Go To Home Page
Messiah

Key: = Posted Today and Yesterday



'Theology Discussion Group'

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

« Forum Guidelines »

Total Messages Loaded: 668
Post New Message


jh -:- The Man of Sin Exposed -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 13:07:22 (PST)

Rod -:- Reluctantly and sorrowfully -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:07:56 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Reluctantly and sorrowfully -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 13:17:59 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: Reluctantly and sorrowfully -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:49:59 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Reluctantly and sorrowfully -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 17:39:21 (PST)

Anne -:- Thank you, Rod!!! -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 18:39:28 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Thank you, Rod!!! -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:56:32 (PST)
__ Bro. T.R. -:- Re: Thank you, Rod!!! -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 13:17:44 (PST)

B.H.Cagle -:- Eschatology -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:52:26 (PST)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Eschatology -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:55:50 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re: Eschatology -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 17:21:23 (PST)
__ jh -:- Re: Eschatology -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 11:49:45 (PST)
___ Bro. T.R. -:- Re: Eschatology -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:26:24 (PST)

brett -:- the possibilty of christ's sinning -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:47:00 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Brett, please mull this over. -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:55:24 (PST)

Anne -:- Well, to 'heck' with the wicked! -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:00:38 (PST)
_
Anne -:- As an aside . . . . -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:26:18 (PST)
__ Rod -:- We are, indeed, a handful. In more ways than one! n/t -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:40:02 (PST)
___ Prestor John -:- Rod are you aligning yourself with the Reformed? nt -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 15:30:44 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Rod are you aligning yourself with the Reformed? nt -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 18:27:35 (PST)

Rod -:- The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:07:13 (PST)
_
lindell -:- yes it has -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:09:42 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:58:39 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 13:46:21 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Brings up another question -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:22:26 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 09:39:11 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:07:30 (PST)
_ Gene -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:20:32 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 19:32:08 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:25:33 (PST)
____ mebaser -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:17:14 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 14:37:54 (PST)
______ mebaser -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 17:12:43 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:36:09 (PST)
________ Prestor John -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 15:21:44 (PST)
________ mebaser -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 02:08:52 (PST)
_________ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 11:36:40 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 19:52:24 (PST)
_________ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 20:32:40 (PST)
__________ laz -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 21:25:34 (PST)
___________ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 22:45:18 (PST)
____________ laz -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 14:49:33 (PST)
_____________ Tom -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:59:02 (PST)
_____________ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 18:03:15 (PST)
______________ laz -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 20:00:54 (PST)
_______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 09:08:34 (PST)
________________ laz -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 12:29:57 (PST)
_________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 19:01:46 (PST)
__________________ lindell -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 20:25:37 (PST)
___________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 22:02:52 (PST)
_______________ Rod -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 20:41:51 (PST)
____ Rod -:- You didn't 'miss the chapter and verse' you just deny God's truth. n/t -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 20:38:38 (PST)
_____ Gene -:- Good answer! -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 04:09:24 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:09:30 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Anne--'I'll get right on that!' -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 18:27:32 (PST)

B.H. Cagle -:- predestination -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 11:59:49 (PST)

Marcel -:- faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 15:52:47 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:43:19 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:31:41 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:53:01 (PST)
___ Rod -:- The nature of our faith -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:25:19 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: The nature of our faith -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:58:55 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: The nature of our faith -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:36:46 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: The nature of our faith -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 00:36:50 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: The nature of our faith -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:40:16 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re: The nature of our faith -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:52:09 (PST)
_____ george -:- Re: The nature of our faith -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:46:17 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: The nature of our faith -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 19:48:07 (PST)
___ Marcel -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:16:07 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 18:08:11 (PST)
__ Marcel -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:43:55 (PST)
___ george -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:18:38 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: faith and science -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 17:12:03 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: faith and science -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:21:47 (PST)

george -:- Is it possible... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 09:28:35 (PST)
_
E.V. -:- Evil is not a thing... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:21:12 (PST)
__ clark -:- Re: Evil is not a thing... -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:58:08 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Evil is... (not a definition, BTW) -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:20:39 (PST)
_ Rod -:- No arrows here, but a FLAMETHROWER... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:28:04 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Since this isn't complicated enough..... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:59:20 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Since this isn't complicated enough..... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 15:27:55 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: Since this isn't complicated enough..... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 15:52:22 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- 'Ye shall know the truth....' -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:11:59 (PST)

john hampshire -:- Buying and selling -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 07:04:29 (PST)
_
this is what happens... -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 16:57:56 (PST)
__ jh -:- Amil and 2 Peter 3:10-12 -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:57:02 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Amil and 2 Peter 3:10-12 -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 14:21:31 (PST)
____ jh -:- Re: Amil and 2 Peter 3:10-12 -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 15:36:05 (PST)
__ mebaser -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:27:31 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:16:45 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:29:50 (PST)
__ jh -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 20:48:33 (PST)
_ jh -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 12:56:31 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:32:57 (PST)
___ monitor -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 09:58:23 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 07:36:39 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Buying and selling -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:53:20 (PST)

Joel H -:- More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:50:39 (PST)
_
george -:- Bondage of the Will -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 17:09:17 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 13:18:24 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 18:53:08 (PST)
___ Anne -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:33:37 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:41:50 (PST)
_____ Anne -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:53:31 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:38:44 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 21:24:52 (PST)
________ Anne -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 08:56:05 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Exactly, brother! n/t -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 23:38:09 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 21:01:14 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 20:19:47 (PST)
___ Anne -:- Re: More Kibbles and Bits!(Boettner) -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:11:03 (PST)
____ E.V. -:- You are right to be confused -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 04:37:26 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: You are right to be confused -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:50:22 (PST)
______ E.V. -:- Re: You are right to be confused -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:23:44 (PST)
_______ john hampshire -:- Re: You are right to be confused -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:48:34 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re: You are right to be confused -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 10:14:50 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re: You are right to be confused -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:25:25 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Ending the confusion -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 10:32:26 (PST)
________ E.V. -:- Re: Ending the confusion -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:25:34 (PST)
_________ Rod -:- Re: Ending the confusion -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:55:25 (PST)
__________ laz -:- Re: Ending the confusion -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 10:19:14 (PST)
___________ E.V. -:- Agreed n/t -:- Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:38:53 (PST)

Anne -:- Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 06:28:35 (PST)
_
Rod -:- I'm glad to see you putting so much time into this. -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 10:06:12 (PST)
_ Joel H -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 09:48:08 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:18:24 (PST)
___ Anne -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:43:03 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 22:58:40 (PST)
_____ Anne -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 06:54:55 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 23:42:30 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 05:55:44 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: Let me try this out on y'all..... -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:21:02 (PST)

Sis -:- recronstructionism -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 18:44:11 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: recronstructionism -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 21:33:58 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: recronstructionism -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:37:08 (PST)
__ sis -:- Re: recronstructionism -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 10:22:13 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: recronstructionism -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:18:50 (PST)

Dave B -:- Rod and laz - I have not forgotten -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 18:34:39 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Rod and laz - I have not forgotten -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 20:12:08 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Dave B: glad to hear it! I posted a message below for you. n/t -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 18:58:38 (PST)

jh -:- no man might buy or sell... -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 12:35:27 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 13:20:40 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 15:38:50 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 15:51:06 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 00:53:20 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 07:52:39 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 11:53:24 (PST)
__ jh -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 14:28:46 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 15:42:57 (PST)
____ jh -:- Financial hard times? -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 13:19:58 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: Financial hard times? -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 14:06:04 (PST)
______ jh -:- Re: Financial hard times? -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 16:38:31 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re: Financial hard times? -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 19:11:24 (PST)
________ jh -:- Re: Financial hard times? -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 12:15:07 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re: Financial hard times? -:- Thurs, Jan 27, 2000 at 14:32:42 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: no man might buy or sell... -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 22:55:32 (PST)

Diaconeo -:- Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:41:36 (PST)
_
jh -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 13:24:05 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:02:14 (PST)
__ Diaconeo -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 07:43:28 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 09:05:03 (PST)
____ Diaconeo -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 14:15:52 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 23:28:40 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 09:20:54 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 20:16:46 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Hell (Hades) and Lake of Fire -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 21:25:16 (PST)

Anne -:- I've been giving it some thought... -:- Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 11:02:38 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Dear Anne and john, (warning: very long!) -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:55:29 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Dear Rod, (warning: kinda long!) -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 21:47:49 (PST)
___ Rod -:- john, 'kinda' long!!! :> -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 00:50:36 (PST)
__ george -:-
Yes but.... -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:56:43 (PST)
___ Rod -:- george, not another 'yabbut!' :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 21:31:30 (PST)
____ george -:-
Re: george, Oh, no, not another 'yabbut!' :> -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 06:31:29 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
george, I'm fine, in the care of the Lord Jesus! -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 07:06:08 (PST)
______ george -:- My prayers have been sent. NM -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 16:54:26 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: Dear Anne and john, (warning: very long!) -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:25:02 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:34:38 (PST)
____ Anne -:-
Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 14:09:42 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:16:47 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 15:47:19 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:28:34 (PST)
______ Anne -:-
Re: Anne, give me a break! 'Kibbles and Bits!' :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 16:41:14 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
In all honesty... -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 17:53:05 (PST)
________ Anne -:- Re: In all honesty... -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 18:58:57 (PST)
_________ Rod -:- Irony again :> -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 19:37:54 (PST)
__ Anne -:-
Re: Dear Anne and john, (warning: very long!) -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:03:50 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: I've been giving it some thought... -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 06:50:42 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: I've been giving it some thought... -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 08:29:05 (PST)
___ Anne -:- An additional thought or two . . . . -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 09:46:14 (PST)
____ george -:- Hypercalvinism -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:25:52 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Hey, george, -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 16:18:15 (PST)
______ george -:- Hi Rod, just keeping my head above water,NM -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 18:37:02 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re: Hey, george, -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 16:46:50 (PST)
_______ george -:- Texas, -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 18:39:42 (PST)
_____ Anne -:- Re: Hypercalvinism -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:46:27 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Hypercalvinism -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 19:38:00 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Moses 'argued' with God also, -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:14:44 (PST)
________ Anne -:- Re: Moses 'argued' with God also, -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 01:04:55 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Moses 'argued' with God also, -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:14:40 (PST)
__________ Anne -:- Re: Moses 'argued' with God also, -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 09:33:46 (PST)
___________ Rod -:- The source of God's grace -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 10:37:28 (PST)
____________ Anne -:- Re: The source of God's grace -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 10:42:51 (PST)
_______ george -:- Re: Hypercalvinism -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:11:22 (PST)

Rod -:- 'to take all the sin ... -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 15:38:16 (PST)

Diaconeo -:- Election -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 10:07:37 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Election -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 13:15:34 (PST)
__ Diaconeo -:- Re: Election -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:31:44 (PST)
_ Election -:- More than you wanted to know? -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 12:48:25 (PST)

Vernon -:- Your prayers are needed -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 17:25:29 (PST)
_
clark -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 07:27:10 (PST)
__ vernon -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 02:48:45 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 23:14:25 (PST)
___ clark -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 05:34:01 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 21:35:21 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 03:05:41 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 20:11:26 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 18:34:42 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:33:37 (PST)
___ lindell -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 07:37:40 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: Your prayers are needed -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 10:09:57 (PST)

Tom -:- Soveriegn Grace and Man's... -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 14:17:59 (PST)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Soveriegn Grace and Man's... -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 17:22:56 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Soveriegn Grace and Man's... -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 22:38:17 (PST)

Anne -:- God's jealousy (a brief reflection) -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 07:09:08 (PST)

mr_larryb -:- Please read this -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:58:12 (PST)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Please read this -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:41:53 (PST)
__ mr_larryb -:- Re: Please read this -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:19:25 (PST)
___ Vernon -:- Re: Please read this -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:49:06 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Please read this -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 18:05:46 (PST)
____ mr_larryb -:- Re: Please read this -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 23:37:02 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Please read this -:- Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 10:53:41 (PST)
______ mr_larryb -:- Re: Please read this -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 04:10:14 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Please read this -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 19:09:29 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: Please read this -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:15:56 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: Please read this -:- Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 13:58:56 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Please read this -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 08:55:27 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: Please read this -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 08:23:07 (PST)
__ lindell -:- Re: Please read this -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:07:27 (PST)
___ mr_larryb -:- Re: Please read this -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:28:23 (PST)
___ mr_larryb -:- Re: Please read this -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:28:04 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Lindell, please consider this: -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 09:43:25 (PST)
____ lindell -:- Re: Lindell has considered -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 17:03:14 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Another consideration -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:41:50 (PST)
____ mr_larryb -:- Re: Lindell, please consider this: -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:44:59 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Thanks for the candor -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:58:40 (PST)
______ mr_larryb -:- Re: Thanks for the candor -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 23:56:33 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Did I catch you being intolerant and hasty to judge ?? -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 06:22:59 (PST)

Rod -:- A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:53:51 (PST)
_
Dave B -:- Speaking about a topic ... -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:17:23 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Speaking about a topic ... -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:31:42 (PST)
___ Dave B -:- Re: Speaking about a topic ... -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:45:57 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: Speaking about a topic ... -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 08:37:15 (PST)
_ Dave B -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 18:23:24 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 21:35:23 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:59:09 (PST)
___ Dave B -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 21:41:08 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 22:28:13 (PST)
_____ Dave B -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 14:19:58 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 15:50:53 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:51:25 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 23:40:34 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 06:46:40 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:06:35 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 11:36:47 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:45:02 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 22:48:09 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks -:- Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 01:19:17 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 18:27:48 (PST)
__ Rod -:- God's holiness and our failure -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 20:07:18 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 19:12:41 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:30:14 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 11:35:30 (PST)
___ Diaconeo -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 16:47:19 (PST)
____ Five Sola -:- define free will :-) -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:51:56 (PST)
_____ Diaconeo -:- Re: define free will :-) -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 09:55:26 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: define free will :-) -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 16:16:21 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re: define free will :-) -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 11:34:36 (PST)
_______ Diaconeo -:- Re: define free will :-) -:- Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:28:44 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Greetings, diaconeo -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 16:57:00 (PST)
_____ Diaconeo -:- Re: Greetings, diaconeo -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 12:58:41 (PST)
______ RJ -:- Re: Greetings, diaconeo -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:24:58 (PST)
_______ Diaconea -:- Re: Greetings, diaconeo -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 09:36:23 (PST)
___ Anne -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 11:57:13 (PST)
____ T.R./Old Faith -:- Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke' -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 06:25:03 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Anne, It's very ironic that I just... -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 14:25:22 (PST)
_____ Anne -:- Re: Anne, It's very ironic that I just... -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 15:25:51 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Anne, I'm not offended at all! :> -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 15:39:36 (PST)

OrthoPres -:- Children and Communion -:- Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 08:55:29 (PST)
_
Simone -:- Re: Children and Communion--I'd like to know 2! -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:56:21 (PST)
__ David McKay -:- Re: Children and Communion--I'd like to know 2! -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 13:12:54 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Children and Communion--I'd like to know 2! -:- Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 16:49:44 (PST)

Anne -:- I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 10:48:56 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:39:11 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ??? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 11:05:05 (PST)
__ David McKay -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 14:58:11 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 14:55:12 (PST)
___ David McKay -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:04:02 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 22:03:05 (PST)
_____ David McKay -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 13:02:42 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:39:13 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: I wonder why. . . . . ? -:- Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 17:02:37 (PST)
______ stan -:- Re: I think ............ -:- Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 19:09:30 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Gee, John, how do you really feel? ;-> -:- Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 18:00:16 (PST)
_______ john hampshire -:-
Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;-> -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 00:23:54 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;-> -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 07:54:14 (PST)
_________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;-> -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 22:44:19 (PST)
__________ Anne -:-
Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;-> -:- Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 05:53:11 (PST)
___________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;-> -:- Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:24:05 (PST)

Rod -:- I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 09:06:00 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:55:52 (PST)
__ knowfear -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 21:48:07 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 18:13:20 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 16:16:14 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 16:35:39 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 09:36:55 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 10:44:03 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 00:39:15 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: I was asked this on another board.. -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:05:16 (PST)

Mark -:- The Holy Spirit -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:29:15 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: The Holy Spirit -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:46:37 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: The Holy Spirit -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 18:32:10 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Holy Spirit -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 21:44:43 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: The Holy Spirit -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 22:51:33 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: The Holy Spirit -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 07:57:25 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: The Holy Spirit -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 20:08:31 (PST)
__ free_really -:- Re: The Holy Spirit -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 21:49:37 (PST)

laz -:- Preaching -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 16:51:41 (PST)
_
Brother Bret -:- Re: Preaching -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 08:19:40 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Preaching -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 18:40:47 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Preaching -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 13:34:50 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Preaching -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 19:07:19 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Well now .......... -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 20:23:22 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Well now .......... -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 22:57:16 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: Well now .......... -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 23:15:14 (PST)
_______ Stan -:- Re: Well now .......... -:- Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 13:58:00 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: Well now .......... -:- Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:31:18 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Preaching -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:02:35 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: right on if ..... -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:40:55 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Stan, I have it on good authority that... -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:58:27 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Amen :-) NT -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 20:26:28 (PST)

Mark -:- Prevenial Grace -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 13:44:09 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Prevenial Grace -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 16:59:02 (PST)
__ Mark -:- Re: Prevenial Grace -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:25:38 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Prevenial Grace -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 11:28:51 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Prevenial Grace -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 18:02:51 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Prevenial Grace -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 12:14:49 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Prevenial Grace -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 12:20:25 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- AMEN!!! NT -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 08:26:53 (PST)

A Sheep -:- prophetess -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 09:00:28 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: prophetess -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 11:33:54 (PST)

Tom -:- Biblical worship -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 16:12:26 (PST)
_
mebaser -:- Re: Biblical worship -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 08:58:04 (PST)
_ clark -:- Re: Biblical worship -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 07:45:21 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Biblical worship -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 16:39:14 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Biblical worship -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 18:14:15 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Biblical worship -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 13:14:03 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Biblical worship -:- Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 16:33:59 (PST)

Tom -:- Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 00:42:33 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 09:26:12 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 10:48:52 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 21:30:12 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 21:34:35 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 17:51:22 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian??? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 19:51:54 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 18:09:59 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 22:01:39 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 05:36:40 (PST)

Mark -:- Experiencing God -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 21:03:21 (PST)
_
Five Sola -:- Re: Experiencing God -:- Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 12:36:48 (PST)
_ David McKay -:- Re: Experiencing God -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 18:42:52 (PST)

Vern -:- What is the difference? -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 04:01:05 (PST)
_
Brother Bret -:- Re: What is the difference? -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 19:24:02 (PST)
__ vern -:- Re: What is the difference? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 02:24:14 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: What is the difference? -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 21:20:50 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: What is the difference? -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 14:13:15 (PST)

Tom -:- For Vern -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 13:56:04 (PST)
_
vern -:- Re: For Vern -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 03:23:35 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: For Vern -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 07:18:42 (PST)
_ Vernon -:- Re: For Vern -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:29:12 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: For Vern -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 00:26:40 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re: For Vern -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 05:44:19 (PST)
___ Vern -:- Re: For Vern -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 02:30:25 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: For Vern -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 09:08:31 (PST)

laz -:- Predestination Negated -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:18:05 (PST)
_
mebaser -:- Re: Predestination Negated -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 22:20:00 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Re: Predestination Negated -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:40:16 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Re: Predestination Negated -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 07:01:41 (PST)
____ Vern -:- Re: Predestination Negated -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:49:38 (PST)
_____ mebaser -:- what? -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 13:48:21 (PST)

Eddie33 -:- Need some clarification... -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 07:39:05 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Need some clarification... -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 10:48:11 (PST)

Rod -:- Hutterites -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 21:53:41 (PST)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Hutterites -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 21:26:48 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: Hutterites -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 05:44:44 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Hutterites -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:39:55 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Hutterites -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:05:45 (PST)
__ Kiffin -:- Calvinist Mennonites??? -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 06:54:12 (PST)
___ stan -:- Re: huttermens -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:48:19 (PST)

Sewer Mouth -:- Pentatauch -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:42:29 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Pentatauch -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 17:14:46 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Pentatauch -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 20:06:28 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re: Pentatauch -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:26:33 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Pentatauch -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:36:32 (PST)
_____ Gene -:- original question? -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 03:53:39 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: original question? -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:01:57 (PST)
_______ Gene -:- I answered it. -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:35:55 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: I answered it. -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:55:55 (PST)
_____ Gene -:- Re: Pentatauch -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:48:35 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re: Pentatauch -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 15:39:51 (PST)
_______ Gene -:- Inspiration -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 14:19:18 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: Inspiration -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:33:56 (PST)
_________ Gene -:- Re: Inspiration -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:41:43 (PST)
__________ Rod -:- Re: Inspiration -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 10:04:24 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: Inspiration -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 19:59:17 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Pentateuch -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 20:33:59 (PST)

scott lewis -:- Question from below. -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:04:18 (PST)
_
stan -:- Re: Question from below. -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 17:47:06 (PST)
__ David McKay -:- Re: Question from below. -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 04:34:17 (PST)
___ Stan -:- Re: Question from below. -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:33:13 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Question from below. -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:56:49 (PST)

Anne -:- Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:16:35 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Help with ethical question?? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:56:32 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 14:17:21 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:20:14 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 17:10:47 (PST)
_____ West Virginian -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 19:14:50 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 20:04:59 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:12:58 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:47:56 (PST)
___ Anne -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 14:11:36 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:27:14 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 15:52:15 (PST)
_ Gene -:- Re: Help with ethical question? -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:09:12 (PST)

sgvic2000 -:- Time Travel -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 23:22:55 (PST)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:23:27 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:45:14 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 18:21:04 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 14:11:34 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 01:18:51 (PST)
__ Five Sola -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 18:24:38 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 18:49:05 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:41:15 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:30:52 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 21:11:46 (PST)
__ David McKay -:- Re: Time Travel -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 03:02:57 (PST)

Rod -:- Primitive Baptist -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 20:21:15 (PST)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:11:23 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 21:15:34 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 22:08:00 (PST)
__ Linda -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:41:31 (PST)
___ Five Sola -:- Church of Christ denomination -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 18:02:35 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 09:37:59 (PST)
__ JohnS -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 07:34:01 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 09:56:18 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 15:05:40 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:13:31 (PST)
___ Linda -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:47:13 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 09:34:24 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:06:35 (PST)
____ Kiffin -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:01:40 (PST)
_____ T.R. -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 10:41:50 (PST)
______ lindell -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 04:51:18 (PST)
_______ den -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 21:45:14 (PST)
________ lindell -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 11:01:00 (PST)
_________ den -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 20:47:13 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:51:38 (PST)
______ Kiffin -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 13:34:19 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 14:33:27 (PST)
________ stan -:- Re: Other than John, I don't think so ;-) NT -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 15:12:23 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 13:58:24 (PST)
________ Kiffin -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 06:50:16 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re: Primitive Baptist -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 06:57:02 (PST)

