God is 'propitiated,' made to be satisfied with the release of His anger toward the predestinated/elect by the expending of that anger on the Son. He is propitiated and He, therefore, justifies us, making us to have the Son's righteousness. By that righteousness, we are 'reconciled to God,' brought into line with His perfect standard, by imputation of a righteous standing through the faith God imparts to us. That knowledge led paul to write in 2 Cor. 5:21: 'For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' That's what led Paul to describe himself as, 'crucified with Christ' and to go on to detail the results of that crucifixion for himself, and all others who were in it vicariously with the Lord Jesus, in Gal. 3:20. The conclusion is that the Lord Jesus and God didn't squander His precious blood by shedding it for everyone on the earth. In fact, that precious lifeblood is so cleansing that, if it had been shed for all mankind without exception, it would have been effective in cleansing all mankind from sin, every sin. The blood of the Lamb of God was sacrificed in substitution specifically for those whom God had already predestined to be His sheep. It is shed for and applied specifically to the elect, the saved of God, just as God planned in eternity past (cp. 2 Tim. 1:9). The Sacrifce of perfection, the Lord Jesus Christ, was to take away the sin nature, and specific sins, of all the chosen of God. It doesn't do anything for the nonelect and was never intended to, except to condemn them for rejecting the cleansing power (in unbelief) of God's work and His Son. 'He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God' (John 3:18). The offering Abraham eventually made was a specifically prepared sacrifice, prepared by God, the animal being given specifically for Isaac, and no one else, in order that he might be redeemed by it from death. The symbol of the father offering a sacrifice of substitution for his own is too great to miss, as is the gracious and miraculous provision of God in providing the scarifice itself, not to mention the symbolic raising of Isaac (the type of God's Son) from the dead. The Lord Jesus Christ accomplished His precise and predetermined purpose in coming to the earth, in living a perfect life in the stead of the predestinated/elect, and in dying for the sheep, as well as in the resurrection from the dead so that the elect may be glorified with Him in eternity (see Rom. 8:30 and Eph. 1:3-14).

Subject: Election From: Diaconeo To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 10:07:37 (PST) Email Address: bigelow@writeme.com Message: Greetings in Christ, I have been looking for scriptural backing for the doctrine of election that states that it is not unto justification and glorification, but unto service. What I mean is, Election is by no means into Christ, but into sevice for doing God's work here. This is the argument that I get everytime I debate with those holding to Universal Salvation, or Universal Restorationist (as they seem to prefer). If you could either direct me to some works that give scriptural references for this stand, or post them yourself, that would be much apreciated. Just so you know, I firmly beleive that ALL will not be restored. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Election From: Rod To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 13:15:34 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Matthew, I'm a little confused. It seems it would be up to those who hold that view to come up with evidence for it. If you can find none that supports it and they offer none, then..... Have I missed something?

Subject: Re: Election From: Diaconeo To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:31:44 (PST) Email Address: bigelow@writeme.com Message: Rod, No, you have not missed anything. This is the arguement that I plead with them. But they just resopnd that that is the scripture means. They even use Calvinistic verses to support their teaching. But then turn around and say that while it appears that Paul is saying one thing, it's really saying another. Typical actually. Mind you, I'm solid in my doctrine of election, just hoping that someone might be able to direct me toward some scripture that they use. I agree 110% that the burden of proof is on thier part, and with out any proof texts, even out of context (which is a pretext) thier arguement is null and void. Thanks anyway ;-) In Christ, Matthew