Anne -:- Anyone else get Spurgeon daily? -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 08:45:59 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Anyone else get Spurgeon daily? -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 10:44:34 (PST)
__ Anne -:- Re: Anyone else get Spurgeon daily? -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 14:57:05 (PST)

john hampshire -:- There was a rat afoot -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 18:23:01 (PST)
_
Vern -:- Re: ToJohn/Laz -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 02:29:29 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: ToJohn/Laz -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:40:39 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: ToJohn/Laz -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:59:25 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: ToJohn/Laz -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 10:20:27 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: ToJohn/Laz -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 09:58:34 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- A Simple Question -:- Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 23:47:18 (PST)
____ Vern -:- Re: A Simple Question -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 05:40:55 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: A Simple Question -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:16:32 (PST)
_____ monitor -:- Re: A Simple Question -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:12:38 (PST)
______ Vern -:- Re: A Simple Question -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:28:16 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: A Simple Question -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:07:17 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: A Simple Question -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 18:45:05 (PST)
_______ Vernon -:- Re: A Simple Question -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:58:32 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: A Simple Question for Vern -:- Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 19:25:30 (PST)
________ Vernon -:- Re: A Simple Question for Vern -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:22:42 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: A Simple Question for Vern -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 07:16:46 (PST)
__________ Vern -:- Re: A Simple Question for Vern -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:55:42 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- A Simple Summary for Vern -:- Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:14:53 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: There was a rat afoot -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 09:00:55 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re: There was a rat afoot -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 18:50:52 (PST)

Anne -:- Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 06:31:12 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:46:05 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:31:50 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re: Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:58:45 (PST)

Linda -:- Pastor Don Matzat -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:05:34 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Re: Pastor Don Matzat -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 10:38:18 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Pastor Don Matzat -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:34:57 (PST)
__ Linda -:- Re: Pastor Don Matzat -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 13:58:33 (PST)

Vern -:- God is in control -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:07:05 (PST)
_
Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 05:07:13 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: God is in control -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 08:52:50 (PST)
___ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 11:21:39 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: God is in control -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 05:05:42 (PST)
_____ Vern -:- Re: To John Hampshire -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 17:24:51 (PST)
______ monitor -:- Re: To John Hampshire -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 06:31:44 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: To John Hampshire -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:15:52 (PST)
_____ Vern -:- Re: To John Hampshire -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 16:56:16 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: God is in control -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 17:26:01 (PST)
_____ Vernon -:- Re: God is in control/Laz -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 04:26:19 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re: God is in control/Laz -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 10:33:17 (PST)
_______ Vernon -:- Re: God is in control/Laz -:- Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 16:37:04 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re: God is in control/Laz -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 06:37:58 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: God is in control -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 11:46:16 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:50:57 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: God is in control -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 06:07:02 (PST)
__ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 04:17:15 (PST)
__ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 03:49:05 (PST)
__ JohnS -:- Re: God is in control -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 07:13:16 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: God is in control -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 06:51:15 (PST)
___ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 03:52:42 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 06:29:51 (PST)
_____ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 10:26:02 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:58:10 (PST)
______ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 10:49:15 (PST)
_______ JohnS -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 14:46:06 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:44:59 (PST)
________ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 19:46:31 (PST)
_________ Rod -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 22:55:19 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 22:53:16 (PST)
______ Vern -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 10:35:49 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 17:49:37 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: God is in control -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:28:34 (PST)

Joel H -:- God ordains all things -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 11:02:05 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Re: God ordains all things -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 14:48:26 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: God ordains all things -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 14:53:54 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: God ordains all things -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 13:45:22 (PST)
__ Joel H -:- Another question -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 14:26:34 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Another question -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 11:07:50 (PST)
____ Anne -:- Re: Another question -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 13:00:02 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: Another question -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:44:27 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: God ordains all things -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 12:16:04 (PST)
__ Joel H -:- Is it even worth investigation?? -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 13:55:29 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Is it even worth investigation? -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 01:18:04 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Is it even worth investigation? -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 14:29:02 (PST)
____ E.V. -:- It can't be investigated -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 14:37:07 (PST)
_____ 1Cor2:14 again -:- Re: It can't be investigated -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 14:51:23 (PST)
______ E.V. -:- Well, then... -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 16:04:57 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Well, now... -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 09:01:14 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Here we go again! -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:58:28 (PST)
_______ To whom it concerned -:- Re: Here we go again! -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 06:34:42 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re: Here we go again! -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:35:20 (PST)
_________ To Whom it Does Concern -:- Re: Here we go again! -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 11:28:04 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: It can't be investigated -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 23:58:20 (PST)

Scott -:- Lucifer's sin -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 12:34:04 (PST)
_
Jason -:- Edwards -:- Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 14:51:02 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 10:36:12 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 13:24:34 (PST)
___ Which God? -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 20:49:41 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 13:53:18 (PST)
____ clark -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 08:29:55 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 16:18:49 (PST)
____ Scott -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 14:11:24 (PST)
_____ Thorn in Side -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 20:54:57 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 11:03:00 (PST)
_______ Thorn in Side -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 11:41:21 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 04:01:33 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 23:33:32 (PST)
__ scott lewis -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 20:50:49 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Church fathers -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 23:30:57 (PST)
__ clark -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 04:16:39 (PST)
_ Gene -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 18:24:11 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Lucifer's sin -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 13:15:21 (PST)
__ Gene -:- an even better one! -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 14:58:05 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: an even better one! -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 18:41:29 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re: an even better one! -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 02:48:13 (PST)
_____ Scott -:- Sorry I asked (nt) -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 11:56:16 (PST)
______ Gene -:- you are forgiven :) (nt) -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 13:25:40 (PST)

Tom -:- No Compromise -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 00:00:13 (PST)
_
mebaser -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 00:33:46 (PST)
__ Tom.H -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 10:29:03 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 14:17:39 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 15:10:56 (PST)
_____ clark -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 04:35:52 (PST)
______ mebaser -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 07:48:34 (PST)
_______ clark -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 05:16:47 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:55:54 (PST)
________ mebaser -:- eye to eye -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 07:02:22 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 09:12:03 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 05:39:22 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 13:28:52 (PST)
________ Anne -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 13:48:36 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 01:58:47 (PST)
_____ mebaser -:- AMEN! (nt) -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 22:55:48 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 08:39:13 (PST)
___ David McKay -:- Re: No Compromise -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 17:40:19 (PST)

laz -:- Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 11:52:53 (PST)
_
PesterBrat -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 20:31:34 (PST)
__ seaturtle -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 20:44:07 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 20:51:24 (PST)
____ seaturtle -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 21:05:02 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 03:10:02 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 10:38:59 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 08:14:00 (PST)
_______ john hampshire -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 05:29:26 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 14:06:55 (PST)
_________ Tom.H -:- Re: Feathers to Ruffle - Family Radio -:- Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 02:02:47 (PST)

David McKay -:- The Hunger Site -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 04:02:27 (PST)
_
monitor -:- Re: The Hunger Site -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 06:25:33 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- New Year Additions to The Highway -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:11:49 (PST)
_
Seaturtle -:- Re: New Year Additions to The Highway -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 13:47:27 (PST)

Vern -:- THE OLD RUGGED CROSS -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:13:25 (PST)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: THE OLD RUGGED CROSS -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 05:46:08 (PST)
__ Vern -:- Re: THE OLD RUGGED CROSS -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 05:33:20 (PST)

Tom -:- Mark 13:28-30 -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 14:20:56 (PST)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Mark 13:28-30 -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:43:28 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Mark 13:28-30 -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 11:18:07 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Mark 13:28-30 -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 05:57:17 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Mark 13:28-30 -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 08:38:08 (PST)
_ Tom -:- PS -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 22:32:51 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: PS -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:02:39 (PST)
___ scott lewis -:- Re: PS -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 20:06:00 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: PS -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 06:44:13 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: PS -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 12:41:38 (PST)

mebaser -:- First post of the millennium -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 00:19:10 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Re: First post of the millennium -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 09:25:17 (PST)
__ David McKay -:- Re: First post of the millennium -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 19:25:55 (PST)
___ Anne -:- Re: First post of the millennium -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 05:19:34 (PST)
____ David McKay -:- Re: First post of the millennium -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 13:14:57 (PST)
_____ Anne -:- Re: First post of the millennium -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 14:12:48 (PST)
______ David McKay -:- Re: First post of the millennium -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 04:16:30 (PST)
_ RJ -:- The Bible's First Promise -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 06:53:52 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 16:26:40 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:06:35 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:04:57 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 21:18:58 (PST)
___ monitor -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 16:45:41 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 18:05:53 (PST)
_____ monitor -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 21:42:07 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:15:16 (PST)
_______ monitor -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 13:25:28 (PST)
________ bored mebaser -:- The dog in the land of Oz -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 00:13:08 (PST)
________ Gene -:- I will let the NT writers tell me. -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 18:42:30 (PST)
_________ monitor -:- Re: I will let the NT writers tell me. -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 21:17:36 (PST)
_______ john hampshire -:- Re: Wrong, the first eisegesis! -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:24:59 (PST)
________ Gene -:- God did that already! -:- Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 06:21:23 (PST)
_________ john hampshire -:- Re: God did that already! -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 01:23:18 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re: God did that already! -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 02:59:02 (PST)
___________ 1Cor2:14 -:- Re: God did that already! -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 08:07:43 (PST)
____________ Gene -:- Oh, good answer! -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:16:20 (PST)
_____________ Prov 26:4 -:- ok, how 'bout this? -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:58:27 (PST)
______________ Gene -:- Re: ok, how 'bout this? -:- Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 18:25:50 (PST)
_______________ mebaser -:- back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 00:21:07 (PST)
________________ Gene -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 02:46:08 (PST)
_________________ mebaser -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 06:52:57 (PST)
__________________ Gene -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 10:42:17 (PST)
___________________ mebaser -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 14:46:21 (PST)
____________________ Gene -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 14:55:31 (PST)
_____________________ mebaser -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 23:05:39 (PST)
______________________ Gene -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 03:01:37 (PST)
_____________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Tues, Jan 04, 2000 at 18:30:46 (PST)
______________________ Gene -:- Re: back to the original point -:- Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 02:53:07 (PST)
_ David Teh -:- Re: First post of the millennium -:- Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 05:03:30 (PST)


Post New Message


Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



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 Creed
Therefore, 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 walk in them. 2 Tim 1:9 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, James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Is my destiny in my own hands now? Then I will either keep myself saved or I will lose my salvation. The Bible says we are kept by the power of God through Faith. 1 Pet 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Psa 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. Phil 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: 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. If my destiny is not safe in my own hands after I am saved then how could it be thought to be safe in my own hands before my conversion? The saint dies, his body is consigned to the grave and becomes a dust-heap. Is his destiny in his own hands then? If so, what hope has he of ever coming out of the grave with an immortal and incorruptible body? None at all if his destiny is in his own hands. Such a theory, that the destiny of the saint is or ever has been in his own hands, reverses the very laws of nature and implies that water can rise above the level of its source; that man can lift himself into the attic by his boot-straps; that the Ethiopian can change his colour, and the leopard can remove his spots; that death can beget life; that evolution is true and God is a liar. The theory that one’s destiny is in his own hands begets self-confidence and self-righteousness; the belief that destiny is in the hands of God begets SELF-ABNEGATION AND FAITH IN GOD. 6. Election stands or falls with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and man’s depravity. If God is sovereign and man is depraved, then it follows as a natural consequence that some will be saved, none will be saved or, all will be saved. The practical results of election are that some, yea many, will be saved. Election is not a plan to save a mere handful of folk. Christ gave Himself a ransom for many. Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; God’s sovereignty involves His pleasure John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Mat 11:25-27 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. His power Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. Jer 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. And His mercy. Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 7. The elect are manifested in repentance and faith and good works. These graces, being God-wrought in man, are not the cause but the evidences of election. 1 Thess 1:3-10 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: 7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 9 For they themselves show of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. 2 Pet 1:5-10 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: Phil 2:12-13 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. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? The man who doesn’t pray, who has not repented of his sins and trusted Christ, and who does not engage in good works has no right to claim that he is one of God’s elect. SOME FALSE VIEWS EXAMINED AND REFUTED Many professing Christians really have no view of election. They have not given it enough thought and study to even have any opinion about it. Many have erroneous views. We shall notice some of them. 1. The view that men are elected when they believe. This view is easily refuted for it is contrary to both common sense and Scripture. Election is to salvation, and therefore, must precede salvation. It is nonsense to talk about electing a man to something he already has. The man has salvation when he believes and hence election at that point would not be necessary. ELECTION TOOK PLACE IN ETERNITY; SALVATION TAKES PLACE WHEN THE SINNER BELIEVES. 2. The view that election pertains only to the Jews. This view robs Gentiles of the comfort of Rom 8:28-39. Rom 8:28-29 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, says that he endured all things for the elect’s sakes that they might obtain salvation. 2. Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 3. The view that election took place in eternity, but that it was in view of foreseen repentance and faith. According to this view, God, in eternity, looked down through the ages and saw who would repent and believe and those who He foresaw would repent and believe were elected to salvation. This view is correct in only one point, namely, that election took place in eternity. It is wrong in that it makes the ground of election to be something in the sinner rather than something in God. Read Eph 1:4-6 where election and predestination are said to be “According to the good pleasure of His will” and “To the praise of the glory of His grace”. Eph 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. This view thought the popular one with the majority of Baptists today, is open to many objections. (i) It denies what the Bible says about man’s condition by nature. The Bible does not describe the natural man as having faith. 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Both repentance and faith are gifts of God, and God did not see these graces in any sinner apart from His purpose to give them. “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins”, Acts 5:13 “When they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, ‘Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life’”, Acts 11:18. “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth” 2Ti 2:25. See also: Eph 2:8-10 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 walk in them. 1 Cor 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? Election was not because of foreseen faith, but because of foreseen unbelief. It is not the election of God’s faithful ones, but the faith of God’s elect, if we are to keep Scriptural words Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; (ii) It makes the human race differ by nature, whereas, the Bible says, we are all by nature the children of wrath and all clay of the same lump. Eph 2:3 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. Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Men are made to differ in the new birth. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (iii) It perverts the Scriptural meaning of the word “foreknowledge”. The word as used in the Bible means more than foreknowledge about persons, it is the foreknowledge of persons. In Rom 8:29,30, the foreknown are predestined to the image of Christ, and are called, justified and glorified. In 1Pe 1:2, the word for “foreknowledge” is the same as “foreordain” in the twentieth verse of the same chapter, where the meaning cannot be “foreknowledge” about Christ. God’s foreknowledge about persons is without limitations; whereas, His foreknowledge of persons is limited to those who are actually saved and glorified. (iv) It is open to the strongest objection that can be made against the Bible view. It is often asked, “If certain men are elected and saved, then what is the use to preach to those who are not elected?” With equal propriety we might ask, “If God knows who is going to repent and believe, then why preach to those who according to His foreknowledge, will not repent and believe?” Will some repent and believe whom He foreknew would not repent and believe? If so, He foreknew a lie. Right here is the weakness of much of modern missions. It is based upon sympathy for the lost rather than obedience to God’s command. The inspiration of missions is made to rest upon the practical results of missionary endeavour rather than upon the delight of doing God’s will. It is the principle of doing a thing because the results are satisfactory to us. If we are faithful, God is as pleased with our efforts as when there are no results. Ponder 2 Cor 2:15-16 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? The elect prior to their conversion are known only to God. We are to preach the gospel to every creature because He has commanded it. He will take care of the results. Compare with: Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. 1 Cor 3:5-6 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. John 6:37-45 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. It is ours to witness; it is His to make our witnessing effective. THE DOCTRINE DEFINED, EXPLAINED AND PROVED What is election as the term is used in the Bible? Election means a choice—to select from among - to single out - to take one and leave another. If there are a dozen apples in a basket and I take all of them there has been no choice; but if I take seven and leave five there has been a choice. Election, as taught in the Bible, means that God has made a choice from among the children of men. In the beginning God set His choice upon certain individuals, whom He gave to His Son, and for whom Christ died as their substitute, who in time hear the Gospel and believe in Christ to life everlasting. Let us amplify by raising three very pertinent questions. 1. WHO DOES THE ELECTING? Who chooses the persons to be saved? If men are chosen to salvation, as the Scriptures affirm, who does the choosing? There must be a selection or universalism. The language of Scripture seems peculiarly definite in reply to this question. Mark 13:20 speaks of the ELECT, whom He ELECTED, rendered in our version, “The elect’s sake whom He hath chosen”. The word election is associated with God not with man. God is the CHOOSER, His people are the CHOSEN, and grace is the source. The theology, that God votes for us, the Devil votes against us, and that we cast the deciding ballot is entirely outside the pale of Scripture teaching, and is almost too ridiculous to notice. John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 2 Thess 2:13 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: Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 2. WHEN WAS THE ELECTING DONE? For the answer we are shut up to the Scriptures. But the BIBLE answers with sunlight clearness. In Eph 1:4 we read that “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world”. The expression, “before the foundation of the world”is found in Joh 17:24, where it speaks of the Father’s eternal love for the Son, and in 1Pe 1:20, where it refers to the eternal determination of the Divine mind concerning the death of Christ. There are many similar expressions. ELECTION IS ETERNAL! Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 2 Thess 2:13 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: 2 Tim 1:9 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, 3. WHY WAS THE ELECTING DONE? Was it on the ground of something good in the sinner? Then nobody would have been elected for there is none good. Holiness is not the cause but the effect of election. We are chosen that we should be holy not because we are holy (Eph 1:4). Nor, as we have already seen, is election in view of foreseen repentance and faith. Election is the cause of repentance and faith and not the effect of these graces. To say that God chose men to salvation because He foresaw that they would repent and believe and be saved is to attribute foolishness to the infinitely wise God. It is as if the president should issue a decree that the sun must rise tomorrow because he foresees that it will rise; or as if a sculptor should choose a certain piece of marble because he foresaw that it would make itself into the image he wanted. We challenge any Arminian to raise these questions and get his answers from the Scriptures. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED Many are the objections brought against this doctrine. Sometimes the objectors are loud and furious. Alas! that so many of these objectors are in Baptist ranks. To preach this old-fashioned doctrine of our faith as did Bunyan, Fuller, Gill, Spurgeon, Boyce, Broadus, Pendleton, Graves, Jarrell, Carroll, Jeter, Boyce Taylor and a host of other representative men of our denomination is to court the bitterest kind of opposition. John Wesley himself never said harsher words against this blessed tenet of our faith than do some so-called Baptists of today. Arminianism that offspring of popery, has had an abnormal growth in the last decade or two as the adopted child of a large group of Baptists. 1. IT IS OBJECTED THAT OUR VIEW OF ELECTION LIMITS GOD’S MERCY. Right here we criticize the critic, for he who makes this objection limits both God’s mercy and power. He admits that God’s mercy is limited to the believer, and to this we agree; but he denies that God can cause a man to believe without doing violence to the man’s will, and thus he limits God’s power. We believe that God is able to give a man a sound mind (2 Tim 1:7) and make him willing in the day of His power. (Ps. 110:2) At this point we must face two self-evident propositions. First, if God is trying to save every member of Adam’s fallen race, and does not succeed, then His power is limited and He is not the Lord God Almighty. Second, if He is not trying to save every member of the fallen face, then His mercy is limited. We must of necessity limit His mercy or His power, or go over boots and baggage to the Universalist’s position. But before we do that, let us go “to the law and to the testimony”, which says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion...Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy and whom He will He hardeneth” (Rom 9:15-18). It needs to be said for the comfort and hope of great sinners, that God’s mercy is not limited by the natural condition of the sinner. All sinners are dead until God makes them alive. He is able to take away the heart of stone. No man is too great a sinner to be saved. We can pray for the salvation of the chief of sinners with the assurance that God can save them if He will. “The King’s heart is in the hands of the Lord as the river of water; He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Pr 21:1). We rejoice to say with Jeremiah that there is nothing too hard for God. We can pray for the salvation of our loved ones with the feeling of the leper, when he said, “Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean”(Matt 8:2). When Robert Morrison was about to go to China, he was asked by an incredulous American if he thought he could make any impression on those Chinese. His curt reply was, “No, but I think God can.” This should ever be our confidence and hope when we stand before sinners and preach to them “CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED”. 2. ANOTHER OBJECTION TO ELECTION IS THAT IT MAKES GOD UNJUST. This objection betrays a bad heart. It would obligate the CREATOR to the CREATURE. It makes salvation a divine obligation. It denies the right of the potter over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. By the same parity of reasoning it makes the governor of a sovereign state unjust when he pardons one or more men, unless he empties the prison and turns all the prisoners loose. Our view of election is in harmony with what even the Arminians allow to be proper and just for a human governor. All can see that a governor, by pardoning some men, does not harm others, who are not pardoned. Those who are not pardoned are not in prison because the governor refused them a pardon but because they were guilty of a crime against the state. Isn’t God to be allowed as much sovereignty as the governor of a state? Salvation, like a pardon, is something that is not deserved. If it were deserved, then God would be unjust if He did not bestow it upon all men. Salvation is not a matter of justice but of mercy. It wasn’t the attribute of justice that led God to provide salvation but the attribute of mercy. Justice is simply each man getting what he deserves. Those who go to hell will have nobody to blame but themselves, while those who go to heaven will have nobody to praise but God. Rom 9:22-23 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 3. IT IS AGAIN OBJECTED THAT OUR VIEW OF ELECTION IS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF WHOSOEVER WILL. But the objector is wrong again. Our view explains and supports the doctrine of “WHOSOEVER WILL”. Without election the invitation to “WHOSOEVER WILL” would go unheeded. The Bible doctrine of “WHOSOEVER WILL” does not imply the freedom or ability of the human will to do good. The human will is free, but its freedom is within the limits of fallen human nature. It is free like water; water is free to run down hill. It is free like the vulture; the vulture is free to eat carrion, for that is its nature, but it would starve to death in a wheat field. It is not the buzzard’s nature to eat clean food; it feeds upon the carcasses of the dead. So sinners starve to death in the presence of the bread of life. Our Lord said to some sinners, who were in His very presence “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life” (Joh 5:40). It is not natural for a sinner to trust in Christ. Salvation through trust in a crucified Christ is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Greek; it is only the called, both Jews and Greeks, who trust it as the wisdom and power of God. 1 Cor 1:23-24 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Here is a physical corpse. Is it free to get up and walk around? In one sense, yes. It is not bound by fetters. There is no external restraint. But, in another sense, that corpse is not free. It is hindered by its natural condition. It is its nature to decompose and go back to dust. It is not the nature of death to stir about. Here is a spiritual corpse—a man dead in trespasses and sins. Is the man free to repent and believe and do good works? Yes, in one sense. There are no external restraints. God does not prevent but offers inducements through His Holy Word. But the corpse is hindered by its own nature. There must be the miracle of the new birth, for except a man be born from above he cannot see or enter into the Kingdom of God. John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It is painful to some of us to see our brethren forsake the faith of our Baptist forbears at this point and join the ranks of the Roman Catholics and other Arminians. If anyone doubts this charge let him read the article of faith adopted by the Catholics at the council of Trent (1563). I quote their statement on the freedom of the human will—“If anyone shall affirm that since the fall of Adam man’s free-will is lost, let him be accursed.” But alas, in this day, such a spirit is not confined to the Roman Catholics. Horatius Bonar makes the following quotation from John Calvin: “The Papist theologians have a distinction current among themselves that God does not elect men according to their works which are in them but that He chooses them that He foresees will be believers.” Ah, the real trouble with the objector is not election; it is something else. His real objection is to total depravity or human inability to do good. I can do no better here than to quote from Percy W. Heward of London, England. He says, “It seems to me that the majority of objections to God’s sovereign grace, to God’s electing love, are actually objections to something else, namely objections to the fact that man is ruined. If you probe beneath the surface you will find that very few object to election. Why should they? Election harms no one. How can the picking of a man out of doom harm anyone else? The real objection at the present day is not to election, though that word is made the catchword of sad controversy—the real objection is to that fact which is revealed in Psalm 51, that we are shapen in iniquity, that we are born sinners by nature, dead in sins, until, as we read concerning Paul in Galatians 1, ‘It pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace to reveal His Son in me...’ Ah, beloved friends, we deserve nothing but doom. Acknowledge this and election is the only hope. Acknowledge that we are poor lost sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, only evil continually; acknowledge that there is in man no natural spark to be fanned into a flame but that believers are born again of incorruptible seed which the Lord places; acknowledge that if anyone is in Christ that there is a new creation, for we are His workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus; - and election must be at once recognized.” Every real believer on his knees subscribes to our view of election. You cannot pray ascribing some credit to self. Sovereign grace will come out in prayer though it may be left off the platform. No saved man will get down on his knees before God and claim that he made himself to differ from others who are not saved, but with Paul he says, “By the grace of God I am what I am.” And in praying for the lost we supplicate God to convict and convert them. We do not depend upon the freedom of their wills but beg God to make them willing to come to Christ, knowing that when they come to Christ He will not cast them out. John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. A Methodist minister once went to hear a Presbyterian minister preach. After the sermon, the Methodist said to the Presbyterian, “That was a pretty good Arminian sermon you preached today.” “Yes,” replied the Presbyterian, “We Presbyterians are pretty good Arminians when we preach and you Methodists are pretty good Calvinists when you pray.” MORE TRUTH THAN POETRY HERE!! 4. IT IS ALSO OBJECTED THAT OUR VIEW OF ELECTION IS A NEW DOCTRINE AMONG MISSIONARY BAPTISTS. The fact is that it is so old-fashioned that it has about gone out of fashion . The ignorance betrayed in such a claim is indeed pitiable. In refutation we resort to two sources of information (a) Confessions of faith; (b) Statements of representative preachers and writers. (a) CONFESSIONS OF FAITH The Waldenses declare themselves as follows: “God saves from corruption and damnation those whom He has chosen from the foundation of the world, not from any disposition, faith or holiness that He foresaw in them, but His mere mercy in Christ Jesus His Son, passing by all the rest according to the irreprehensible reason of His own free-will and justice.” THE DATE OF THIS CONFESSION WAS 1120!!! The London Confession (1689) and the Philadelphia Confession (1742) read as follows: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined or foreordained to ETERNAL LIFE through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace; others being left to act in their sins to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice.” The New Hampshire Confession (Article 9): “We believe that election is the eternal purpose of God according to which He graciously regenerates, sanctifies and saves sinners; that being perfectly consistent with the free-agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise holy and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of His free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the Gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence.” (b) REPRESENTATIVE PREACHERS AND WRITERS! John A. Broadus, former president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: “From the divine side, we see that the Scriptures teach an eternal election of men to eternal life simply out of God’s good pleasure.” A.H. Strong, former president of Rochester Theological Seminary: “Election is the eternal act of God, by which in His sovereign pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, He chooses certain of the number of sinful men to be recipients of the special grace of His Spirit and so to be made voluntary partakers of Christ’s salvation.” B.H. Carroll, founder and first president of the Southwestern Baptist Seminary: “Every one that God chose in Christ is drawn by the Spirit to Christ. Every one predestined is called by the Spirit in time and justified in time, and will be glorified when the Lord comes.” Commentary on Romans, page 192. J.P. Boyce, founder and first president of Southern Baptist Seminary: “God, of His own purpose, has from eternity determined to save a definite number of mankind as individuals, not for or because of any merit or works of theirs, nor of any value of them to Him; but of His own good pleasure.” W.T. Conner, professor of theology, Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas: “The doctrine of election means that God saves in pursuance of an eternal purpose. This includes all the gospel influences, work of the Spirit and so on, that leads a man to repent of his sins and accept Christ. So far as man’s freedom is concerned, the doctrine of election does not mean that God decrees to save a man irrespective of his will. It rather means that God purposes to lead a man in such a way that he will freely accept the gospel and be saved.” Pastor J.W. Lee, of Batesville, Miss.: “I believe that God has foreordained before the foundation of the world that He would save certain individuals and that He ordained all the means to bring about their salvation on His terms. Men and women are not elected because they repent and believe, but they repent and believe because they are elected.” To the above list of well known and honoured Baptists we could add quotations from Gill, Fuller, Spurgeon, Bunyan, Pendleton, Mullins, Dargan, Jeter, Eaton, Graves, and others too numerous to mention. It is sadly true that many of our pastors hold election as a private opinion and never preach it. We personally know a number of brethren who say that election is clearly taught in the Bible, but that we cannot afford to preach it, because it will cause trouble in churches. This is worse than compromise: it is surrender of the truth. It is a spirit that leads preachers to displease God in order to please men. The writer believes that silence upon this subject has wrought more harm than open opposition to it. Those who openly oppose election will, sooner or later, make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of all Bible loving Baptists. 5. IT IS FURTHER OBJECTED THAT OUR VIEW OF ELECTION MAKES MEN CARELESS IN THEIR LIVING. It is said that belief in the doctrine leads men to say, “If I am elect, I will be saved; if I am a non-elect I will be lost, therefore, it matters not what I believe or do.” The same objection has been persistently made against the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. This is bald rationalism. It is the setting of human reason against divine revelation. It takes no account of the operation of the grace of God in the human heart. If Baptists surrender election on such a ground, to be consistent, they will have to surrender the doctrine of preservation on the same ground. Election does not mean that the elect will be saved whether they believe on not, nor does it mean that the non-elect will be damned regardless of how much they may repent and believe. The elect will be saved through repentance and faith, and both are gifts from God as already shown; the non-elect do not repent and believe. The objection we are now considering is simply not true to fact. Believers in election have been and still are among the most godly. Augustus Toplady challenged the world to produce a martyr from among the deniers of election. The Puritans, who were so named because of the great purity of their lives, with few exception (if any), were believers in personal, eternal, unconditional election, and of course, in the security of the believer. Modernism, that spawn of the pit, is rapidly adding to the number of its adherents, but they are coming from the ranks of Arminianism. Others have challenged the world to find a single Higher Critic, or a single Spiritualist, or a single Russellite, or a single Christian Scientist, who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God and the doctrine of election. Without an exception these awful heretics are Arminians to a man. This is a significant fact that is not to be winked at. 6. OBJECTORS CLAIM THAT OUR VIEW OF ELECTION DESTROYS THE SPIRIT OF MISSIONS. They boldly assert that if unconditional election should find universal acceptance among us that we would cease to be a missionary people. There is an abundance of historical evidence with which to refute this claim. Under God, the father of modern missions was William Carey, a staunch Calvinist. Andrew Fuller, first secretary of the society that sent Carey to India, held tenaciously to our view of election. It did not destroy the missionary spirit of these men. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Belief in election did not destroy the missionary spirit in Judson, Spurgeon, Boyce, Eaton, Graves, Carroll and a host of other Baptist leaders. The Murray church, which Dr. J.F. Love called the greatest missionary church on earth, heard election preached by Boyce Taylor for nearly forty years. The greatest missionary churches among us today are those that have been purged from the heresies of James Arminius. Election is the very foundation of hope in missionary endeavour. If we had to depend upon the natural disposition or will of a dead sinner, who hates God, to respond to our gospel, we might well despair. But when we realize that it is the Spirit that quickeneth, we can go forth with the gospel of the grace of God in the hope that God will cause some, by nature turned away, to be turned unto Him and to believe to the saving of the soul. Election does not determine the extent of missions but the results of it. We are to preach to every creature because God has commanded, and because it pleases Him to save sinners by the foolishness of preaching. We believe more in election than the Anti-mission Baptists. We believe that God elected means of salvation as well as persons to salvation. He did not choose to save sinners apart from the gospel ministry. Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Election gives a saneness to evangelism that is greatly needed today. It recognizes that sinners “believe through grace” (Acts 18:27) and that while Paul may plant and Apollos may water, God gives the increase. Arminianism has had its day among Baptists and what has it done? It has given us man-power, but robbed us of God’s power. It has increased machinery but has decreased spirituality. It has filled our churches with Ishmaels instead of Isaacs by its ministry of “sob stuff” and with the methods of the “counting house”. If this little tract need further Scriptural support, the following Scriptures will give it: Psa 65:4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple. Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. John 6:44-45 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. John 17:1-2 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. Mat 11:25-26 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 2 Cor 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Arminianism? www.gospelcom.net/thehighway//Arminianism_Exposed2.html

Subject: Your prayers are needed
From: Vernon
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 17:25:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Friends In Christ, I am going through heavy attack from the forces of darkness.Satan is trying to bring my household down. I know this is not a question of theology, But it is a request that each of you will join me in prayer to defeat this attack upon me from satan 's army. Let me tell you the story..... My wife has been taking care of her suck mother for 14 years. She has been very faithful in doing so. I have seen my wife go from a size 12-13 to a size 8 and with a face without a smile to a face full of stress. I tried to have go to get medical help and she refused. Now she has taken her mother to her sister's for care. By the way, this sister and bother have been no help to my wife.The mother was very demmanding and had no care at all for my wife. It has finally come down on my wife. She said she has lost all feeling of any emontion such as love and like. She said she had to get away to find herself. To find out whom she is. She told me that 'I do love you even though tkink in a strange way. I tell you, I feel empty inside. I do know there is love for you in my heart, so , please do not give up on me? My wife is in Nashville Tn. I have spoken to her and she getting along ok.But she still seems confused. I need your prayers in this matter and if any of you can advise me, I am hear to listen. In Christ seedsower

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: clark
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 07:27:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vernon-- I truly sympothize with your wife. I took care of my mother-in-law for 14 years. She moved in with us after just 2 years of marriage. I was young and hadn't established my place as wife, therefore she walked all over me. She wasn't happy when the children came along, it was as if we did this to torment her. I didn't have any support from anyone. My husband didn't take the leader role and allowed her to say anything she wanted to me, I was to take it and just not care. I can tell you it is hard. Your wife is probably totally drained. You need to take the lead and comfort her. Allow her to now have some sort of life. This is not an attack from the forces of darkness, but a challege to you to help her through this difficult time. She is probably feeling guilty about 'not being the caretaker' and relieved that she isn't. I went through this. I knew it was my duty to care for my mother-in-law, no matter how hard it was, but when she died I had the guilt feeling of 'I'm so glad its over' and the sadness of 'She is gone'. It takes a while to regroup. Tell your wife how proud you are of her for doing the right thing in a difficult situation. And apologize for not helping enough or being supportive enough. And support her as she re-adjusts to having her life again. It is going to be harder for her because her mother is still living and I'm sure she is feeling guilty about 'abandoning' her. Even though it is a sibling who is now taking the responsiblity--she just may be feeling like she abandoned her mother in the time of need.

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: vernon
To: clark
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 02:48:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Clark, I understand what you are saying. I have seen my wife take abuse from her mother. But I was the one who was not allowed by my wife to say anything in her behalf. I was never allowe to voice any measure of thought at all. I stood with my wife every step of the way. I gave up many job offers to accomendate my wife so that she could take care of her mother. I have been in contact with her and so has my daughter and she has told us that she may want to get a job in Nashville TN. and stay down there. We live in Maryland. Clark, she has said that she enjoys her freedom and not having to worry about anyone but herself. She said she did not even know if she wants to stay married. I am sorry, I went through 14 years of the same hell with this woman. I have been faithful,and treated her very good. Now she says this. I do not understand. She did say she had to return and get the rest of her things. Also, she said that she may go to counseling.My hope is, that she will. I have talked to a very good friend who runs the psychological department at John's Hopkins she said, that my wife is at the eary stages of clincal depression or at the med stages of this sickness and going through the change of life. I hope God will bring my wife to peace with-in her self and give me the ability to deal with this thing. My wife is now down to a size seven. One good thing, she has noticed this also. I pray and hope is God to bring all this to its right place in Him. In Christ Vern

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: john hampshire
To: vernon
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 23:14:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vernon, If you want to know what you did wrong (and you did) and why your wife is behaving as she is, and how to do things right, go here: http://www.fhu.com/ Take the time to learn where your problems come from and how they get fixed. Hope you will take advantage of the help that can get you back on the right track again. It isn't for everyone, you must want to know! john

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: clark
To: vernon
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 05:34:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vernon-- Whether or not you were supportive is not the issue. It is that the main care-taker is always the main care-taker and has no time off (at least mentally). If you let her have a day off, it would never be truly enjoyed as if she weren't caring for her mother. It is a totally different life. Until you have been in the role you can't understand the mind set. Yes, you did many things that were right for your wife. You gave up job opportunities--but she gave up her whole entire being. And because her mother is still alive she is still on duty, even if she is running right now. You say you went through 14 year of hell with this woman--not 14 years of marriage in which she was the type of person who WOULD care for her elderly mother--hmmm. The one thought that kept me sane through my time was that my husband cared enough about another person to want to live the way we did--and this translates into he would do the same for me if I were to get sick, and he won't desert me when I am old. Hopefully, she will be able to talk to someone who can help her through this very difficult time--maybe you need some help too. Just know that it is very hard to be the care taker and then suddenly not be the care taker, especially when you realize you have given up so much of your life--I gave up my 20's and most of my 30's to this woman, the time when I was supposed to be maturing and becoming an adult, the time when we were supposed to be maturing our marriage, the time when my kids were small. This is a hard thing to realize and live with. I say these thing not for pity on my end but to help you see your wife's situation and maybe understand her behavior. So I guess the question comes down to: Are you going to stick by her and support her, even when she herself has turned away? Are you going to take on the major role of primary care-taker for her? Can you do what she has done for 14 year with her mother? It takes a very strong person to willingly step into this role. It won't be easy, it will take time--but isn't that what marriage is about--commitment. Remember, we are like your wife to Christ. We have a difficult time and we want to run and hide, but He is faithful and still cares for us and loves us enough not turn His back on us, even when we do foolish and out of character stunts. You have the role of Christ in you home. You have to be willing to 'take it' and still care, still nurture, still love despite the situation. Look for comforting word--Not things like you have abandon me. Look at all I gave up for you and so on. The question comes down to do you want her back and how much will you do to accomplish this goal. She is, as your friend has said, in a state of clinical depression--remember this. I don't mean to be harsh, but to help you see the situation from one who has actually lived through what your wife has lived through. And you can never know how hard it is until you have been the primary care-taker. clark

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: Rod
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 21:35:21 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Vern, This is obviously an excruciating situation. Our hearts do go out to you and, while we don't feel the pain with the intensity you do, we are in sympathy and prayer support. You personally can't probably do much as far as your wife is concerned , except what you are doing, pray that the Lord will bring her back and restore her proper attitude. We join you in that. The one thing you can do is to seek the Lord's counsel on this in prayer, and through the support of others. It is imperative that you share this burden with someone close to you, one whom you know will listen and share your sorrow. I pray that God will give you such a man (or a woman who is a close relative) who can just talk to you and sit with you sometimes in this fearsome situation. It's important that, hurting as you are, being wounded and bewildered, you don't withdraw from life. You must eat right and exercise (to help keep the proper balance in life) and you must participate in something you enjoy, preferably with friends, which will relieve your mind of the constant ache and source of sorrow. I know that probably doesn't appeal to you right now, but it is necessary. You can't keep playing the same old 'tapes' in your mind 24 hours a day. Seek God's face in this. Don't be afraid to tell Him exactly how you feel (He knows already). May the Lord bring your family back to unity in the Lord and may His Spirit, Who intercedes with groanings which cannot be uttered, the spirit Who indwells every believer, translate your needs and desires and emotions to the Father and the Son and bring you peace.

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: Vernon
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 03:05:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Rod, This all deeply hurts and you are right in all you have said. I can not do nothing to change this situation ecept rely on God to bring it to its right place. No, I do not want to lose site that I am a Child of God's and I must hear Him through all this. Thank You Vernon

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: stan
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 20:11:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't have any advice, but know you aren't alone in this sort of thing. Many Christian men have faced it and found the Lord adequate to the situation. I can't count the women over the last few years that have gone off to find themselves - still trying to find out exactly what that means. I suspect it is related to being totally drained. Don't know what denom. you are but there are a lot of Godly pastors that do well at counsel and some denom. are setting up family coun. centers to assist. If you could contact a church in your denom/group where your wife is they might be able to aim you toward some assistance for your wife. Prayers are with you!

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: Anne
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 18:34:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Vernon, indeed you and your wife have my prayers! Bless her heart . . . . .caring for her ill mother for 14 years? No wonder the poor lamb is exhausted in spirit. I'm glad she is making her sister carry some of the load, at last. I fear any advice I gave would be worth precisely what it cost you, so I'll refrain from offering any. My thoughts and prayer you have in full measure, though. Anne

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: Vernon
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:33:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Than you Ann, It is hard for both of us, But I pray God will keep me in prayer and I pray He will bring this all to the ends and all will be rightly molded by His works and not mine. In Christ Vernon

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: lindell
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 07:37:40 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net

Message:
Dear Vernon, Will do. Casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you. Tis quite a declaration by Peter concerning the Saviors love for His children. Bask in the limelight of it if you can for we are not abandoned by Him ever, not for the smallest amount of time.

Subject: Re: Your prayers are needed
From: john hampshire
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 10:09:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vernon, I read your situation and it reminds me of something called the empty nest syndrome. Are you familiar with this? A wife will spend most of her life caring for her children and when the last is out of the home, the wife looks around and finds she is old, tired, and alone. There is a time of readjustment, and sometimes resentment is harbored at the lost opportunities. I do not know this, but I could easily imagine your wife needing time to square these feelings away. Here comes the advice (that is a warning so you can skip over this part if you like): a husband must be very careful to avoid being needful of his wife. By this I mean you must be strong in the Lord (He knows what's best). Allow your wife to lean on you, do not lean on her for direction or need her love too much. The only source of direction and love a husband really needs is from God. Use the time alone to continue to read and study carefully God's word. Consider what changes you might make to be an even better husband to your wife. Above all, live each day for God, let Him manage things (He is and does anyway), whatever happens is exactly as God desired it, you need only do as you should each day before God. When you feel overcome by uncertainty or worry, tell God in prayer and He is able to provide comfort. **end of advice** I find it a great comfort when in uncertain times and the future seems bleak, that God owns it all! He is in charge of each person so that even when the situation seems dire, we can trust God to manage these things perfectly. When in a valley and the choices are few, there is one thing we can always do: Obey. While we cannot change other people, we can make sure that we are doing exactly what God would have us to do in that moment. Often that is all any wife wants from a husband: a man who says what needs saying and does what needs doing without anger or emotional trappings, simply because it is the right thing to do. This is a husband a wife can lean on for support (he doesn’t lean back). Be strong Vern, all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. If we are a child of God we can bring all our troubles to Him (and leave them there). By the way, you are not as alone as you might think you are (there are some here who have been in similar situations), so despair not. Have you talked with your church pastor? That might be a good idea (oops, more advice). Be strong!! 'Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.' john

Subject: Soveriegn Grace and Man's...
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 14:17:59 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
I came accross a sermon by Spurgeon at the follow site, called 'Soveriegn Grace and Man's responcibility', enjoy. Maybe it could be a start of another discussion. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm Tom

Subject: Re: Soveriegn Grace and Man's...
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 17:22:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>Maybe it could be a start of another discussion. Tom, allow me to try: Spurgeon said: I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. These sermons are tough going, it is difficult to be sure what Surgeon was inferring as so often the words are flowery. If man’s actions are even a small part his own, then certainly God cannot preside over all providence. Perhaps he meant it appears that man does as he pleases so that it appears that man can do as he wills to a large degree. Spurgeon said: and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. If man is free enough to be responsible it is not necessary to conclude that he is free to somehow reachout to God. Man is free ‘in his nature’, which makes him responsible in the sense he is not restrained by God but restrained by his own desires. He is free to do what he desires, which is evil continually. Though Spurgeon did not say this here, I have read his works elsewhere and he follows this logic. Spurgeon said: The father puts out his hands, and says, 'Come, my child, come; I am ready to forgive you.' The tear is in his eye, and his bowels move with compassion, and he says, 'Come, come.' God says this is what he did—'he stretched out his hands.' That is what he has done to some of you. That God does not prevent the wicked from hearing the truth and preaching goes to the wheat and chaff alike is true. That God has a promise to any who would turn to him and seek forgiveness is true. But it is equally true, and somewhat glossed here, that no man apart from a regenerated spirit has the least desire to seek, more so he has a desire to hide and revile God. The compassion is toward those who are reconciled in Christ, otherwise the Father cannot have compassion but rather He burns in anger. Perhaps Spurgeon was throwing the Arminians a bone here, perhaps he does envision God as being ready to forgive with a tear in His eye, I don’t know, from where I stand I wouldn’t intimate that God weeps in such a manner for the wicked that are not His elect. Spurgeon said: 'Come unto me, come unto me.' But if you still persist in hardening your heart, if still you reject Christ, I beseech you let nothing make you imagine that you shall go unpunished. Here we find Spurgeon hinting that it is the rejection of Christ which places one under God’s wrath. Rather it is the life of rejecting God’s laws and the breaking of these laws that sends one to the lake of fire. If man were responsible for unhardening his heart against God’s plea to come to Him, then certainly man would have room to boast. Knowing Spurgeon does not mean this is one thing, I think he could have laid it out better so as to avoid teasing the Arminian with hope that Spurgeon has found some value in their doctrines, something he must have known could be twisted as such. In any case, he has split the Sovereignty of God from the responsibility of man in such a manner as to lay open the possibility of heretical ideas. They are not, as he stated, two parallel lines which converge in the distance, they are ONE line—God dominating man every inch of the way. john

Subject: Re: Soveriegn Grace and Man's...
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 22:38:17 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.ne

Message:
Actually some of the things Spurgeon, said surprised me.