Subject: More than you wanted to know? From: Election To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 12:48:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Bible Doctrine of Election by Dr. C. D. Cole INTRODUCTION TO ELECTION Election! -- What a blessed word! What a glorious doctrine! Who does not rejoice to know that he has been chosen to some great blessing? Election is unto salvation—the greatest of all blessings. And strange to say, this is a neglected truth even by many who profess to believe it, and others have a feeling of repulsion at the very mention of this Bible-revealed, God-honouring, and man humbling truth. Spurgeon said, “There seems to be an inveterate prejudice in the human mind against this doctrine, and although most other doctrines will be received by professing Christians, some with caution, others with pleasure, yet this one seems to be most frequently disregarded and discarded.” If such were true in Spurgeon’s day, how much more so in this our day. Concerning this doctrine there is an alarming departure from the faith of our Baptist fathers. Touching this article of our faith Baptists have come to a day when they have a Calvinistic creed and an Arminian clergy. But there are some who love the doctrine of Election. To them election is the foundation dug deep for the other doctrines of human redemption to rest upon. They love it enough to preach it in the face of criticism and persecution. They will surrender their pulpits rather than be silenced on this precious tenet of the once delivered faith. But all who love the doctrine were once haters of it, therefore, they have nothing in which to take pride. Every man by nature is an Arminian. It takes the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, taught by the Holy Spirit, to cause a man to love the doctrine of election. How deeply important that believers should be learners. To do this we must acknowledge the superior wisdom of God whose thoughts are not as our thoughts. The Bible was given to correct our thinking. Repentance is a change of mind resulting in a change of thinking. We are not to come to the Bible as critics; the Bible is to criticize us. We cannot come to the Bible infallibly, but by grace we can come humbly. May grace be given to every writer and reader that we may have the right attitude of heart before God. The surest evidence of a saved state is to have the right attitude towards the Word of God. Dear reader, let the writer warn you against “poking fun” at any doctrine of the Bible. The doctrines of grace have found expression in two systems of theology commonly known as Calvinism and Arminianism. These two systems were not named for their founders, but for the men who popularized them. The system of truth known as Calvinism was preached by Augustine at an earlier date, and before Augustine by Christ and the Apostles, being especially emphasized by the Apostle Paul. The system of error known as Arminianism was proclaimed by Pelagius in the fifth century. Between these two there is no middle position; every man is either one or the other in his religious thinking. Some try to mix the two but this is not straight thinking. To say that we are neither Calvinistic nor Arminian is to evade the issue. Paulinism is represented by either Calvinism or Arminianism. The true system is based upon the truth of man’s inherent and total depravity; the false system is based upon the Romish dogma of free-will. GENERAL REMARKS TO DISARM PREJUDICE There is no doctrine so grossly misrepresented. Brother A.S. Pettie’s complaint against The enemies of total depravity is equally applicable here, when he says, “From hostile lips a fair and correct statement of the doctrine is never heard”. The treatment that the doctrine of election receives from the hands of its enemies is very much like that received by the primitive Christians from pagan Roman Emperors. The ancient Christians were often clothed in the skins of slain animals and then subjected to attack by ferocious wild beasts. So the doctrine of election is clothed in an ugly garb and held up to ridicule and sport. We will now try to strip this glorious truth of its false and vicious garment with which enemy hands have robed it, and put upon it the garments of holiness and wisdom. 1. Election is not salvation but is unto salvation. “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (elect) hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7). “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13). Now then, if the elect obtain salvation, and if election is to salvation, election must precede salvation. Men are saved when they believe on Christ not when they are elected. Roosevelt was not president when he was elected, but when he was inaugurated. There was not only an election to, but an induction into the office. God’s elect are inducted into the position of saintship by the effectual call, (the quickening work of the Holy Spirit) through which they become believers in the Gospel. See: 1 Cor 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 2 Thess 2:13-14 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Election is not the cause of anybody going to hell, for election is unto salvation. Neither is non-election responsible for the damnation of sinners. SIN is the thing that sends men to hell, and all men are sinners by nature and practice—sinners altogether apart from election and non-election. It does not follow that because election is unto salvation that non-election is unto damnation. SIN is the damning element in human life. ELECTION HARMS NOBODY. 3. Election belongs to the system of grace. In Paul’s day there was a remnant among the Jews who were saved according to the election of grace (Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.). The attitude of men towards election is the acid test of their belief in grace. Those who oppose election cannot consistently claim to believe in salvation by grace. This is seen in the creeds of Christendom. Those denominations that believe in salvation by works have no place for the doctrine of election in their confessions of faith; those that believe in salvation by grace, apart from human merit, have not failed to include election in their written creed. One group is headed by the Roman Catholics, the other group is headed by the Baptists. 4. Election does not prevent the salvation of anybody who wants to be saved. But the distinction needs to be made between a mere desire to escape hell and the desire to be saved from sin. The desire to be saved from hell is a natural desire—nobody wants to burn. The desire to be saved from sin is a spiritual desire resulting from the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, and God’s electing grace is the very mother of this desire. To represent election by saying that God has spread the Gospel feast, and a man comes to the table hungering for the bread of life; but God says “No, this is not for you, you are not one of my elect”, is to misrepresent the Holy Doctrine. Here is the truth—God has spread the feast but the fact is nobody wants to come to the table. “They all with one consent began to make excuse”. God knew just how fallen nature would act, and He took no chance on His table being filled, so, He tells His servant to go out and compel them to come (Luke 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.). Were it not for the redemptive work of Christ there would be no Gospel feast; were it not for the compelling work of the Holy Spirit there would be no guests at the table. A mere invitation brings nobody to the table. 5. Election means that the destiny of men is in the hands of God. Many of us have regarded as an axiom the statement that every man’s destiny is in his own hands. But this is to deny the whole tenor of Scripture. At no time is the destiny of the saint in his own hands, either before or after he is saved. Was my destiny in my own hands before I was saved? If so, I regenerated myself; I resurrected, by my own power, myself out of a state of sin and death; I am my own benefactor and have nobody to thank but myself for being alive and saved. Perish such a thought! By the grace of God I am what I am. John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Eph 2:1-10 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins: 2 Wherein in time 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 children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should wa