Subject: God's jealousy (a brief reflection)
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 07:09:08 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I have recently been reading books on the attributes of God, and one that has been new for me has been His divine jealously. 'My name is Jealous!' Mercy. An awe-inspiring thought, is it not? Add together His jealousy and His election of His chosen people, and that is a powerful, explosive mixture! And humbling in the extreme. Me? He's jealous for ME? He really, really cares if I don't pay enough attention to Him? If I put something ahead of Him, even for a brief time? The thought that He chose me is a shivery thought on its own, but to carry the thought out farther, and realize that having done so, He is as possessive a lover as ever was, is simply . . . . . shattering. Anne

Subject: Please read this
From: mr_larryb
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:58:12 (PST)
Email Address: mr_larryb@yahoo.com

Message:
I have not been here in a very long time and even then I was not very active. I do now and then feel like stopping by to see what is on the menu. I do enjoy this forum and appreciate the people who take the time to run it. Sometimes it seems like there is a lack of love for those who don't believe the same as you. That is not from everyone but some seem to use the word arminian as they would the word dog. I hope that I am not out of line here but I do sometimes see a real pride in the posts. Please don't forget that all things come from Christ and without Him you have nothing. That should not leave any room for pride or boasting that you have the Truth and someone (less enlightened) does not. The heart (if it is the same as that of Christ's) should be humbly thankful for God's grace and mercy (for we didn't not teach ourselves Christ) and torn in two with grief at those who are misled. I don't always see that heart here. One last thing. I have come to believe that while theology is very important and what you believe guides how you behave toward Christ, it is not THE most important thing. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Christ is still ultimately more important than dogma. People can know Christ without knowing all of the intricate details of our theologies. It would be wonderful if some of the wiser people in here started to include a practical application (for edification) along with the defense of their beliefs. Thanks again to the 'bosses' for the time and effort put in here. And if God puts in on your heart pray for me.

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: john hampshire
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:41:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>'Let's not lose sight of the fact that Christ is still ultimately more important than dogma. People can know Christ without knowing all of the intricate details of our theologies' Sorry Larry, I don't get it? How do we understand God apart from theology: carefully studying Scripture and learning from each other? Do you mean we should 'feeel' God in music and preaching and get a happy 'feeeeeling' from it? Certainly churches today would agree with this: to be close to God is to have an emotional episode. The truth however is that if we want to be close to God then we must obey, and to obey God we must understand what God has said via His Word, there are no shortcuts. As for being too harsh with Arminianists, I am harsh, but rather than being hatred it is kindness. You wonder how? Well, the truth cannot be watered-down to please men, to do that is to love men more than God. So my affections rest with God and not people, in other words: we love people most when we are truthful with them. Arminianism is a lie, to preach it is to hate people!, in it we are hiding truth from the spiritually sick (and ourselves) so that they should die (God overruling all this). We would never think well of a physician who told a dying cancer patient 'Once you believe you are well you will not die'. So the patient prays and try’s to believe through much effort, even thinking they will not die, and then--bingo, they die. Is it love for a physician to lie to a patient? Would it not be preferable to have the doctor say, 'You are not just sick, you are going to die', when that is the truth? I know it hurts peoples feelings and mars their self-esteem, but if you want to follow the example of a Truthful Person who hurt feelings by laying it out plainly, perhaps you might consider the Great Physician, he was more than blunt. In any case, anyone who holds to truth will be considered arrogant and unloving (or insensitive, or bigoted, or unfair... insert liberal tag here), it comes with the territory. If we want to be loved of men just be unsure, agreeable, sensitive to their needs, non-judgmental, love them as they are. You might even grow up to be a US President (and become a psychopath loved by millions of adoring psychotics). However, you'll never fulfill your mandate as a Christian and properly represent Him as an ambassador of Christ unless we boldly proclaim truth. The truth hurts, but only if you oppose it. Feel free to discuss this further on this forum, no one has been seriously hurt yet : ) john

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: mr_larryb
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:19:25 (PST)
Email Address: mr_larryb@yahoo.com

Message:
Well, thank you for your response. I would have to agree with you that the church (at present) is too often controled more by emotion and feelings than they are truth. That was not what I am refering to. I would have to ask you then in response to your possition. How much knowlege must I have to be saved? Since you said: 'The truth however is that if we want to be close to God then we must obey, and to obey God we must understand what God has said via His Word, there are no shortcuts. ' You have skipped over Christ entirely with you view. The fact is that knowlege of the law is what causes sin (Romans 7) So the more that you learn about the law and the more that you try to obey the worse off you will become. After all you are trying to obey by shear will not by faith in Christ. Don't forget to read on in Romans when it says that 'if we walk by the Spirit we will not fullfill the desires of the flesh' So knowing Christ and obeying him have nothing to do with knolege but rather faith. Also let me remind you that the NEW covanant speaks of God writing his laws on our hearts. You see, it doesn't take smart people like yourself to know God, it takes rather simple and perhaps desperate people to know God. Desperate because they know what they are and that is weak, powerless, unbelieving, and every other thing that keep us from God. So you don't have to even pick up the Bible to know God. You have to believe Him. To believe Him you would have to in some way be communicated His promises. Promises like; 'Those who seek Me with all of their heart and all of their soul will find me.' Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all of these things will be added unto you.' They would have to believe that righteousness only comes from Christ. You see sir, you anger and hate are not so misdirected when it comes to those who teach and from (your point of view) decieve people. We see this in how Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of the day. 'Brood of vipers' 'Sons of Hell' and that sort of thing. But when speaking to the common man, the sheep, he was more like you discribed later in your post. non-judgemental, love them as they are, agreeable. Yet he did not to do this because he sought the approval of men but rather that by any means some might be saved. Do you see how you might not have the heart of Christ on the matter? Sorry for not quoting whole vss. and perhaps quoting slighly wrong and not giving actuall references, I am limited on time and don't have my Bible @ work with me right now.

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: Vernon
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:49:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello larryb, I have read your post and do agree in what you have explained. Many people are full of knowledge but have not the true faith. I believe the pharisees were such people. But study of the word is commanded by God so that we may know how to handle His word accurately.Nothing wrong and I believe you will agree,If a man has fault in his handling of the word,then, we must correct him. But in love. I will pray for you. In Christ Vernon

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: john hampshire
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 18:05:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Larry, You asked: How much knowledge must I have to be saved? Since I said: 'The truth however is that if we want to be close to God then we must obey, and to obey God we must understand what God has said via His Word, there are no shortcuts. ' I am not answering the question 'what must we do to be saved', I am answering the question 'can we be close to God without doctrine'. But to answer your question: we are saved in one sense when Christ redeemed us by being our substitute, in this we have no part. We are saved in the second sense when God the Holy Spirit regenerates our spirit, this is the application of Christ's sacrifice of which we have no part. We are saved in the third sense when we come to realize our changed nature means we have been adopted into God's family, this realization being the working of our living spirit. >>>You have skipped over Christ entirely with you view. I should hope not! >>>The fact is that knowledge of the law is what causes sin (Romans 7) So the more that you learn about the law and the more that you try to obey the worse off you will become. Exactly! Exactly the case if we are unregenerate, the more we wiggle to free ourselves the deeper we sink. But I was referring to the regenerate, to them doing the law of God is the spirit's pleasure. That is why we cannot draw close to God apart from our regeneration, which God does alone. >>>>>So knowing Christ and obeying him have nothing to do with knowledge but rather faith. What do we have faith in? Faith comes with the living spirit, it is an outcropping of LIFE. If we live we see, grow, and learn, and to the degree we understand we have faith. How can we be devoid of knowledge and believe? >>>>>So you don't have to even pick up the Bible to know God. There are some things given to the unregenerate to know, though they find evolution in creation and chaos out of manifest order, they still have to fight against that which is plainly evident. It is only the regenerate who correctly extrapolate from creation God's nature, the rest create God in man's image. >>>>You see sir, your anger and hate are not so misdirected when it comes to those who teach and from (your point of view) deceive people. I can understand from your point of view my rejection of a false gospel of great evil implies hatred for those people. I cannot convince you otherwise? It is not that Christ was being nice to some folks so that He might save them, He looked at a man's washed spirit (vs those who wash only the outside) and related to those who were His sheep with compassion. But those who were unwashed, those who spread lies and damnable heresies by their evil nature, He confronted and made known their lies. >>>>>>Do you see how you might not have the heart of Christ on the matter? No, I do not see. But how would I know the heart of Christ in any matter, especially if the Bible is unnecessary to gain knowledge and faith can be gained by some other means? I think we see that creation points towards God, and the wicked are without excuse, but to know Christ one must 1) be regenerate 2) study God's word 3) obey God's word. And as the case would be, each one flows from the preceding. Let me know what you think. john

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: mr_larryb
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 23:37:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think that to know Christ one certianly must be regenerated but need not study his word. If I travel to a far off land and live with natives that do not have a written language. Must we create for them a language before they can know God? Do they have to have something to read? Or do we have to teach them English so that they can read our Bible and then know God. I don't think that is necissary. Once again it is what God does and not what Man does. The promises of God for all things revolve around being 'in Christ' and having 'Christ in us.' I do agree that much study should be put into the Bible if possible, but it is by no means necissary to know God. Especially for those who God leads in that direction. Apart from creation you can know God without reading the Bible. What ever do you think the 5,000 to 7,120 new believers in Acts did with no Bible. Not even letters from the Apostles yet. They heard the gospel from men in the spirit and believed. Yet somehow they managed to be Christians. >>>>But how would I know the heart of Christ in any matter, especially if the Bible is unnecessary to gain knowledge and faith can be gained by some other means?<<<<< You can know the heart of Christ because you have that heart within you. (if you have him). That doesn't take knowlege. You can have faith by the same means. Christianity isn't about 'blind faith' or faith in facts like those that come from knowlege. Faith comes from exsperienceing God. Seeing his patients, faithfulness, mercy. This too has nothing to do with reading the Bible. Having said all of that. There is not excuse (in this country) for not spending some serious time in the word of God, that is if you are able. i.e literate, and not mentaly disabled. Now should everyone be exspected to understand all of the ins and outs of this and that counsels declerations of Faith. No Way. They would often be better spending there time in Prayer than trying to wrestle with things that God knows they do not need. Not everone needs to be a teacher, preacher or evangelist. As for the damnable haresies, the son's of hell, brood of vipers or whatever you would like to call them. You will not ever convince one of them that you have been enlighted with the truth and they decieved while the name calling and attacks continue. Not that I for a momement think I could disuade you. What is your desire for you enemy? Do you pray for them? If you pray for them with sincer hope that they will come to the truth you would show more love toward them. If you have not love....

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: Pilgrim
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 10:53:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
mr_larryb,
Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding you, but it seems that you are espousing some modified form of 'Incarnation Theology and Crisis Theology' that was introduced by the Neo-Orthodox theologians of the early 1900's. While you do affirm rightly that all those who profess Christ, 'Having said all of that. There is not excuse (in this country) for not spending some serious time in the word of God, that is if you are able.' Of course, the Lord Christ was quite clear on this matter when He said, ' Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;' (Joh 8:31). It is a true mark of grace that if one professes to love Christ then he MUST and WILL continue to read, study and pray over God's infallible Word. (physical and mental abilities being assumed). But you also make a very odd statement when you wrote, 'I do agree that much study should be put into the Bible if possible, but it is by no means necissary to know God.' It seems you are saying that God can be known apart from either the Natural Creation or God's Special Creation; the written Word. While it is true that Christ's Spirit is given to all believers, as He is the One Who quickens the dead soul in man, implants faith in the newly created 'heart of flesh' and perpetually 'resides' in the soul from thence forth, it is not true that the Spirit 'teaches all things' apart from God's Word. For in fact, it is the Spirit AND the Word, working in conjunction with each other that a believer is brought to know God and the things of God. Faith increases with the knowledge of God which is to be found in the Scriptures (cf. Col 1:9,10; Rom 12:2; Eph 1:17-19; 4:11-14; 2Tim 3:16,17; 1Pet 2:2). When you speak of coming to know God, you appear to have wandered from the biblical path into this 'Crisis Theology'. It is from yet other statements that I perceive this even more: 'Apart from creation you can know God without reading the Bible. What ever do you think the 5,000 to 7,120 new believers in Acts did with no Bible. Not even letters from the Apostles yet. They heard the gospel from men in the spirit and believed. Yet somehow they managed to be Christians.' What needs to be addressed here is the fact that the 'oral proclamation' of the Gospel by the Apostles and disciples of Christ were the 'seed' of what was later to be put into writing some 25 years later (Mark's Gospel estimated time of transcription being c. 55-56 A.D.). The effectual working of the Spirit working with the Word preached during the early times of the Christian Church is not to be misconstrued due to the historical circumstances. The record that Dr. Luke preserved by the attendance of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2Pet 1:19-21) when he wrote the book of 'Acts' shows that the disciples and particularly focusing upon the labours of Paul, continued to teach the truth of God in all places to those who believed. This 'teaching' for the most part later became the Written Word. Thus it is necessary now as it was then that the Written Word be disseminated to believers as their 'meat and drink'. (cf. Psa 119; Joh 17:17 [Christ's prayer was that His sheep may be sanctified in the truth]). Further, the accounts of what was spoken by Peter in his 'Pentecostal sermon' and later 'sermons' by others are at best partial accounts; having only the essence of what was actually said, as also the Gospel accounts record only those things which Christ spoke as God saw was necessary. The Apostles and disciples did not practice the contemporary practice of speaking in 10 second sound bytes and then have an 'altar call' to those who wanted 'Jesus to come into their hearts.' Notice the biblical record here, ' And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.' (Acts 2:40-42) There was a good deal of 'information' (truth) spoken by Peter and the Apostles to those who were present that day that is not included in this account. Neither is that 'doctrine' which was taught by them preserved. But I will venture to say that what was taught that day is in fact recorded in essence in the other Epistles of the Scripture. You also wrote, 'Faith comes from exsperienceing God. Seeing his patients, faithfulness, mercy. This too has nothing to do with reading the Bible.' The Scriptures deny this statement clearly in myriad places, for 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. ' (Rom 1:16, 17; 10:17; Col 1:4-6; 1Thess 2:13; 2Thess 2:13-15). How does one know if they are 'experiencing God'apart from what God has said in His Word? Shall we trust our hearts? (Jer 10:23; 17:9; Prov 28:26). All 'experiences' must be scrutinized by the Scripture's doctrine, for it is in the Scriptures that God has revealed Himself and His works so that we might know Him and avoid the many lies of the Devil and the deceit of our own hearts. Yes, it is the 'in thing' today to 'experience God'; to be led by the Spirit without the restraints of doctrine. But this is NOT biblical Christianity; it never was and never will be how Christ's followers live out their days on this earth. Faith grows most when the doctrine of the Word is applied and experienced in life. It was one of the mandates of the Father given to the Son that He impart to the first disciples God's Word: Joh 17:6 'I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.' Let us remember, that the primary duty of all those who profess Christ is to worship Him. And those who would truly worship Him must worship Him 'in spirit and truth'; Truth being that which is found ONLY in God's inerrant and infallible Word, of which not one jot nor tittle shall pass away until all things be fulfilled.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: mr_larryb
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 04:10:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well I guess that is about if for me on here. You see my problem is that I am a simple man. Pilgrims response was off little use to me for a couple of reasons. One, it is way over my head, and two, I simply don't have time to go on at that sort of length. I was reading 1 John last night. I think around Ch 2: VS. 23 or so...he spoke that no man need to teach you but the anointing that you have will teach you. I also think back to somewhere where it said ' the Spirit of Truth will lead you into all truth' That is the heart of what I was trying to say. Just for the record. My heart when I came in here again was to learn. That was it, not to try to convince or argue but learn. I wanted something practical to grasp onto. I am not espousing and sort of far out theology and if I am I am not smart enough to know it. I am to simple minded for that sort of thing. I am simply left to reading my Bible and believing what it says. So I am to simple to learn and you are too wise to teach me. When I say that I don't have time, I don't mean any disrespect. I really don't have time. I have about 30 min a week that I can squeeze in computer time. Well 4 am...off to work. Actually I am at work, time to get going. Thanks for trying to set me straight, sorry I am not smart enought to get it. -Larry

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: Pilgrim
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 19:09:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Larry,
It is rather sad that you have reacted to what I wrote in the manner you have. I can understand how one may seem intimidated by what I wrote if indeed they are a 'simple man'. But then again, after just having read my own words, taking your consternation in all seriousness and wondering if I had written some things that were indeed 'hard to understand', I am rather puzzled as to what it was in fact that you found to be 'over your head'? Granted, my writings are hardly to be compared with the Apostle Paul's inspired Epistles, but even Peter was inspired to write that some of Paul's writings were 'hard to understand.' So this being true, does a true disciple of Christ therefore: 1) ignore any and all passages of Scripture that are 'over their heads'? 2) Deem them irrelevant and/or unnecessary? 3) Castigate God the Spirit for including such difficult things in the Word which He should have known were going to be hard to understand? 4) Refuse the intake of meat and rely on a steady diet of 'milk' to sustain him? If it is true that you are of the mind to learn, then would not the normal thing to do in such situations as this be to further your edification/education by asking for clarification concerning those things which you feel are 'over your head'? Goodness! If I had taken your methodology and applied it to those professors that I sat under, that being to simply walk away in disappointment and/or disgust because they were talking/teaching things that were 'over my head', I think that I would have quit school the first day. :-) Being 'simple' is not an excuse for not wrestling with God's Word in those places which challenge our intellect and/or our walk before the Lord. We are to come before the throne of Grace, and pour out our hearts and confess our 'dullness' of hearing and our failure to comprehend what God has spoken. For 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. May I lovingly admonish you to reconsider 'walking away' due to my 'hard sayings' for it may be that this is a danger signal to you for even further consideration. Again, I would dare not even think of comparing anything I have to say with the words of the Lord Christ, but by way of illustration, let me bring to your recollection a situation where the Lord Christ was teaching many who professed His name and found themselves in a similar situation? This is a partial account of that event:
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? . . . 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. . . . 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.'
I pray that you can see the lesson to be learned here from this inspired record. There are MANY 'hard things' what you will hear in life that are of the doctrine of God, both from the reading of God's wondrous Word and from others. To be 'simple' and walk away from them may in fact bring alienation from Christ rather than communion with Him. Here my brother is one of those 'experiences' which I believe God has brought to you so that you may indeed 'know Him' more completely than you have so known Him previous to this time. It may in fact be a calling to you to 'grow in grace' so that you will not later 'groan in disgrace', having turned your back on some of the 'hard sayings' of truth of which the Scriptures contain myriad instances of. Therefore, I ask you to reconsider your flight and press on as a true disciple of the Lord Jesus and thereby be 'transformed by the renewing of your mind.'
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: Rod
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:15:56 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Larry, I would like to see you stick around. Let me ask you to do this: Carefully compare the passage in 1 John you mentioned about not needing that any man teach you with Eph. 4: 11-16, where men are clearly to teach for the 'edification of the church' and 'equipping of the saints.' Do you see a contradiction here? (Hint: There is no contradiction. God gave men to teach, including the Apostle John who wrote, 'ye need not that any man teach you'!) There is a resolution to this apparent 'problem' in the Scriptures. What did God mean, giving men as 'pastors and teachers' and also inspiring John to say that 'ye need not that any man teach you'? Did God make a mistake and provide 'unnecessary' gifts to His gifted men? I think you should stay and seek the answer.

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 13:58:56 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, a most excellent presentation! Thank you. And I do praise God for people such as yourself whom God has raised up and gifted to be able to present His truths so clearly. I was stricken by a few thoughts as I read your reply. One was this. In the Bible, it is said, 'And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presensce of his disciples, which are not written in this book; But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name' (John 20:30-31). According to the bald truth of that statement, 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God' (Rom. 10:17). As you emphasized so well, the Word of God is always coupled with the action of the Spirit for the benefit of the believer, in 'saving faith' and in the 'sustaining faith' we receive as God's gift. (Need I add that conviction of sin and correction is part of God's 'sustaining' action? See Heb. 12:3-15.) In the instance of salvation, according to John 3:1-13, the 'heavenly mystery' (my term) is that the action of the Word of Truth (in this case standing right in front of Nicodemus) is employed by the Spirit of God (who proceeds from the Father and the Son--Rom. 8:9) to cleanse the human object of God's grace ('born of water') and to create the new spiritual life necessary for salvation ('and the Spirit'). Isn't that what Paul meant exactly when he summed up Eph. 2:2-10 by saying, 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (verse 10) ? Man is not 'self-made' spiritually, he is 'created (by God) in Christ Jesus' by the action of the Triune God and particularly by the procreative act of the Spirit of God, the 'new birth.' The person who has that grace bestowed on him also has the benefit of other spirtually healthy actions of the Spirit within him, not the least of which is that God the Spirit will be his ultimate Teacher, guiding him, as he is submitted to God's will and leadership, into 'all truth' (John 16:13-15). This is an unspeakably marvelous thing! The Lord God Himself, the Spirit of the holy God, is within each of His own and is there to teach them about Himself, particularly glorifying the Son to the glory of the Father. I don't exaggerate when I say, 'That makes me want to shout for joy!' And I'm not especially given to 'ecstatic' displays. Looking deeper into the Word of God, we see that John pronounces a fact which many have misinterpreted, but, when applied correctly, it teaches a most wonderful truth about our relation to the Bible and it's revealed truth. That is found in 1 John 2:24-27. I quote verse 27: 'But the annointing [of the Holy Spirit Who sanctifies] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same annointing teacheth you of all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.' We would expect this Apostle to speak of 'abiding in Christ,' based on the explicit teaching of the Lord Jesus in John 15:1-14. How could we expect to 'abide in Him' without being taught His truth from the Word of God? The evidence of the 'abiding,' the intimate closeness to Him, is 'do[ing] whatever I command you' (verse 14). Now, if we have not the need for 'any man' to teach us, why are there preachers and teachers of God's Word? The actual true interpretation of that principle is this: We have been gifted by God with certain people who are to teach His Church for its 'edification' (See Eph. 4:11-16). The thing to realize is that, by our study of the Scriptures and the leadership of the indwelling Spirit, we will recognize a true teacher from God and be able to denounce false teaching. This is the meaning of Acts 17:11: 'These [Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things be so.' These people weren't searching the Scriptures to prove Paul wrong, they were verifying his teaching by the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge of the Scriptures is, by being coupled with the prayer to God for enlightenment and illumination, the means by which the Spirit of God teaches us about the marvelous grace and holiness and justice of God. He gave us the Bible so that we could understand it, with His help. Let us all honor Him by striving to do so.

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: john hampshire
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 08:55:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Larry, You said: I think that to know Christ one certainly must be regenerated but need not study his word. What do you learn about God without studying the Bible, or having it preached to you? How does simply living day to day teach you all about God? Or why is this not important for every Christian? >>>>Must we create for them [natives] a language before they can know God? Do they have to have something to read? Actually yes, or a preacher. They will need a Bible in a language they understand to grow in Christ or at a minimum someone to explain these things. We mustn't think that the apostles or the early church was without God's word, they certainly had the Scriptures [OT] and the exhortation of men of God [plus the [NT] as it was being written]. They met each Sunday to read Scripture, sing spiritual songs and study under a teacher. >>>>You can know the heart of Christ because you have that heart within you. You will have to explain how that works, what do you mean? >>>>> Faith comes from experiencing God. How do you believe we experience God, are you speaking of certain manifestations? >>> Not everyone needs to be a teacher, preacher or evangelist. True, not everyone is called to an office within the church, but that does not mean that Christians can get along fine without studying the Scriptures. You seem to be drawing conclusions based on something that you believe occurs to build faith without the Bible. Do you believe in dreams, visions, tongues, signs and wonders, miracles from God today? >>>> You will not ever convince one of them [unregenerate] that you have been enlighted with the truth and they deceived while the name calling and attacks continue. Actually I would never convince anyone of anything except God first regenerate their spirit to receive these things. Regardless, I have no use for name calling or attacks, as you say, I do neither. I know many Arminians who feel attacked when their theology came unraveled, but should I feel sad because they may for the first time be coming aware that they have believed in a false hope. No, rather I am happy (and unconcerned) with their fussing, I have been faithful to God's word and whether they reject it or not is between God and them. You see this as ego no doubt, that of course is your privilege. I do not let people off the hook theologically, so to speak, not because I want to rub their face in the dirt, but frankly because it is the nature of believers to love truth. I am not lording it over them, I say what I know and move on, I do not force myself upon the unbeliever [I leave that to the Arminian]. >>>>>What is your desire for you enemy? Do you pray for them? In this life we are to love our enemy [the unbeliever]. As I asked before, how do we show this love, by loving people just as they are?, then you have friendship with the world and enmity with God! Love is action not emotion, it is correcting, teaching, witnessing the truth to the lost. If they feel threatened, upset, angry, tormented: GOOD!, perhaps they will wake up [if God wills it]. For the lost I pray that God's will be done not mine, my actions can only be the watering of the plant that God has created. You might think that a good Christian prays God to save this one and that one. Rather, a good Christian prays that God does His good pleasure, and that I remain an obedient and faithful witness. Even if I were not completely accurate, preaching some things incorrectly, it is to the degree I know them; it is the comparing of Scripture with Scripture with anyone seeking truth that builds faith--is so we both might learn. By the way, I sometimes find on this forum that certain seemingly misguided statements get pounced on (with words like heretic used) rather quickly. Perhaps I am more patient or tolerant than some, but also, I do not know the long history of some perennial posters here who hold false doctrine and the trouble they have caused here in the past. Other times a seemingly harmless post will have couched in its wording some incorrect doctrine. Wrong doctrine gets exposed quickly, even when hidden in right doctrine, that is as it should be. Believe it or not, some posters here are looking for truth and are happy to find correction [as I am if I am corrected]. I would much rather be corrected than loved as I am, if I wanted acceptance more than truth how could I call myself a Christian [a follower of Christ]? Let me know if I name call or displaying hatred, obviously your definition and mine are quite different. john

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: laz
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 08:23:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
LarryB - you said: Faith comes from exsperienceing God. Seeing his patients, faithfulness, mercy. This too has nothing to do with reading the Bible. This is exactly why we must read our Bibles for there alone do we find God, who He really is and what He expects from us. Faith comes NOT by experience (if I understood you correctly)... Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? While God can save an elect infant in utero, or a deaf or a retarded person .... the normative means is thru God's Word proclaimed, understood and received by God-given faith. You also said: They would often be better spending there time in Prayer than trying to wrestle with things that God knows they do not need. Not everone needs to be a teacher, preacher or evangelist Again, I hope I have not misundertood you..but are you suggesting that we are to pray and wait to receive God's responses via fiat, tiny voices, 'words of knowledge,'...etc? Or do you believe as I that God speaks to us (and responds to our prayers) PRIMARILY thru His Word (the Bible) and so we need to be immersed in Scripture? Is not the purpose of prayer to seek and do God's will in all things ... and where else can we find God's will 'cept in God's Word? (Duet 29:29) In Him, laz

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: lindell
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:07:27 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net

Message:
Dear larry, The content of your letter has been expressed before on the Highway by others. And you will receive the same salvos as they did. You will be treated no differently. In defense of the Highway, it seems to me that the majority of folks here claim that they want to glorify the Savior and to edify and educate each other and whoever else may pass by the way. And from many of the letters, it is difficult to determine if it is the Lord who is being exalted or self. There have been and always will be the agitators who come along the way and stir up quite a hornets nest. They usually are Arminian in their religious thinking. After a few rounds with them, the language on both sides gets to be less than perfect. But if you can hang around long enough, you will learn the different personalities here and they will grow on you. In a nutshell, discernment is what is probably neglected. A person who is sincerely wanting to know some issues should be viewed in a different light than those who are dyed in the wool apostates such as jdwells and the Oklahoma nut who was here last year. But the bottom line should always be truth spoken out of a heart of love. The welfare of the other person should always be foremost in the heart of the mentor. Some folks just plain don't know the difference between mentoring and badgering, so it is up to you to exercise your social graces and give us some slack. Some will cause you to declare'brother', and some 'Oh, brother.'

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: mr_larryb
To: lindell
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:28:23 (PST)
Email Address: mr_larryb@yahoo.com

Message:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. There is one person here that I have quite a bit of respect for, both for there knowlege and manner. I have seen how the armeniast (sp?) are treated in here and it is often a shame. What if someone was trully searching for the truth. At the first sign of Armeniasm the blasting begins. When the opportunity exists for atleast something to be learned. I don't blame the wariours in there zeal, I was there once. I hope that I have a fuller measure of Christ in me that has shown me that my heart was pride. I was sure I was defending His honor but after years of reflection and repentance I see that I was so full of pride and defending my point of view and feeling pleased at the knowlege level that I had attained. As for the soul of the poor person I battered, I did not care. God will change our hearts of we let Him. Of course I seem like a compromised whimp to those who still feel that apearing 'unloving, arrogant, bigoted...ect' is the way to Christ.

Subject: Re: Please read this
From: mr_larryb
To: lindell
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:28:04 (PST)
Email Address: mr_larryb@yahoo.com

Message:
opps hit post twice. sorry

Subject: Lindell, please consider this:
From: Rod
To: lindell
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 09:43:25 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
While it's true that some of us come on very strong (I may be the foremost example of that), it is also useful to know why many of the people here have trouble having patience with the Arminian view. The Arminian view is despicable to one who has been given the realization of the true and sovereign character of God. It is an affront to God and to His revealed, declared Word, being a contradiction of direct declarations of the Bible. Having been largely Arminian in my 'theology' for the first several years of my Christian life, I know that I now can't stand what I once was convinced was truth. Furthermore, and please hear this, many Arminians actively hate, sovereign grace and are offensive in the extreme to us who believe it. I know this because I was in that camp also. I also have been ridiculed and called some pretty nasty things to my face and in print because of my sovereign grace stance--that happens regularly and it happens frequently. I could refer you to some posts made in the last two days on another board to that effect. My salvation has been brought into question, along with my intelligence, and everything I hold dear in God has been reviled. And that by one claiming to be a Christian! And, Lindell, please consider this in regard to the nature of the posts. Some of us are naturally more forceful (or maybe strident) than others, who are more 'laid back.' It is a distinct disadvantage not to be able to look at the person one is addressing and to give, as well as hear, inflections of the voice, to see his face and he yours. I often find that people perceive what I say exactly the opposite of the way that I meant it, though I think I'm 'speaking' perfectly clearly. That is very frustrating and I make a conscious effort to guard against being misunderstood, though it still happens. Your post shows a thoughtful and reflective nature. I appreciate that and I hope you will reflect on this.

Subject: Re: Lindell has considered
From: lindell
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 17:03:14 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net

Message:
Dear Rod, I have indeed traveled the same road as you and it is a journey that will never change as long as you and I live. Having the right doctrine is the fundamental of the faith in the Lord. The issue at hand is not in the doctrine but in the presentation of the doctrine. When men and women come to the Highway for help along the way, they come with a variety of reasons. Why not treat them as you would a child and nurture them for a ways. If they become argumentative and slanderous, then by all means lower the cannons and let them have it. The problem as I see it is that I become so accustomed to a hostile people that after awhile I see everyone as an potential enemy and miss opportunities of helping someone along the way. If my only reason for dialogue is to impress other folks with my theological and philosophical delivery, then I have missed the boat. There seems to be a few folks in this world who are always looking for some reason to go into their spiels, and it isn't to help a person in need, but to exalt themselves. There are times when the applause of men is a curse and not a blessing because after awhile they expect it and start believing that they are indeed the cats meow. Rod, it is not my intention to encourage you or anyone else into a spirit of a watered down gospel. But in order to help folks, you have to meet them where they are at and move along at a steady and truthful pace. I long to see a day when I find a man or woman testify that they came to the Lord from what they learned of Him on the Highway.

Subject: Another consideration
From: Rod
To: lindell
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:41:50 (PST)
Email Address: Na

Message:
lindell, I can't remember to whom I posted something like this before, so I apologize if I'm being repetitive. The things you have said are, of course, what we'd like to strive for. But is it absolutely necessary for one to have the recipient's best interest at heart for people to be benefitted by God and His Word? The answer is, prehaps surprisingly, 'no.' Jonah is the outstanding example of God's delivering His Word of truth to a people by a hostile prophet. He didn't want to go to Nineveh, he didn't deliver the message in 'love,' and he was sarcastic and not submissive to God completely to the end of the revelation we have about him. God's will is going to be accomplished in spite of us. Does that give us license to be obnoxious? No, but it does prove that the method of presentation isn't the primary thing.

Subject: Re: Lindell, please consider this:
From: mr_larryb
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:44:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well Rod, it is true you were on my mind a bit with my post. I really do respect your passion for the truth, and you are right posts really don't show that heart of the man writing them. Emotions run hot on both sides. I have sat down with many people and seen some get really hot when discussing something so personal, I don't do that anymore. It is amazingly hard to convince someone that they have been decieved or are error in the first place, with out the seasoning of Salt I think it will never happen. Especially online when you don't know the person. I mean really, why would I believe someone that I don't know when those I do know (love and trust) cannot do the job. It all seems sort of pointless sometimes. Not pointless if people are able to walk away and better understand each other and continue to work on it. Perhaps even building a relationship. I had a friend at one time who believe quite the opposite that I do. We got together often and hashed it out. It never got heated but it did get mind boggling at times. He was able to help me grow and I believe that I was able to do the same for Him. We don't to this day agree. But we both desire to see God glorified in our lives, we both desire to be wholly given to Christ, to crusify the sinful nature, to learn to walk by the Spirit. We also belive that one of us was a false teacher (him, I don't teach. ha ha). My point is ( and a long time getting to it, sorry) What if the people of this room became like minded to build relationships with those who are opposed and from there, see what happens. It is the loss of this room to not take the opportunity to learn. I wish that I could remember who said ' you can argue someone into the Kingdom and someone will argue them back out.'

Subject: Thanks for the candor
From: Rod
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 19:58:40 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
At the risk of being accused of being totally 'insensitive' in this reply, I have to say your quote, 'You can argue someone into the kingdom, and someone will argue them back out,' isn't correct. Please consider this: '...Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' (John 3: 5, cp. verse 3) It's one of those things which sound good and 'catchy,' but isn't true.

Subject: Re: Thanks for the candor
From: mr_larryb
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 23:56:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The point to that comment wasn't that you can actually argue someone into the kingdom but rather it isn't worth argueing because nobody gets there in that manner. Do you really think that the author of that quote was trying to say that there is salvation by argueing. Or that I would imply the same? Come on now you are smarter than that, this much I know. You sort of missed the point. Which is that the Kingdom of God does not come with argueing about theology. I guess to rephrase; You argue someone into believeing you have the truth and someone (who is smarter than you, if that is possible) will argue them back over to a different point of view. Is that better? O'well. Sort of like parables...you don't need to interpret it literaly all the time. When Jesus said that the 'kingdom of God was like a treasure hidden in a field', did you dig up your back yard to look for it? But you are a sharp guy and I am sure with a few more moments of thought you would have seen the point behind the quote. Besides I think it was Spurgeon that said it. Kidding. Wouldn't want to dis the 'prince of preachers'. I will be sure to avoid any quotes in the future with out careful examination for literal interpritation. I also won't include any stories, illustrations or parables, lest I be misunderstood. Please cut me some slack and try to catch the meaning of things. Yet I am sure that I will continue to prove that I cannot spell to save my life. I mean I don't spell well. I have never had to spell in order to save my spiritual or physical life, I don't believe that salvation comes from good spelling. Just so that I am clear in what I meant when I said that I can't spell to save my life.

Subject: Did I catch you being intolerant and hasty to judge ?
From: Rod
To: mr_larryb
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 06:22:59 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Larry, I don't recall your posting here before. I don't know any of your views as a consequence. I have no frame of reference to know if you believe what you quote or not. I'm literal sort of guy, and I took it that you believed the quote. I'm very glad to hear that you don't believe it literally. I was trying to be neither mean nor 'ugly' and I apologize for misinterpreting your position.

Subject: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:53:51 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I received the following 'joke' from an Arminian friend who just can't grasp the concepts of sovereign grace. She probably didn't even realize that I would find this distasteful. I wonder if it were part of an Arminian preacher's sermon at some point in time? I quote it without further comment (I'm doing this from memory, but I think it's accurate): 'The Fence' God and Satan were on each side of a fence. All humanity was before them. God invited men to come to Him and Satan did the same. When everyone had made their decision, God left with His group and Satan left with his. But there was one man left who sat on the fence, not crossing to one side or the other. Satan returned, and ordered him to, 'Come along.' The man said, 'No, I didn't choose. I'm on the fence.' Satan replied, 'Come along, I own the fence.'

Subject: Speaking about a topic ...
From: Dave B
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:17:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I just had to drop a note to say that I was speaking out on a topic about which I did not realize what the word arminian meant. When I read the threads of conversation it struck a chord and I felt called to say something.I went back to gospelcom.net where I found this site when I was rescearching a topic for a talk I am giving on a Cusillo method weekend.I did a screach on the word arminian and will be doing some more rescreach on this in the future to see exatly where this all fits. I am a member of one of the churches that follow John Wesley's teachings.I wanted to let you know that I did not mean to offend you or any of your beliefs in any way. I believe that God created the heavens and earth and all things that inhabit it. That man sinned and became seperated from Him and He has been patiently waiting every since for us to come back to Him. That He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins, That Jesus died on the cross,desended into Satan's world for three days,was raised from the dead and now sits at the right hand of God in heaven, and that He will judge us one and all on the judgement day, Again I hope I have not offended you or stepped on your beliefs and that some day in the glorius future we will meet face to face and reconcile all our differences into the sameness of Jesus the Christ. Dave B

Subject: Re: Speaking about a topic ...
From: Rod
To: Dave B
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:31:42 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Dave, I'm not offended personally at all. I understand your belief system, having been taken to a Methodist church from my earliest days, but never being brought to faith in Christ by God. When I was saved, 30 years ago, more or less, I joined a United Methodist Church (naturally). God wasn't content to leave me in that system or leave me to be an Arminian. He brought me, fighting strenuously all the way, to the 'sovereign grace' position over the next few years. May he do the same for you, except may you be easily shown the truth. BTW, Dave, I do intend to deal with the Lord Jesus and His atonment for sin (not all people's sins) as soon as I can get a little rest. I invite you to stay around and see what develops.

Subject: Re: Speaking about a topic ...
From: Dave B
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 16:45:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod Thanks for your understanding, I am a member of the UMC and do Lay Speaking am also activly involved with youth ministries, ministries to shut-ins,and help with spiritual retreat weekends through a group DeColores En Christo part of the Cursillo method of finding a deeper relationship with our heavenly Father through Jesus and the New Testament teachings of Jesus.I am finding this interesting that I was led here to this discussion group when the talk I am preparing for is on my Piety. I will read your last posting more thoroughly in the next couple of days and answer when I get some free time which is going to be short untill after Sunday. May Jesus continue to embrace you with all His Love - Dave

Subject: Re: Speaking about a topic ...
From: laz
To: Dave B
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 08:37:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dave - my parents have the infamous 'Des Colores' sticker on the back of their car...being devout Roman Catholics and Hispanic... I believe they may know about this movement/program of yours. I also understand Methodists are indeed big on the Walk to Emmaeus...(related to Des Colores??)....so, can I join you and Rod's discussion? In Him, laz p.s. do we get much out of Jesus' NT teachings apart from a THOROUGH understanding of the OT which spoke entirely of Christ's life and work? 'Cursillo'....short course?

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Dave B
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 18:23:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, In Rev3:16 'So then since you are lukewarm,niether hot nor cold I will spit you out of my mouth' The Lord is talking about a Church that is sitting on the fence.This city has been demolished and sits in ruin to this day.This is a testimony to the wrath of God against fence sitters. It is nice to believe in a God that comes ridding into His city on the back of a donkey to take all the sin away from the world, but we all seem to forget there is another picture of Jesus sitting on a throne to judge all the men of the world and He says to them all of my sheep go to this side and all of the goats to that side. as in the 'Joke'. I don't find this joke distasteful, I find it quite sad for the ones that will not be the ones choosen by God and I will continue to pray for them and witness to them. Dave B Dave B

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Pilgrim
To: Dave B
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 21:35:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dave,
If I make a correction to something you said above? You wrote: ' 'So then since you are lukewarm, niether hot nor cold I will spit you out of my mouth' The Lord is talking about a Church that is sitting on the fence.' This understanding of the passage, i.e., that the Laodecians were 'lukewarm', meaning that they were less than 'on fire for the Lord', as the popular phraseology goes is in fact false. When the Lord Christ makes reference to that church as 'lukewarm', He was actually referring to the water that used to flow along the viaducts that transversed the city from afar. The city itself, sitting as it was on the sea coast, had little fresh water for cooking and drinking. Thus they had to transport it into the city. That 'pipeline' was not like our modern systems that allow water to travel through closed pipes, usually underground. What they had then, was a structure that was composed of open troughs that was above ground and subject to the elements, especially the hot sun's rays. Notice in verse 15, that the resurrected Lord accuses them of being neither hot nor cold but then says, 'I would thou wert cold or hot.' Now if being 'lukewarm' was simply a half-way (fence sitting) condition, 'hot' was the most desired, and 'cold' most undesired (as is the popular interpretation), then why would the Lord Christ say He wished that they were either 'hot' or 'cold'?? The problem was that they were professing to love Christ, but in fact they loved Him not. Thus this water as it traveled along the viaducts was heated somewhat to a 'lukewarm' temperature, which being neither cold, i.e. not desirable for drinking nor hot, i.e. not good for bathing was useless as it were. And this is why the Lord Christ also said He would 'spew them out of His mouth', referring to what a person would do if they were to try and drink this tepid water. The Laodiceans were not just 'fence sitters', but in fact had fallen off the fence onto the wrong side. They had fallen into crass worldliness, resting on their economic enterprises, e.g., their rich dyes, medicinal eye salve that they marketed and the constant flow of 'tourists' and infirmed that visited there for the soothing hot springs that existed there at the time. They had lost their 'first love' and had committed spiritual adultery by having an 'affair' with the world's riches. Christ said, '3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: . . .' This is a backslidden church on the verge of apostasy. Disaster was looming on the horizon and therefore the Lord beckons them to return to Him. At the risk of being redundant, I find it rather disappointing that you didn't find this 'joke' distasteful, for to use the name of the thrice Holy God; the God of all power and grace as part of a 'joke' is a violation of the Third Commandment, which prohibits using the name of the LORD God in a vain manner, which this 'joke' surely does. The LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who takes His name in vain! Sober words indeed.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Rod
To: Dave B
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:59:09 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Dave B., I think you've missed the point(s) everyone has been making. Also, the 'joke' (if that's what it is) isn't talking about churches, but about how individuals are saved and lost. BTW, could you please give Scriptural evidence for the statement: 'a God that comes riding into His city on the back of a donkey to take all the sin away from the world' (the portion emphasized)?

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Dave B
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 21:41:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
And God became man and dwelt among us, talking of our lord and savior,Jesus the Christ(Immanuel-God is with us),Matt-1:23.So God,Jesus,Immanuel rode a donkey into Jerusalem to die for our sins. Mark 11:7,and John 12:12. In the beginningwas the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God Jn 1:1 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us(Jesus) Jn 1:14 But I don't think I've missed the point of what everyone has been making. I think our Lord and Savior said when He said 'Whoever is not with me is against me' Luke 11:23 The Arminian Parable that your friend was quoting was another way of saying you either accept Jesus as your savior and have eternal life or by not deciding to accept Him you have decided to go with Satan.

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Rod
To: Dave B
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 22:28:13 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Dave, None of the things you quoted mention anything about His taking away all the sins of the world, the part I highlighted. What is the Bible basis for that? Also, the part about what the 'Arminian Parable' was saying, along with your previous statement about the sins of the whole wordl being taken away, is pure Arminian. If what you affirm is true, 'you either accept Jesus as your Savior, or by not accepting Him, you decide to go with Satan,' then God is not God, but subject to man, at the mercy of man's will and choice. The problem is, God disagrees, having His Apostle say, '...for we have before proved [proved!] both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin; as it is written...there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:9-11). In John 10, the Lord Jesus states twice that he lay down His life 'for the sheep' and for no one else: Speaking to the Jewish leaders, He said, in reply to their demand, 'If thou be the Christ, tells us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in my father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me' (John 10:24-27). That leaves us with these facts. Men follow the Lord Jesus out of His will from having made them 'sheep.' He lay down His life 'for the sheep' [stated twice]. 'There is none that seeketh after God.' If the Bible declares these things to be so, why do mere men insist they are not and insist on 'rewriting Scripture?' There is no other way to classify a direct conflict with the Word of God. You see, men don't "choose Satan," they are born dead in Adam's sin nature, and, "In adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:21-22). Please read Eph. 2:1-10 and see that men are all "dead in trespasses and sins" (verse 1) being children of [God's] wrath (verse 3). "But God," of His own initiative and not based on any condition man meets, certainly not based his choice, man's choice is to reject God, being His enemy (Rom. 8:7), "But God...even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace ye are saved)" (Eph. 2:4-5). The rest of the Ephesians section goes on through verse 10 to explain that God ordained, God initiated, God dependent action of grace and its salvation. It is "by grace" and "through faith," grace enabling the regenerated man to have faith, not that faith regenerates a man.

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Dave B
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 14:19:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, guess I was a little tired last night, way past my bed time and missed tthe ref. to sin. The first verse isJn 1:29 when John the Babtizer sees Jesus and says 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' I agree with what you say and it seems that in leaving us the free will to either accept or deny God through The Christ that He gave up his control of the earth. God allows us to make our own decisions and in doing so demonstrates how great His love for us is and a God that was not God would then just tell us what to do and we would be nothing but His robots.To me it is similar to when our children turn 16 and we give them the keys to the car for the first time. once they are out of our sight we no longer have control of how they use the controls of the car. John 13:1 ,when Jesus knew His hour had come that He should depart from the world to the Father, John 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given 'all' things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, .....at this point our Lord could have taken control as man would, or certainly I, and tossed the earth into the sun or to the end of the universe and destroyed the world. Instead He choose to go to the cross and become the sin sacrifice for any who would believe in Him. And I still believe that man is subject to God in as much as He Gives us the freedom to either sin or try to follow His way, and if we do sin, which we will, He gave us the gift of Grace which indead we do accept trough faith in Him. He also says to each of us If you love feed my sheep, If you love me tend my sheep, if you love Me love my sheep and like a sheep He was led to the slaughter. I also agree that men are born into sin and that we must die to that sin and rise with Jesus from that sin nature. I am so glad you ask me to read Eph 2 'And 'You' He made alive' who 'were' dead in trespasses and sin. It is wonderful that He gives us the assurance that when we believe in Him we are no longer following Satan. I see that we are basicly saying the same thing and I know that God will have a great influence in this world if we turn to Him , Pray and accept His grace. Dave B

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Rod
To: Dave B
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 15:50:53 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Dave B., I'd like to be able to agree that we have basically the same view of our salvation, but that's not at all true. I read your post twice and it is very different from the picture of salvation outlined in my previous post. First of all, you didn't deal with two very telling points: 1. 'There is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:11). If none seeks after God, as I directly quoted and noted in the last post, how does one seek after God in choosing God to save that individual? It is so far from possible as to be irreconcilable with your statements. 2. You seem to have completely neglected John, Chapter 10. In that chapter the Lord Jesus declares with emphasis, stating it more than once, that He came to effectually call a specific group, His Sheep. These are all depicted as being already His sheep, in spite of the fact that He had come specifically to deal with the nation of Israel and it would be about a decade before the Gentiles came into the Church on an equal footing with Jewish believers: 'And other sheep I have [note that He already 'has them'], that are not of this fold [Israel]; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd' (verse 16). The Lord Jesus states in verses 11 and 15, repeating Himself for emphasis again, that He was giving His life for the sheep. He doesn't give His life for anyone except the sheep, not having as His object to effectually call and save anyone but the sheep which are His. These sheep already belong to Him, as He again explains in verses 27-30: 'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give [it's a gift] unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me [again, a gift], is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.' Comparing Scripture to Scripture, we find this is reinforced in other places, such as: 'These words spoke Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him' (John 17:1-2). He continues, 'I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me; for they are thine' (verse 9). Then, a succeeding statement nails down that all who come to Christ in faith are already His sheep and are known by Him, just as He said in chapter 10: 'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word' (verse 20). Those are the 'other sheep...which are not of this fold' which He already has. Having 'power over all flesh' from the Father, He is working in the lives of the predestined and elect to bring them surely to Himself. Will you please reexamine John 10, looking at verse 3: 'and he calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out.' Those are the ones He is praying for in chapter 17, specific people saved by the Lamb Who is the 'good shepherd,' people He calls out and prays for 'by name!' Paul clearly understood this in the inspiration of the Spirit of God: '...according to the power of God, who 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 Tim. 1:8-9). Did you notice that, Dave, it was all worked out in predestination/election 'before the world began!' Now, let's back up and look at the lost people. Turn first to John 3:18, '...but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' Compare that to 1 Cor. 15:21-22 (previously cited) and John 8:44, 'Ye are of your father, the devil, and the fruits of your father ye will do....' Lost people are 'in Satan,' so to speak, according to this verse, just as the saved are said to be 'in Christ' several times in the Scriptures. So, the conclusion we draw from this mass of evidence is that men do choose out of their will (but the wills are bound). The lost man freely chooses to remain lost and in sin, for that is his will: '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). And look at this very striking verse: 'For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness' (Rom. 6:20). Being 'free from righteousness', but 'servants of sin', lost men are free to choose as their will leads. Their wills lead them to be God's enemies, the totality of their carnal minds being 'enmity against God.' But the 'sheep,' the born again of the Spirit, are given grace by the Lord God to be enabled by the new, spiritual will, to do what that new will desires. That is, the regenerated person will want to and does turn to God in Christ through the gift of faith. Each person gets exactly what he chooses. The lost remain lost and the regenerated are saved 'by grace' and 'though' the faith that grace imparts as a gift. If man's choice of God brought about regeneration, as you probably suppose, then it would have to read, 'by faith' and 'through grace,' subordinating God's grace to man's faith. Instead the Word of God declares twice in Eph. 2 that 'ye are saved by grace' (verse 5) and 'For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God--not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (8-10). I trust, Dave, that this illustrates the different view. (Dave, I , too, am completely worn out right now. I was going to deal with the 'sins of the world,' but I will have to post a new message on that. This one is much too long already.)

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Anne
To: Dave B
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:51:25 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'It is nice to believe in a God that comes riding into His city on the back of a donkey to take all the sin away from the world, but we all seem to forget there is another picture of Jesus sitting on a throne to judge all the men of the world...' There is an excellent article in the current issue of Tabletalk about this very thing, called 'Depart From Me,' by Doug Wilson (Feb 2000; vol. 24, No. 2, pp 8-10). An excerpt: 'Contrary to popular opinion, the Lord of the gospels was not the original flower child, and He did not come in order to make us all feel better about ourselves.' Another excerpt: 'Some like to talk as though Jesus came down to us preaching a simple message of love and peace, scattering rose petals as He went, but then along came the purse-lipped apostle Paul, hauling all the grim stuff into Christianity. This caricature persists only because of rank biblical ignorance. While Paul plainly affirms the reality of God's eternal judgment, he doesn't mention hell by name once. Jesus talks about it all the time, and with the most graphic imagery.' Is this not the truth? The first time I read the bible, I mean really sat down and READ it, I was stunned and dismayed, since I had been a firm believer in the 'flower child' Jesus. Episcopalianism'll do that to you. The fact is, when those who are destined to be sent away actually meet Him for the first time, they probably won't like Him much. Anne

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 23:40:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I received the following 'joke' from an Arminian friend who just can't grasp the concepts of sovereign grace. She probably didn't even realize that I would find this distasteful. I wonder if it were part of an Arminian preacher's sermon at some point in time? I quote it without further comment (I'm doing this from memory, but I think it's accurate): 'The Fence' God and Satan were on each side of a fence. All humanity was before them. God invited men to come to Him and Satan did the same. When everyone had made their decision, God left with His group and Satan left with his. But there was one man left who sat on the fence, not crossing to one side or the other. Satan returned, and ordered him to, 'Come along.' The man said, 'No, I didn't choose. I'm on the fence.' Satan replied, 'Come along, I own the fence.'
---
Hi Rod, Did this friend of yours actually say this was supposed to be a 'joke?' I ask this because this does not sound like a joke at all, but rather an illustration of how one might see things (as skewed as it might be). For something to be a joke, there must be a punchline that is supposed to be funny or ridiculous. If this is supposed to be a joke, then it is only a joke to the Calvinist, as it is ridiculous. But to an Arminian, it would be no joke at all, but an illustration of their point of view. In Christ, mebaser

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Rod
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 06:46:40 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi yourself :>), No, she didn't say it was supposed to be a joke--It was sent without a comment. Whatever effect it was supposed to have on me, it didn't work. I was chilled by its implications and, like Pilgrim, greatly disturbed that the great God Who graciously saves us is put down and ridiculed.

Subject: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:06:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The particular illustration of Arminian wit was meant apparently to put fear into fence sitters, those who have not 'made a decision for Christ'. I doubt Arminianist leaders believe the illustration teaches any point of fact, but rather the emphasis is on invoking an emotional jolt to the undecided, by any means necessary. Of course they are using unbiblical methods, so what else is new, this being symptomatic of their blasphemous theology. If we recall that the goal of Arminian salvation is to get someone to say 'I'll let Jesus into my heart'; any means that does this is considered God glorifying. Whatever coerces or intimidates a confession (no Miranda rights here) ultimately is for the sinners own good, and brings the 'soul-winner' great satisfaction in helping fill heaven's ranks. It is heady stuff, just think how pleased God is at your successful salesmanship--He couldn't do it without you! Thus all the hypocrisy and lies, deception and fakery, scripture twisting and confrontational tactics give God the glory if just one sinner lets God in. Arminian theology is just rife with emotional pleadings for sinners to walk the isle to salvation. One church I visited (and left immediately) had prayer booths where likely candidates for salvation were interrogated until they would get saved, then a light would go on in the congregation showing mission complete (with much cheering), or booing if the sinner didn't follow the game plan. Nothing is too absurd, we all know of the faked healing services, the faked words of prophecy, the faked miracles... ultimately the fruit of a faked theology embraced by faked Christians (yes some are temporarily deceived Christians who eventually will find truth). It wouldn’t be so important except: this fake theology is the universally believed and taught theology of nearly every single church on every single street corner in the world (with a few exceptions). Sure God can regenerate anyone, anywhere, anytime, but this truly is a sad state of affairs when imposters and heretics are called Christians and truth-seekers/Calvinists are called heretics. Is the world now ready and ripe for judgment? I say yes. The day of salvation has waned -- Satan is loose, the world has fallen deep into rebellion against God’s law, but believes despite this that it has found peace and safety. We are all living in an amazing and prophetic hour! The deception is great! john

Subject: Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 11:36:47 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John I may be wrong, but though it is no big deal, but Arminianist is not a word. Arminian and Arminianism is, but maybe some of the big guns such as Pilgrim can set this matter straight. Tom

Subject: Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 20:45:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Are you clairvoyant?? lol I was just thinking of that and often have each time I see that word 'Arminianist'! In fact, I was tempted to ask someone/anyone where they got that word from? I have only seen it used here! Okay, admittedly, I don't get out much of late and perhaps it is used profusely throughout Christendom now; but unknown to me. So, it is my understanding that the 'proper' connotation of phraseology/terminology would be: Arminian and Arminianism; taken of course from the name of Jacob Arminius, the Dutch theologian of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. But, I am open to enlightenment on this issue! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim PS: BTW, I'm no 'big gun'! Just a lowly 'pea-shooter'!!

Subject: Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 22:48:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well there is a progression here, whether Webster would agree is another issue: John Calvin = Jacobus Arminius Calvin = Arminius Calvinism = Arminianism Calvinist = Arminianist I have also found words like 'religion' changed to 'religionist' which I like also. Th 'ist' on the end makes it a strong title, it is more concise than say 'the Calvinist's are right' .... 'but the people who believe in Arminianism [Arminianist's] are wrong'. It works for me. 'Man was not made for English, English was made for man', or something like that. john

Subject: Re: The Arminianist's magic bag of tricks
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 25, 2000 at 01:19:17 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John Although I see your point, you said: Calvinist = Arminianist But I believe the proper term is Arminian not Arminianist. Or maybe we should change Calvinist to Calvinian (not)? It might work for you, but unless we are going to change the dictionary from Arminian to Arminianist, then perhaps we should leave the term Arminian alone. To look at it another way, how many Arminians do you know that refer to themselves as Arminianists? Tom

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 18:27:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,
The entire scenario is of course absurd, which is presented in this 'joke'. And you and Anne both have pointed out the fallacy of what it implies. However, the main reason I find this 'joke' tasteless, in fact I find it blasphemous, is the fact that God is even mentioned in a 'joke'. Is this an expression of one who has come 'face to face' with the thrice Holy God? Can one example be supplied from the Scriptures where a true believer has mentioned his LORD in a 'vain' way? I fear not, for all who have come to 'know' the LORD are seen prostrate before Him expressing a godly fear and heartfelt adoration. I find no humour in such things that take the name of the LORD in vain. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim 'Should the Lord Jesus appear now to any of us in His majesty and glory, it would not be to our edification nor consolation. For we are not meet nor able, by the power of any light or grace that we have received, or can receive, to bear the immediate appearance and representation of them. His beloved apostle John had leaned on His bosom probably many a time in his life, in the intimate familiarities of love; but when He afterward appeared to him in His glory, 'he fell at his feet as dead' (Rev. 1:17). And when He appeared to Paul, all the account he could give thereof was 'that he saw a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun'; whereupon he and all that were with him 'fell to the ground' (Acts 26 :13,14).' —John Owen 'The Glory of Christ' p. 174

Subject: God's holiness and our failure
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 20:07:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Brother, I'm with you! 'Then said I, Woe is me! For I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts' (Is. 6:5). None of us have a real grasp of the holiness of God. Moses was told that he might not see God's 'face,' for there shall no man see me and live' (Ex. 33:20). We're that sinful and depraved in this world and this body. And God is forever, immutably, that holy! I can't even comprehend all that, that God protected Moses' very life as he made His glory pass by when He placed the man in the cleft of the rock, covering His servant with His hand, giving him, at the last moment a partial view of the glory of God 'from the back,' as it departed from view. Moses was shielded, fenced in by protection. That was the mercy of God who can't abide the presence of sin. How little we understand that. How little we comprehend the vast gulf between the holiness of God and the pitiable man who is never capable of righteousness, until and unless it is imputed to Him in Christ. Yet we presume that we know all about God and dare look at Him as a competitor with Satan, the creature whom He cast out of Heaven and whose head the Son crushed for our benefit. Satan is not God's competitor; he isn't a threat to the Lord God. God uses him as a tool to accomplish His will, even to the extent of using his evil desires to bring about good for the elect of God. As Anne spoke of, to elevate him to that status is just unthinkable! May God enable us to truly glorify Him and to appreciate more and more His majesty and the depth of the debt we owe for our salvation. Yet God doesn't count the debt, instead glorifying Himself as he ultimately glorifies us with His Son. How can we discount, as well as discredit, His power and greatness? The great God Who speaks, and it is immediately so, doesn't compete with His creatures. Instead, He works all things after the counsel of His own will and for His own pleasure (Eph. 1:5, 11). May God show us, as He did with Moses, as much of His glory as we can bear. May He grant us the proper reverence for His Person that He deserves and that we owe Him. May He, in His mercy, grant it to us who fall so short!

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 19:12:41 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
' However, the main reason I find this 'joke' tasteless . . . . . is the fact that God is even mentioned in a 'joke'. ' That is a point that I had overlooked, to my shame. You know, jokes about God are so common today that I didn't even think of it as you did, yet you are obviously quite right. I cannot recall anyone joking about Him in the Bible! When we consider how Isaiah was shattered and 'undone' when he came upon God in the temple, I wonder that we think making light of Him and His majesty is acceptable. This reminds me of the thread from several weeks ago about the prevalence of the 'humor at any cost' mentality that exists in our culture today. I think perhaps I should go back and reread that stuff!

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:30:14 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'God invited men to come to Him and Satan did the same. When everyone had made their decision, God left with His group and Satan left with his.' I am perturbed that there are so many 'Christians' who equate God and Satan. Unwittingly, I trust. What a sop to Satan's pride, the notion that he and God are equals who are duking it out, with the end result still unresolved.

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 11:35:30 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, You're exactly right, of course. Did you notice that this thing makes the Enemy even greater than God because he 'owns the fence?' The understanding of the sovereignty and salvation of God is so sadly lacking that it amazes me. I have explained the truth to this woman patiently many times via the net (we've never met fact-to-face) and she just lets it roll on by and steadfastly maintains that man chooses. She may have actually sent me this to 'convert' me, but I don't know if she's that subtle. May God open her eyes.

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Diaconeo
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 16:47:19 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow@writeme.com

Message:
Rod, Just to add my two cents into here... The Bible actually equally supports both the doctine of free will and the doctrine of Soveriegn predestination. While I claim Calvinistic theology, I can not say that I hold to many of his points. This being one of them. Just food for thought. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: define free will :-)
From: Five Sola
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:51:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Matthew, It all depends on you definition of 'free will'. In all honesty I don't think any of the Calvinist (even Calvin himself) would deny Free will in it's correct meaning (not the arminian meaning). But as Pilgrim raised one time, that 'Free will' has been so mis-defined in it's pagan humanistic meaning (the arminian version) that it is better to avoid confusion and not even use that word for the doctrine found in scripture. He suggested and I like the term 'Free Agency' it does not have the false definition attached to it (at least not yet :-) and thus avoids needless confusion when starting a discussion. Five Sola

Subject: Re: define free will :-)
From: Diaconeo
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 09:55:26 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow@writeme.com

Message:
Five Sola, I don't know that I have a very theological or correct thought on the definition of 'free will'. What I mean by free will is not the armenian thought though, that man chooses soley whether or not he will be saved. But, some would say, it's not far off of that. My definition is this, everyone is given the opprotunity to choose between God and the ruler of this world, Satan. I believe that God allows everyone a clear and distinct opprotunity where Satan is not deciving them. It is at this point that they have the free and unhindered choice that can only be made with out the influence of Satan. Obviously the bible clearly teaches that man loves the darkness. But I believe this to be a general statement of mankind as a whole, and not individuals. If we as individuals truly all did love the darkness more than the light, none would be saved. I do not believe that God forces us to choose Him. I beleive our choice is one of, not just devine intervention, but also one of mind and soul. God did not create us to be mindless robots, serving Him without understanding, but as mindful creatures. He wants us to worship him and love Him of our own volition. And for this, He allows us to choose, though, however Calvinistic it is, we are ultimately prechosen by Him to choose Him. I probably have not said exactly what I mean, and have probably add more confusion as to what I mean, but there it is. I don't claim any eloquence of words in my theology, so please forgive me. Yes, God has chosen us in Christ, but He also has allowed all of us an opprotunity to choose for Him. The two doctrines, rather than being as contrary as many believe, actually compliment each other. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: define free will :-)
From: Rod
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 16:16:21 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Matthew, How do you judge the bearing of Romans 1:16-3:20, particularly 3:9, 11, on your contention that 'everyone' (your term) has a 'window of opportunity' (my designation for your terms--I hope it is accurate) without Satan's interference to seek after God in choice? Does the Word of God confirm your contention?

Subject: Re: define free will :-)
From: Anne
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 11:34:36 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'........the ruler of this world, Satan.' Now, see, this puzzles me, Matthew. Why do you hand the world over to Satan? It is my understanding that the earth belongs to Christ, and He is busy establishing His kingdom, even as I type this. 'Obviously the bible clearly teaches that man loves the darkness. But I believe this to be a general statement of mankind as a whole, and not individuals. If we as individuals truly all did love the darkness more than the light, none would be saved.' God creates the individuals, does He not? Then using your argument, He must be the one who creates some to love light v. others who love darkness. How is that different, on a practical level, from predestination?

Subject: Re: define free will :-)
From: Diaconeo
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 13:28:44 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow@writeme.com

Message:
Anne, Here is some scripture to support my view of Satan as the ruler (prince) of this world... Jn. 12:31 - Now is the judgement of this world: now shall you see the prince of this world be cast out [Spoken by Christ of Satan] Jn 14:30 - Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. [Again, Christ speaking of Satan] Jn 16:11 - Of judgement, because the prince of this world is judged. [Here Christ is speaking of the Sprit reproving 'the world of sin, and righteousness and judgement' vs. 8] 1 Jn. 5:19 - And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one. [John comparing believers 'of God' to those of the world 'who lieth in the wicked one.'] 2 Cor. 4:4 - In whome the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious godpel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine in them. [Paul speaking of Satan] Eph. 2:2 - 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. [Here again Paul equates rule of the world to Satan] For additional support that Satan has rule over this world, we have Jesus' temptaions in the desert, when Satan offers him 'all the kingdoms of the world.' (Mt. 4:8-9) Satan had the authority to offer this, because he is the prince (ruler) of this world. I hope that this has helped you understand what I mean when I say that Satan is the Ruler of the world. Additionally, When the Spirit stops restraining, Satan will have all that he has hoped for, that is, full rule and dominion of this world, however breifly. Christ came to establish his Kingdom, but was rejected. The Jews, as a national body, rejected the Kingdom that Christ was offering, legitamatly, so he gave them the king they wanted, again. Seems to me that God gave them the king that they wanted before, rather than accepted Him as thier King. Hmm. Anyway, the true kingdom of Satan will be seen and felt in the final days, when he makes his pact with Israel. I am one of those who do not believe that Christ is establishing His Kingdom now. His Kingdom is still yet future and will be a literal, earthly Kingdom. While Christ is reigning at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, it is not on the throne of David, which is one of the promises of the Covenants God made with Israel. That Christ, as part of the Godhead, is Sovereign is of no dispute. But that does not equate to ruling the promised Kingdom, or even setting it up right now (which is rather post-millenial, of the which, I am not). Yes, the gospel is going out. Yes, many are being saved even as you read this. Yes, God is adding to the future population of the Kingdom even as I type this. But Christ is not ruling over the earth, for it is not His yet, but still given over to Satan. At His Glorious Return, this will all change. Prase the Lord for His Goodness!! In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Greetings, diaconeo
From: Rod
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 16:57:00 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
diaconeo/Matthew, I don't believe I've seen you around here before. Good to see you. Actually, we have this sort of discussion pretty often. Let me invite you to start a new thread and to list your Scriptural basis for the simultaneous existence of free will of man and God's sovereignty, with emphasis on the 'equal support' for each. Fair enough?

Subject: Re: Greetings, diaconeo
From: Diaconeo
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 12:58:41 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow@writeme.com

Message:
Rod, Fair enough. I used to frequent this board often, but have not done so in a quite a while. I used to post simply as Matthew. Pilgrim and Bro Bret may remember me for times past. I got caught up on another board that was run by a very staunch universalist. We had some very heated debates, but in the end I had to leave because I found my self cast pearls to the pigs. Oh well. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Greetings, diaconeo
From: RJ
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 20:24:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Matthew,
WELCOME BACK!
I remember you, and so do others. We had committed to pray for you, your wife,and three children, while you were in the Medeterranean. In His Precious Name, -RJ

Subject: Re: Greetings, diaconeo
From: Diaconea
To: RJ
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 09:36:23 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow@writeme.com

Message:
RJ, Thank you RJ, and all those that remembered me in your prayes. It's a rough life sometime, being in the Navy and leaving the family for months on end. But I truly enjoy my work there, and I know that God uses me to reach people while I'm out there. It's good to be back on the board. Your Brother in Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 11:57:13 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'Did you notice that this thing makes the Enemy even greater than God because he 'owns the fence?' ' Yes, indeed, I did. Another skewed perception is that Satan does 'own the fence,' which I took to symbolize the world. It is distressing how many people I have run into on the Net that hold to the firm belief that the earth belongs to Satan. Completely against Scripture, of course, but they won't hear otherwise. More and more I am convinced that it is impossible to 'argue' anyone into or out of a belief pattern . . . . only God has the necessary oomph! to do it. As I think I mentioned, I belong to the CBMW list, and there has been a woman on it who it firmly, irrevocably of the egalitarian persuasion. The 'discussion', being generous with my terms, has gotten dull to the point of inducing coma, since the same points are made (on BOTH sides, mind you) ad nauseum. Poor old Deborah from the book of Judges has been resurrected and dusted off so often, I feel sorry for the poor lamb! No resting in peace for HER, boy. ;-> The more I look about me and notice these things, the more convinced I am that all we can do is present the gospel as best we can, then, basically, drop it. If God wants His message heard, then heard it will be. If He doesn't, we're just wasting time and breath by endlessly arguing. Oh, well! Such is life on the planet, n'est pas?

Subject: Re: A not funny Arminian 'joke'
From: T.R./Old Faith
To: Anne
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 06:25:03 (PST)
Email Address: oldpaths@junct.com

Message:
I couldn't agree more. My personal conviction and I believe the 'core' of evangelism is simply getting the word out. This may take many venues, as our Lord would will. The effectual wooing, the listing of the wind, and regeneration come as the Lord sees fit and at His good pleasure. After doing my share of arguing on these boards for a couple of years, I see the efficient and effectual work being the divine application of the living Word to dead men's hearts. We never really know what He will do or where He will do it. That is one thing that excites me about the inter-net. He is the sovereign Ruler of all mediums. Peace to all, only by HIS free and sovereign grace, Old Faith

Subject: Anne, It's very ironic that I just...
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 14:25:22 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
...came from another board where I applauded a poster for deciding to stop arguing with an nonbeliever and mentioned 'arguing into submission' to him! I'm afraid I created a very wrong impression with one of my statements in the post above. I haven't actually given this woman directly the 'sovereign grace spiel' all that many times, maybe two to four over the last year or so. But she got it indirectly many times by our being on the same board, where I dealt with many and various people, including Arminians, Catholic, Mormons, one or two Jews, and a very few believers of like mind with me. That was my reference. I knew she had read many of those posts, though they weren't to her. As I say, it all just rolled over her, as if she were teflon coated in regard to it. She, in addition to the post which included this thing above in the thread, has sent me several Arminian stories and quotes, partially because she has put me on her forwarding list. I got several over the Christmas season. If they are sent without a personal message, I don't respond. I've not tried to argue this lady into submission as my previous post might have led you to believe.

Subject: Re: Anne, It's very ironic that I just...
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 15:25:51 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'I've not tried to argue this lady into submission as my previous post might have led you to believe.' Bother, bother, bother! That's the trouble with these forums, is it not? Actually, Rod, I honestly was not directing that to you, though I can see where it came out like that. Sorry!!! I was speaking in generalities . . . . . the woman on your list, the woman on the CBMW list, the many Arminians on every Reformed list in existance, I think . . . . the lot! Not to mention just personal, one-on-one experience in the past. Just got a bunch of CBMW posts (it's a moderated list, so they come in clumps) and most are either from that woman, or a response to one of her posts. Same old, same old. I swear if the list's focus doesn't change soon, I'm directing those posts to the trash folder, so I can look at them occasionally, but they don't take up room in my Inbox. I hope I didn't offend you? Anne

Subject: Anne, I'm not offended at all! :>) N/T
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 15:39:36 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:

Subject: Children and Communion
From: OrthoPres
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 08:55:29 (PST)
Email Address: lornekris@yahoo.com

Message:
I was wondering if anyone could help me find an on-line article dealing with children and the Lord's Supper. I have 3 small children who are about to be interviewed for communicant membership in the OPC, as this is necessary for them to partake of the Lord's supper. My children all profess a faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and have been catechised at great length. I just wonder if an interview by the elders is the biblical prescription and mandate. I feel that I am currently denying them access to the table and thereby treating them as if they were outside the covenant. Jesus did say let the little children come to me and do not hinder them right? If anyone knows of some good REFORMED material on the matter and could let me know I would greatly appreciate it. In His Service

Subject: Re: Children and Communion--I'd like to know 2!
From: Simone
To: OrthoPres
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 19:56:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I'm quite interested in this. I have been wondering myself. Does anyone have a reply? Simone

Subject: Re: Children and Communion--I'd like to know 2!
From: David McKay
To: Simone
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 13:12:54 (PST)
Email Address: music@fl.net.au

Message:
I am interested to watch how Christian people treat their children. I was brought up as an Arminian Baptist, and children were treated as pagans until they walked down the aisle of a church. So they were not allowed to take communion. In fact, they had to be a certain age [say 12] before they could be baptised, so that even if they professed faith, it was not thought right for children to join in at the Lord's Table until they had been under the water. You could, of course, go to the other extreme and include them from the earliest age, but they may not see the need for a personal response if they are already treated as Christians. I still attend a naughty Arminian church. I would be interested to know what Reformed Baptists do. [However, when we move house shortly, we are hoping to change this!]

Subject: Re: Children and Communion--I'd like to know 2!
From: laz
To: David McKay
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 16:49:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have attended two PCA churches...infants are baptized only...and communion is limited to young adults (say 15ish) who understand the faith enough to make an informed confession of faith as determined by the parents and the church leadership. I currently attend an OPC and they will baptize my non-infant children (11, 7 and 5) but communion is withheld until they KNOW what is really going on during the dispensing of this sacrament....again...14ish as determined by us and the Session. I would be suprised if other OP churches allow 10 yrs olds to take communion. laz p.s. sorry David...not sure what Baptists do...

Subject: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 10:48:56 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
On the Renewing Your Mind general forum that I read, there has been some discussion of Mormonism. A woman used to live in Utah, simply surrounded by them. She was saying that once a tree fell on a house, and within minutes, there was a stream of cars heading to the family in need of help (when asked to help, her husband went, too, of course). Remember when the tornado hit downtown Salt Lake City several months ago? How quickly the Mormons, who are nothing if not organized, responded? It was astonishing. Compared with them, most Christian churches fall rather flat, I fear. Primarily, I daresay, due to the proliferation of denominations, and because many of us travel far to reach a church that teaches the way we want. Response such as the Mormons manage requires a 'neighbor' mentality and organization, which many of our denominations and churches don't possess. Still, I have been wondering if yet another reason is that men are far more heavily involved with Mormonism than they are with most Christian churches? Don't come unglued. I am quite confident that every man who posts here is a rock to his church. But aren't most things run by women, even if the leadership itself is male? Somehow, the immense response of the men seems to imply that there are men at the helm, directing the ward (isn't that what their 'parishes' are called?) organization. I have yet to belong to any church - Episcopalian, Catholic, or Bible - that has that deep, broad involvment by the males. Most times, the priests and pastors find themselves pleading with the men to try and match what the women do, never mind surpass it. Have y'all found the same thing? If so, how come, d'you suppose? Is it something that should be addressed? Anne

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:39:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne - Mormons work hard doing good works because it's a works based religion. Works gets you into heaven. JW's are also very benevolent and close-knit. As for females running the show...what do you expect when egalitarianism has gripped the church as well? ;-( The last church I attended was reformed in name only...the women did much of the work...but a few of the deacons and elders also gave ALOT of their time and talents as well. The leadership was weak and divided, the men were weak also as a direct result.. and so the pews were filled with women whose husbands lacked interest in spiritual matters. Now it didn't help that the pastor was a lousy preacher and a hireling. My current church is definately run by men...with women are highly active in various church-related activites...I know, I watch my kids enough. hehe. It's a healthy division of labor and the men are strong theologically...as are many of the women! Things get done...the pastor and his wife are very hard working and fully immersed in the 'grunt work' along with a majority of the congregation (male and female). I think it boils down to how biblically mature and obedient the church leadership is. I have been to churches like the ones you said where women run the show (w/women elders ... hey, that was before I was reformed so cut me some slack!) blessings, laz

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 11:05:05 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
The vast majority of the local churches I've observed have a distinct lack of male involvement, though men are to be the spiritual leaders of both the church and the family. This is, humanly speaking, an indictment of the men of the churches for not being the leaders they should be and for not knowing the Word of God and following His precepts. There is the very real suspicion that many aren't really saved. The vast majority of local churches I've observed are also 'dead,' without any real and meaningful spiritual movement. ( I once heard of a slogan for a 'dead' church, BTW--'Many are cold, but few are frozen!') :>) Of course, God is in control (and I know that you know and appreciate that, Anne) and this is ultimately His will and plan, and probably involves a judgment against the churches for their lack of faith and dedication. Many of you, however, seem to live where there are many 'sovereign gracers' and where the churches may be fulfilling their roles, but, I've often said, not totally in jest, 'In the places where I have lived, there's a church building on every corner, but you have to turn over every rock in the county to find a real Christian!' A 'sovereign gracer' is almost unheard of. And, as one of that persuasion myself, I often feel in danger of being 'put on exhibit' for being considered so 'weird.' :>)

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: David McKay
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 14:58:11 (PST)
Email Address: music@fl.net.au

Message:
You know what Isaiah said, Anne: 11 Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them! They will be paid back for what their hands have done. 12 Youths oppress my people, **women rule over them.** O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path. [Isaiah 3:11-12] And I love Deborah's disgusted response to Barak: 8 Barak said to her, 'If you go with me, I will go; but if you don't go with me, I won't go.' 9 'Very well,' Deborah said, 'I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honour will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.' [Judges 4:8-9] And this is the woman people say proves God wants women in church leadership! I greatly value the work done by women in God's church, by the way. But it **is** disgusting how little men do. You are right on the button, Anne!

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 14:55:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Concerning our churches: I've said for years the Pews get their name from the dead flesh sitting in them ;-) As to Mormons: This is one of the few things they do that is Biblically correct - they have sucked millions into their group by doing good for those in need. Too bad believers haven't been better at this over the years. Having said this, there are many churche that get behind their members and neighbors when tuff times come along. stan

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: David McKay
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:04:02 (PST)
Email Address: music@fl.net.au

Message:
Stan is also on the money. And I would be remiss if I didn't say that the Arminian church we have been attending [hoping to associate with a good reformed church in a few weeks in the new town we are moving to]has been wonderfully caring to us in our many illnesses and problems!

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: Brother Bret
To: David McKay
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 22:03:05 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Where are you moving to, David :^ )

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: David McKay
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 13:02:42 (PST)
Email Address: music@fl.net.au

Message:
Bathurst. Do you know Australia, Bret? Or izuanozzie?

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: Anne
To: David McKay
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:39:13 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Now, I didn't mean to suggest that churches don't support their members in their times of trouble . . . . heavens, no! I have been the recipient of such kindness, myself, when I miscarried years and years ago. It was more the notion of the larger troubles that cross church boundaries, I guess. If, God forbid, a tornado should come smashing through Fort Worth, individual churches will, I am confident, try and help, but there won't be the large-scale mobilization of the sort the Mormons can pull off, that's all. And I started to wonder Why? So far as I am aware, anyway, there is no plan afoot to rally hundreds of Presbyterian men at a moment's notice. Nor Methodists, or Baptists, etc. The Southern Baptists do have a neat bus or truck that they can call out and staff, which provides food in troubled areas. Upon pondering this, it seemed to me that, along with not being fragmented as Christianity is, the Mormons are far more, well, patriarchal, if that isn't too inflammatory a word (I'm on the CBMW message list and there's a woman on it that would shred me like cabbage if she heard that term). Personally, I think the church could use a shot of patriarchy, as designed and implemented by God. Not the useless, 50's sitcom stuff, mind you, much less the 'women as sub-human' type that afflicted the world for eons. Oh, well! Thank God for my home and husband, nominal believer though he be. Anne

Subject: Re: I wonder why. . . . . ?
From: john hampshire
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 17:02:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, >>>'Not the useless, 50's sitcom stuff, mind you, much less the 'women as sub-human' type that afflicted the world for eons'. Grrrr. The useless 50's sitcom stuff was TV modeling real life, just as the trash-talking, loud mouthed, ignoramuses who portray the 90's (00's?)couples today mimic real-life. Believe or not, the submissive wife who is a door mat for her family is an aberration and a stereotype used to degrade the wife as homemaker and mother (something liberals cannot abide). That is not to say that the 50's were perfect, nor do sitcoms tell the whole story. As to churches, why do the women run affairs?, well how is a church any different than what goes on in the home?? We know the proper role for a man (as directed by God) is to be the spiritual leader. But before the man can do this, he has to kick the current occupant out. Guess who? There is a great dynamic that could be discussed (and has been) concerning the problems men create when they give up their authority to the female. It is enough to know that it is done, and done ALL the time. The wife cannot respect a weak man, the man feels weak if the wife removes her support (because he is), thus, the wife controls the husband by giving and removing support. Support is given in many different ways, it primarily involves making his wrongs appear right. What advantage does a wife have in this kind of supporting 'love'? She creates a docile puppy of a man who fears the knowledge that he IS a docile puppy on a leash (with the wife holding the leash). Out of this is born all kinds of strife and misery, bickering, divorce, remarriage... all failed attempts to regain what was lost. Most just live with their 'weakness' and call it normal. By the way, it is a great ego-pleasers for the woman, she lets the man 'appear' to be in charge occasionally, keeping him comatose to his problem, but all the woman’s friends know (and snicker) otherwise. In the church the men continue to allow women to run the show (thus absolving themselves of blame if things go wrong) and enjoy their pretentious positions, propped-up by their seemingly adoring wife. Now someone will say I am unfairly cutting on women and harbor some ill-will. On the contrary, while women fall easily into their role as beguiler, the blame falls squarely on the man. It is not the job of the weaker vessel to support the stronger. For instance, when we see a wife-beating case, we think: 'Oh that poor woman and that tyrant of a man', never reading the subtitles. The man lashes out in violence when he realizes he has lost control and cannot figure out how in his confused state to get back what was mysteriously lost (long ago). The violent man remains controlled, his guilt brings him crawling for forgiveness, the wife takes him back and (by comparison) rules like a benevolent god (very ego satisfying). The point here is it is always the man's fault, despite the role a woman plays. The man can end the role reversal immediately, but he has to be willing to pay the price. The current occupant will not be cast out quietly. Is anyone willing to have the wife abandon the family, to be sued for divorce, to risk income, possessions, losing your children: that is the risk involved when a willful wife is dethroned. Society has made it very difficult, but if you are a man of God you can do NOTHING ELSE but take charge. By the way, taking charge means doing what is right, saying what is right, living what is right: in obedience to God (not your wife). It means you must take responsibility for failure. It does not mean lording it over someone, making a slave of your wife (as the claim is made). It means rather desiring what is best for your spouse (not what is easiest or will make someone happy). It means leading your family, no matter what threat or cohersion is applied, no matter the cost... you do not waver from being obedient to God. If you lead, invariably the wife (and children) will recognize your rightful place and follow. Their will remain a distrust on the wife’s part toward the husband who allowed himself to be 'bought', it takes years to regain trust (by not being controlled). When you go to a church and see a strong man, leading and teaching: whose wife honors her husband without guile, you have found that rare man (or woman) who has put God first and followed Christ, no matter the cost. Until that happens, you will find each church loaded to the gills with hard-working women and pretentious men. john

Subject: Re: I think ............
From: stan
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 19:09:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
that is a great running commentary on the commercials of our day :-) Very seldom we see a man shown in a decent light - all bumbling, stupid, or clumsy idiots. stan

Subject: Gee, John, how do you really feel? ;->
From: Anne
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 18:00:16 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Mercy. I touched a nerve, it seems. Actually, I DO realize that the 50's sitcom stuff was a deplorably accurate portrayal of much of American society. So there! (As you can see, I am skilled at taking arguments to a whole new level . . . . . that of the kindergarten.) 'The man lashes out in violence when he realizes he has lost control and cannot figure out how in his confused state to get back what was mysteriously lost (long ago). The violent man remains controlled, his guilt brings him crawling for forgiveness, the wife takes him back and (by comparison) rules like a benevolent god (very ego satisfying).' We're gonna part company here, though. I doubt that the woman who has had her bones broken, teeth knocked out, and hair pulled out feels like a god, benevolent or otherwise. It would be delightful to have such a simple solution to a vexaxious problem, I grant you. Even though it does seem as if there could be a correlation between the loss of man's natural power base, and the rise in wife battering over the past recent years, I don't think God would excuse such a crime on that basis. A wife-beater is not likely to hear, 'There, there! The nasty, controlling woman had it coming, didn't she? Well, I don't blame you a bit . . . . she NEEDED beating!' from God. Now, I think a case could be made for the increase in battering being a judical 'hardening' by God, in general displeasure at our skewing of His ordained sex roles. There is precedent for such hardening throughout history, is there not? Your description of a Godly, leading husband is right on target, though! From your mouth to God's ear, as they say. Anne

Subject: Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;->
From: john hampshire
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 00:23:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, Whether the reaction to man's failure as head of the family leads to spousal abuse, drugs, alcohol, divorce, suicide...you name it, there is no excuse to hide behind. While all these things are common in our day, they are coddled and excused by our liberal thinking friends. The blame must lay squarely on the man. In an attempt to remedy the problem (without knowing the cause) society has encouraged the problem and then denied its failure. While this forum is not about societal ailments, it can be shown (and has been) that government interference has created the mess we have today. That is, racism, welfare, poverty, drugs, suicide, divorce, rampant ignorance of: science, music, art, math, history, religion; all stem from a benevolent structure that loves the evil in mankind (and gets power via votes from its supporting love). In other words, society mimics the sick family structure. By the way, a woman does not deserve to be beaten, this we all agree upon. The point remains that she is not innocent (there is great advantage for the woman). The actions that underlie these things are easy to understand, common to all people, but very hard to see in ourselves (though we can find it in other people well enough). When trying to understand these things we usually attributed the cause to the wrong thing: to stress, financial troubles, affairs... but the real under-girding cause is never discovered. It does not require the wife to change first, it requires nothing more than the man to do what is right before God, he must lead and the rest will fall into place--eventually. A woman can likewise assume her proper role before God without any need for the man to change first. If a wife can stop correcting her husband (very hard to do) she will give him an opportunity to be wrong and see his wrong without interference. That is where the man can correct himself. If the woman insists on harping, whining, badgering the man then the man will never see a problem beyond his wife’s face. That is why the Bible says to win your husband silently... without a word (by example). If the wife steps off the throne voluntarily, the husband becomes aware of his sin and feels shamed, realizes his wrong (without the wife distracting him from it) and begins to act like a man. The most important thing for a wife to avoid is supporting the husband’s weaknesses (by excusing his failure). Let him fail, provide guidance when asked but let him see his wrong as wrong, done correctly you will soon have a husband worthy of your respect and honor (not that you don’t already). john

Subject: Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;->
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 07:54:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,
You have said many good things here and above concerning a man's responsibility to be the leader of his home. And it is also true that much of the evil that exists in households is due to the rebellious and contentious spirit of many (NOT ALL) women; as God curse surely confirms it will be so. But leaving open the possibility that you didn't mean this as a carte blanche statement: It does not require the wife to change first, it requires nothing more than the man to do what is right before God, he must lead and the rest will fall into place . . .', I find this to be altruistic and unrealistic on its face. Unfortunately, relationships are not like vending machines where if you put your coin in the slot and pull the desired lever, whatever you chose to have will be yours. And this applies to ALL of life. One's perfect obedience to God will not and cannot guarantee a good result. A diligent and faithful employee may not get the promotion over those who steal, lie and cheat their boss. One who speaks only truth on the stand may not be found innocent if he actually is by a Judge and/or jury. And equally so, no man should expect that a contentious woman who constantly strives to dominate the marital home will 'eventually . . . assume her proper role before God. . .' if he assumes his God-given place as the head. I realize that there are those out there in Christendom who actually believe this and on this erroneous idealism castigate men as being at fault in all things if their households are not the epitome of peace, love and joy. To this seditious view I suggest it is akin to the contemporary 'name it and claim it' heresy, that places the 'blame' for a failed 'healing' upon the subject due to his/her 'lack of faith.' 2Tim 3:12 'Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.', and those who will be the ones to persecute will be of one's own house in many cases. This does not excuse any man from taking upon himself the proper place as head of his household. But to suggest that if a man does this, eventually all will go well is ludicrous. (I am NOT suggesting that this is your actual view).
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;->
From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 22:44:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>But to suggest that if a man does this, eventually all will go well is ludicrous. (I am NOT suggesting that this is your actual view). Pilgrim, Actually one of the minor points I tried to make was this: if a man does as he should and lives obediently to God (and not his wife) then he can expect, at least initially, great effort on the wife's part to unseat him. This means it will be a great test of his faith since it will appear as if he is the cause of the families disharmony. The other point I tried to make here is that the husband has no excuse for not doing as he should. There is no need for either spouse to point fingers at each other, you do what is right despite the resistance or hindrance of the other. My final point is simple. If a man does as he should, he may lose it all (children, income, marriage, possessions) but he will in actuality have gained it all. There are no guarantees that a wife will not bolt for greener pastures. Yet if a man does as he should (which is a large subject involving more than I've written) then his wife is left without excuse and magnifies her guilt (which may bring her back). A strong man who leads the family is the kind of man the wife wants, and likewise the kind of man the wife doesn't want. So the reaction to a spiritual man depends on the spiritual state of the wife (and vice versa). One of the problems in Christendom is the game-playing where a wife pretends to be submissive (at least in church); the man uses the Bible as a weapon to judge the wife and manipulate her behavior. There is all kinds of hypocrisy going on all covered with a sugar coating of religious-talk and churchiosity. They have read sentimental Christian works of fiction telling of great joy and peace that comes from being a Christian and have modeled themselves after what they perceive a Christian would be. The worst (best) example comes from the PTL club's cry-baby psychotic (is it Tammy Baker, I try to forget) who represents the tragic end result of 'Christian' role-playing. In any case, there is no quick solution to obedience, there is lots of pain and suffering on that road, but all true Christians will keep to the narrow path to varying degrees. The goal of loving one’s wife as Christ loved the church (elect) will remain mysterious and unobtainable until we understand where our relationship failure truly originates (which would require a whole forum to itself). john

Subject: Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;->
From: Anne
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 20, 2000 at 05:53:11 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'A strong man who leads the family is the kind of man the wife wants, and likewise the kind of man the wife doesn't want.' Very true, John! I am frequently dismayed to find that I am a firm believer in being a submissive, obedient wife up to, but not including, the point when Don says 'No.' (Excuse me? No? NO? Are you talkin' to ME? Let me go over my suggestion again . . . . . you must have misunderstood me somewhere along the line.) Oh, I don't argue much, but I have been known to scowl and sulk. (I am NOT pouting . . . . . I've never pouted in my life. I'm scowling - a whole different thing entirely.) One thing that drives me crazy about egals is their mistaken conviction that being submissive = brain dead, and that it is SO EASY! Why, anyone can do it! HA! Being obedient requires its own particular spiritual strength, and is an ongoing struggle. It is marvelously helpful in one's walk along the narrow path, however, since to put God first is the core of Christ's teaching (If you love Me, you will obey Me), and by putting Don first I am obeying Him. Everyone wins! Astonishing how often that happens in God's plan.

Subject: Re: Gee, how do you really feel? ;->
From: john hampshire
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:24:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, I'm glad that you have discovered that fundamental truth, it usually is arrived at after many years of pain and misery. It is by God's design that the man is meant to be the supporting stake that the wife can lean against (with the man leaning against Christ). The wife needs a man who will stay true to an ideal, do what is right and cannot be bought. A strong, honorable, honest, man of integrity who says what he means and means what he says, that is the ideal. What most women end up with is a whiny, terrified, needful, excuse maker who uses people and things to gratify himself. It so happens that a wife can help 'wake-up' the worthless husband by being a woman of honor and integrity. It is the case many times that the man cannot function without the wife's support, aware that he has failed he relies heavily on encouragement from the wife to make him feel right (instead of doing right). That type of relationship must be stopped. The husband must be left high-n-dry to deal with what he has become without supporting praise (or sexual support) from the wife, in this manner the husband feels the pain that accompanies each failure and sees himself in the light of truth. If the wife deals with her husband honorably, softly, without emotion (or anger) the husband's many failures are magnified by the wife's honorable tone. Of course it is easy for the wife to find fault, nag, complain, and show him how it should be done--but this attitude will cause the husband to fixate upon the wife rather than himself. Done correctly, the wife will see a husband who is beginning to act like a man (rather than a mouse), the wife can win her husband with her calmness. It is important that sex be minimized, as it is the chief means for a man to distract himself from his problems and the chief means for a wife to keep the puppy on the leash. You are not to defraud each other, but there is also a dishonorable manner or time for things and an honorable and right time. Everything in its season. In regards to children, they will respond immediately to a mother who speaks without emotional trappings, who understands she bears no authority except that passed to her by her husband. The children will respect the mother (which is often not the case) when the hypocrisy is removed. It is the husband's job to teach and guide children, especially after they are about 2 yrs old. The wife simply cannot do it, it must come from a strong God-centered man. If the man fails in his job, the children will resent the father, and if the mother supports his failure, they will rebel (not always). Children will rebel against hypocrisy, they see it clearly even when parents try hard to convince them they don't see it. Some children will play-act with the mother, become their best friend by supporting her. Some rebel, some conform... each reacts differently to keep their sanity, the parents often interpreting conformity as love. But in the end, the child resents the parents improper spirit, and by their resentment they are bound to it, so that whether they rebel or conform they will grow into that spirit themselves. One day the grown children will be repeating the same phrases, reacting like their parents, even though it is the last thing they want--all by the binding power of resentment. The simple rule is: you become the thing you hate (resent). I am saying these things to explain the dynamics, this is really not the forum for it, I hope that some can see that behavior relates strongly to a spiritual state, and the root causes for trouble within a family are very simple failings caused primarily by an improper relationship to God. Just because we are now a Christian does not remedy our ego. If we recognize ego in ourselves we will likewise see it in others. Once we see those same failings in ourselves and admit our attempt to hide it, then we can forgive others who are only doing likewise. When we are aware we will catch ourselves acting from ego, and by not acting upon that impulse, ego is cruicified. The key is to remain aware, it is too easy to become wrapped up in supporting people and needing support, but there is no real peace or joy in it. Do what is right each moment, no matter the cost! john

Subject: I was asked this on another board..
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 09:06:00 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
'Do you believe that all those souls whom God predestines to inherit Eternal Life have ALSO been predestined by God to confess Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?' I have already answered this in some detail. I haven't received a reply yet from the Arminian who asked it. If anyone would care to comment, I'd be interested in what course you would have taken in answering, just out of curiosity. It's not a question which I had been specifically asked before, which is sort of unusual; the Arminian questions are normally predictable. (This is not a solicitation for help in answering, just a desire to see how you would have reacted.)

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:55:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,
I would answer, 'No, not all those who have been predestined to eternal life by God's immutable counsel have been predestined to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. . .' I will answer quickly as to put to rest any notion that there are myriad people in this world who adhere to anything but biblical Christianity and/or worship a false 'god' can be saved. The reason for my answer is that there are those who are elect by who are mentally incapable of comprehending the gospel as well as elect infants who die in infancy who will not nor cannot profess their faith in Christ verbally. However, I also affirm that ALL THE ELECT have been predestinated to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and thus faith is implanted in the new heart of flesh which reaches out to Christ savingly. For apart from Christ, there is no reconciliation possible with God. Barring these two exceptions, I believe that all others who have been predestinated to salvation will profess savingly and repentantly faith in the Lord Christ.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: knowfear
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 21:48:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'Do you believe that all those souls whom God predestines to inherit Eternal Life have ALSO been predestined by God to confess Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?'>> Pilgrim as Rod had his own thoughts but wished to hear how others would express theirs I would like to ditto that plea with one of my own. You mentioned two groups as exceptions to the rule lets say. But in response to how the original question was stated in it's total context I'd be interested in not only your thoughts but the forum's as a whole on just how exactly the O.T. saint confessed Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Saviour. How would you go about addressing 'that' question. Thank-you in advance. kf. p.s.-- As a secondary question I am of the belief that the O.T. saint had to look ahead to Christ in 'some' fashion, no matter how dimly he might see, and the basis of his faith, or the object of his faith had to be Christ--looking ahead, as the object of 'our' faith must be Christ looking back. There are some that say no. The O.T. saint was saved by faith in God apart from any revelation of Christ. My question
---
--poll time. What say you? In Him kf.

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 18:13:20 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim Being completely focused on Romans 8, particularly the key passage of 28-30 and the key verse, in this case I think, of 29, coupled with chapter 10:8-9 clouded my mind to this consideration. It was and is my conviction also that these two classes of people are predestined to ultimate glorification in our Lord. For all others, I would affirm the necessity of confession as the Bible proclaims.

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 16:16:14 (PST)
Email Address: Anneivy@home.com

Message:
' The reason for my answer is that there are those who are elect by who are mentally incapable of comprehending the gospel as well as elect infants who die in infancy who will not nor cannot profess their faith in Christ verbally.' Of course you are correct, Pilgrim! Wish I'd thought to include that caveat, but I just didn't. ! Anne

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 16:35:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, That's why we are not all noses in Christ's church, eh? :-) In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 09:36:55 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'Do you believe that all those souls whom God predestines to inherit Eternal Life have ALSO been predestined by God to confess Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?' ' I would have told them, yup! Might have prettied that response up a bit first, but that would have been the essence. Would I be correct in assuming that this is one of those 'What about the person who never gets to hear the gospel?' questions? Those are tough, it cannot be denied. I would say, however, that those predestined by God for salvation will have the gospel presented to them somehow, some way. If it never was, then those people were not of the elect. Anne

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 10:44:03 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, Since this was not a question I'd heard before, expressed in that manner, I frankly told the guy that I wasn't sure where he was going with this, but I'd answer anyway. I hadn't considered that, 'What about those who,' angle. That may be it. I still haven't heard back. I'd be interested in what Scriptural basis for an affirmative answer (which is what I gave) you and others would have for your conviction.

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: john hampshire
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 00:39:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, 'Do you believe that all those souls whom God predestines to inherit Eternal Life have ALSO been predestined by God to confess Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?' What does that mean? If we mean 'confess' as in the common meaning of 'to declare faith in', then we should not expect an unborn infant to speak handsomely of Christ. If we mean 'confess' in the Biblical term of 'being of one mind with', then we must say all regenerate beings, no matter the age, will have a mind (spirit) turned toward God. The NT believer is of the same mind as Christ just as the OT believer was, our measure being the Word of God. As for babies, dolts, and aborigines, there is no reason to expect some verbal proclamation (it is not what confess means). Since regeneration does not depend in the least on man, salvation comes at any age and we can confess Christ in the womb if our spirit is in agreement with Christ's Spirit (John the Baptist confessed Christ when he leapt in his mother’s womb). Surely if an infant lived long enough this agreement would be manifested in words and deeds (which we are predestined to walk in). john

Subject: Re: I was asked this on another board..
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:05:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
john, As I told Pilgrim on this subject, I'm in agreement that there are those such as you describe who cannot speak the words of confession, such as those whom I believe God saves who cannot ultimately make that confession. This would include infants who die and the mentally deficient. (I'd like to hear more about the aborigines, though.) In my answer to this, as it turned out to a very confused individual, I approached the question from the standpoint of the Romans 9:29 (it has to be remembered that he was almost rabid in denouncing what he referred to as OSAS--'once saved, always saved'): For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.' And I also quoted Rom. 10:8-9, which indicates the usual and normal course for humans, as laid out in the plan of the Lord God: 'But what saith it? The word is near thee, even in thay mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith, which we preach: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' And verse 10 elaborates: 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness [justification by faith]; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.' On that basis, the declarations of the Apostle, I answered 'yes,' explaining the situation in detail, not mentioning or even considering at that point the infants or mentally incapable of confession. I think, in view of the context of the question, it would have been distracting at that point to have introduced that factor, even if I had thought of it, since my answer was quite long and detailed as it was. Now, it turns out that this individual is such a rabid opponent of 'OSAS,' because he has no concept of what the 'perseverance of the saints/eternal security' proponents really mean. His last post to me on this subject indicated that he was actually thinking of people who were deluded about their salvation, who must be brought to a true and saving knowledge of Christ before being of what he referred to as a 'true and sincere faith!' DUH! So I had to point out to him that he was still wrong. The perseverance of the saints, involves those who definitely were 'sanctified' by God, set apart to His purposes in salvation and they could never lose that position, because it was based on God's action and will. I also felt compelled to point out to him that the other folks he was mentioning couldn't lose salvation for the simple reason that they never possessed it, one being unable to lose what he doesn't have. So, you see, the question this man asked me wasn't necessary at all. We spilled a lot of cyber-ink for nothing. (Actually, I hope it wasn't for nothing--I hope that some read the exchange and saw the sovereignty of God. That board is pretty confused on that and other issues.)

Subject: The Holy Spirit
From: Mark
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:29:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Where can I read about the Reformed teaching on the Holy Spirit? Do we teach that the spirit is active in any way other than illuminating the Word? Coudl God throught the spirit lead a person to a church or to the minsitry? Could the power of the spirit still heal people physically today? For His Glory Mark

Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit
From: Pilgrim
To: Mark
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:46:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mark,
Although I would affirm what Rod said about the Scriptures being the final authority and source of all truth, I also can say without hesitation that the following are indeed the result of careful and prayer study of the Scriptures and worthy of reading. To try and formulate your OWN doctrine of the Holy Spirit would be a formidable task, and since God has blessed the Church with many gifted men who have searched the Scriptures and written their findings, I believe it is far more expedient to take advantage of their works and sitting down with the Scriptures open, see if what they have written is true. Here is a partial list of those works which I have read and can therefore recommend to you for your further study. The publishers are those which printed the work at the time I purchased them. Obviously some are dated, hehehe.: 1) The Work of the Holy Spirit by Abraham Kuyper [Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: 1900 and reprinted 1975]. 2) The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit by James Buchanan [Banner of Truth, 1843 and reprinted 1966]. 3) The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit by George Smeaton [Banner of Truth, 1882, reprinted 1974]. 4) The Gifts of the Holy Spirit by C.R. Vaughan [Banner of Truth, 1894, reprinted 1975]. 5) The Holy Spirit by Arthur W. Pink [Baker, 1970]. 6) The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit by Edwin H. Palmer [Baker, 1958, reprinted 1974]. 7) The Mystery of the Holy Spirit by R.C. Sproul [Tyndale, 1989]. 8) A theology of the Holy Spirit by Frederick Dale Bruner [Eerdmans, 1970, reprinted 1977] Not Reformed but good. 9) The Holy Spirit 'Works, Chapter III' by John Owen [Banner of Truth, reprinted 1965, 1972]. This is a partial list but I believe it contains the best written of late. With the exception of Bruner's work, which I believe is excellent although his emphasis on baptism being the pivotal point to understanding the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' is extreme, the other writers are all Reformed in the broad sense of the word. For an indepth look at the subject of the 'gifts of the Spirit' (ecstatic variety) and an apologetic against the view that asserts that they are contemporary in the Church today, see: 1) Perspectives on Pentecost by Dr. Richard Gaffin [P&R Publishing, 1979]. 2) The Final Word by O. Palmer Robertson [Banner of Truth, 1993]. 3) Counterfeit Miracles by B.B. Warfield [Banner of Truth, 1918, reprinted 1972].
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 18:32:10 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Just to clarify and to be sure that no one misunderstands my point, I'd like to add a few remarks. :>) I am definitely not opposed to consulting what the 'gifted men' write. I benefit immensely from what God's servants have preserved for us in their written thoughts, as well as recorded sermons, etc.. What I was trying to emphasize is this: For me, a very effective method of formulating my belief/conviction on a particular topic is to try to get a firm grasp of what the Bible says first, prior to having my mind influenced by other men, servants of God and gifted as they might be. Prayerfully examining the Scriptures gives me a 'feel' for what God is imparting to us, though my grasp might be basic and I might have many questions on the subject. Then, I seek out pertinent and valuable resources to help me understand what others have realized and taught. Since Bible teachers/preachers are notorious for 'appropriating' from one another, it tends to lead to a compliation of ideas through the years. I don't, therefore, discount or say to avoid the contributions of Spirit-led men. Also, I didn't want to speak to the doctrine of the Reformed churches, having no expertise in that subject on this particular topic. I trust that helps.

Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 21:44:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,
No argument here brother! And although I heartily agree that the Scriptures should be the first source consulted, knowing that the vast majority of people lack having a decent grasp of the Bible as a whole (not that I have the entire Bible memorized), to ask someone to take the Bible and formulate a doctrine of the person of the Holy Spirit would probably lead to instant depression and probably a faulty view as well. What I have found is that by suggesting one or two really good works on a particular subject often helps stimulate one's mind to pursue the Scriptures in a more organized and focused way which otherwise might not have been possible otherwise. One like yourself, who has had many years reading and studying the Scriptures is better equipped to read the Scriptures, having already adopted a systematic and biblical theology, is far more able to take a subject/topic and search the Scriptures for himself concerning a particular topic. The 'Analogy of Faith' can only succeed in harvesting God's truth when one knows the Scriptures well enough to actually compare Scripture with Scripture. If one is barely acquainted with the Bible in toto, then this becomes a daunting if not impossible task. Praise the Lord for raising up gifted men who are able to point the way for novices like myself so that I do not run amuck. :-) I will admit that my greatest joys have come when the Spirit has led me into a 'special' truth which was not previously seen as I was prayerfully reading the Scriptures. A second blessing came (and a great deal of relief as well) when I later found out that that 'special truth' was a truth held by the 'notables' of the Church. [If it ever happened that I think I have found something 'unique' and also in opposition to the faith of the historic Church, I pray doubt would be my first sensation!]
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 22:51:33 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, I understand, value, and appreciate the point of view. I can honestly say that today, when I get a thought about something Biblical, I often don't know if it came to me from God as an insight, or, (more likely) I read it or heard it somewhere. Please note that in saying, 'if it came to me from God,' that I'm claiming 'originality,' the gift of prophecy, or special, direct knowledge. The fact is that, even if I didn't get it directly from someone else's comments or interpretation, 'there is nothing new under the sun,' and it would only be a 're-discovery' on my part and no new revelation. Now, I know I heard this from someone else: 'The Bible is its own best commentary.' Cp. Acts 17:11. :>)

Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit
From: Brother Bret
To: Mark
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 07:57:25 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Hello Mark: Being that I am not of the Reformed or Presbyterian ranks,I can't give you a detailed position of their's either. However you can get some information from this website ministry by checking out some of the confessions and the 'Canons of Dordt.' I do not recall seeing anything in there that would say that the Spirit is not active in the daily leading of Christian's lives. If I'm recalling correctly, they believe that God through the Person of the Spirit does heal people directly in these days also. They would just say that no Minister or Christian has the gift of healing anymore. I know this isn't much, but hope it helps some. Perhaps Pilgrim, Laz, John or one of the others can give us some more information :^)..........Brother Bret

Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit
From: Rod
To: Mark
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 20:08:31 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I can't give you the Reformed position on the Holy Spirit of God, but I can refer you to some significant Bible passages. I firmly believe that one should consult the Bible first, before addressing any other writing. The list is not exhaustive, but should be somewhat helpful. Some passages to consider: John 3:5-6 John 14:15-18, 23-26 John 15:5 John 16: 7, 13-15 Rom. 8:9, 26-27 (Actually the whole chapter is always terrific!) Rom. 12:1-8 I Cor., chapters 12-14 (Paul is exercising correction and rebuke against abuses here) Gal. 5:16-26 Eph. 4:7-16 1 John 2: 18-27

Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit
From: free_really
To: Rod and Mark
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 21:49:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
II Peter 1:2-11 Phil. 2:12-13 II The. 2:13 They will give you some understanding Holy Spirit's works and sanctification.

Subject: Preaching
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 16:51:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What is the biblical understanding of 'preaching' in the formal worship setting? Can just anyone be permitted to 'preach' to the congregation...or should only officers of the church approved to preach be allowed? laz

Subject: Re: Preaching
From: Brother Bret
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 08:19:40 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Hey Brother Laz, long time no tpye-to...hehe. I think that as mentioned already by Rod, the bible gives some guidelines as to how some things should go in the local worship service. This is something that I have wondered about myself off and on for the last year or two. I would love to know what God's 'perfect' will is regarding worship/church services. How long or how many services? Is it just supposed to be one person ( a man for sure according to God's word) that preaches during the main service? Can others speak and interject? How much is supposed to be worship in song, and how much is supposed to be preaching of the Word? Should just the pslams be sung, or can it be many of the hymns that we have today? Is it wrong to take up an offering during the service? What about announcements about church activites and other services/ministries? Should the preaching be topical, textual or expository (I lean towards expository)? Is it good or bad, or unwise or neutral, or outright sin to have an alter call? It seems that God has allowed us some flexibility in much of this, except of course if we can show that the word of God tells us otherwise. Now remember, this is coming from a guy who has been in an Arminian Denomination for 12 years, with an Independant Baptist mentality, but embraces the doctrines of sovereign grace. That's enough to confuse a feller, huh? LOL! Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Preaching
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 18:40:47 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, It's my firm conviction that Paul answers these questions in Eph. 4:1-16.

Subject: Re: Preaching
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 13:34:50 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Rod Thanks for the passage. Is it possible that some are not ordained to preach, actually have the gift of a pastor or teacher? In our congagation, I have heard some sermons done by an elder of the Church, when the pastor was away. That seemed to show that that they were indeed gifted in preaching God's word. If the pastor of the Church is away should a message be given. Or for that matter should we even have a service at all? Also a number of years ago, we were without a pastor, so it was up to our elected elders to take care of the services. Tom

Subject: Re: Preaching
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 19:07:19 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, I specifically didn't go into detail on this subject for a very simple reason. That is, we get into what can be called 'denominational considerations.' Most of the people on this board would have very different views on this than mine, so I downplayed it. Since you ask, I will respond. The Brethren (who aren't a denomination, as such) have no 'the pastor/my pastor' person. We have in the local churches, the leadership of of a plurality of elders, assisted by a board of deacons. The elders 'recognize,' as Spirit-led men, 'gifted men' to do the preaching and teaching of the assembly. There may be one man who does the bluk of this work, or it may be shared more or less equally by two or more. There is no 'ordination' ceremony among the Brethren, the feeling being that the 'ordination' is by God and that men merely 'recognize what God has already ordained. This is true for elders, deacons, teachers/preachers, and evangelists/missionaries. Women may have the gift to teach, but, according to the Bible are to teach the other women and/or children. Elders may be 'ruling elders' only, but some elders may be 'teaching elders' also, assuming a part of the teaching or preaching duties. The word 'pastor' refers to providing 'pasturage,' but is a somewhat obscure word, the meaning of which is not known exactly, as far as I can tell. I am reminded of what the Lord insturcted Peter in John 21:15-17, where he was given the commission to feed the 'sheep' and the 'little lambs.' Some people see an intimate association between the words 'pastor' and 'teacher' in verse 11, feeling that they should be joined as 'pastor-teacher' where one man performs the two functions simultaneously as part of his spiritual gift. I am of that opinion. Such a person would then be an exhorter, a teacher, and an interpreter of Scripture. The other catagories of gifted men, with the exception of those gifted as evangelists, have passed away with the end of the 12 Apostles. Many expect 'the pastor' to do all the evangelization of the church, but the context indicates that this is a separate gift of establishing churches by reaching the predestinated as God choses to regenerate them by that ministry. Paul exhorts Timothy, his deputy, to 'do the work of an evangelist' (2 Tim. 4:5). Though not all people, have that gift, they can study those who do and present the gospel, as it is God who saves people, not the human agent. This isn't a 'commercial' for the Brethren, but what I consider to be very close to the Biblical model. The short answer to your question is: I believe that there may be multiple men with the gift of pastor-teacher in any given assembly.

Subject: Re: Well now ..........
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 20:23:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
that kinda sounds like a plan ;-) Are your elders for life and/or until the Lord leads differently? Heard once that RA Torrey was in a multiple elder format - anyone confirm or deny. Haven't seen anything in print on the subject. stan

Subject: Re: Well now ..........
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 22:57:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
stan, Each local assembly is autonomous, but I personally think the principle is, 'the gifts and calling of God are without repentnce, which I would say meant as long as an elder was not in sin as a way of life and mentally capable, he would continue in the office.

Subject: Re: Well now ..........
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 23:15:14 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
P.S. stan: One semi well-known Brethren preacher and former seminary prof, S. Lewis Johnson of Believers Chapel of Dallas, Tx resigned his eldership when his first wife died and he subsequently remarried, being of the conviction that 'the husband of one wife' was just what it said and 'circumstances' didn't matter. (Coincidentally the first wife was 'Mary,' the second, 'Martha.') I never met Dr. Johnson, but have great admiration for the old gentleman's teaching. Believers Chapel has a website and online tape ordering capability, if anyone wants to access it, or you can write them for a tape catalog at 6420 Churchill Way, Dallas, TX 75230.

Subject: Re: Well now ..........
From: Stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 18, 2000 at 13:58:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Didn't realize pastor J was Brethren. Used to listen to his tapes way too long ago when I was on the road a lot. Really enjoyed his teaching. Their tape ministry was awesome 15 years ago - can't imagine what it would be like now. Will snoop their site soon. Thanks for the info.

Subject: Re: Well now ..........
From: Rod
To: Stan
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:31:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
stan, I probably shouldn't have referred to Dr. Johnson as 'Brethren,' as he might not accept the label (I only use it myself very sparingly as an accomodation to other Christians, thinking of myself simply as a 'Christian'). In the Believers Chapel 'Study Guide/tape catalog,' they disavow any label whatsoever. The fact is, however, that their church organization, their insistence on the Lord's Supper being the centerpiece of worship, and many other factors, identify them with brethren assemblies in general, even if they forego the designation. 'Brethren' actually are not a denomination. The word, properly, should not be capitalized. The 'brethren' believe just that: all those actually in Christ are brothers and sisters. There is no organizational leadership at any level, other than that of the local assembly. The churches are not connected, except by the fact that there is a very loose knit pattern of kinship, such as that I've mentioned earlier. Each assembly is autonomous and independent of all others. And many practices vary from locale to locale. Sometimes it helps to use a label, for simplifying, but it can also be confusing.

Subject: Re: Preaching
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 15:02:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom - as a presbyterian (Rod is NOT one but I won't hold that against him, hehe) ...a ruling elder can preach but the presbytery (and perhaps the church's session) would prefer to call upon any available teaching elder (i.e., pastor) to fill in when a pastor of a particular church is gone long-term. Elder CAN preach (and should on occassion for practice and experience).... but it should be as a last resort under most cases. Our pastor is gone about 6 times a year and we are never without a suitable fill-in....despite the fact that all three of our elders can probably preach better than 90 percent of the pastors I've heard in non-reformed circles given their sheer knowledge of the scriptures and church history. The church I recently left lost their rogue pastor but has been blessed with a fill-in pastor (retired pastor/seminary prof) this past year as well as our associate pastor, and one of our retired missionaries. The elders of that church have not preached (nor would I recommend them to preach either). blessings, laz

Subject: Re: right on if .....
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:40:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
there is such a thing as Biblical formal worship ;-) Have been doing some study in I Tim. 2 and knowing the last of the chapter is an attempt to correct what was wrong at the churches, I have been taken with what chaos there must have been that prompted Paul to write such things :-) stan

Subject: Stan, I have it on good authority that...
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:58:27 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
the Corinthian church was pretty chaotic also, according to chapters 12-14. :>) Paul was forever correcting those folks, it seems. Actually, speaking strictly from a human standpoint, it's pretty amazing that the Christian Church has survived the centuries! One more reason to believe that God is sovereignly at work in the lives and destinies of men.

Subject: Re: Amen :-) NT
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 20:26:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
.

Subject: Prevenial Grace
From: Mark
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 13:44:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I heard someone mentional the term prevenial grace. What are they refering to? Thanks as always for responding to my ignorant questions.

Subject: Re: Prevenial Grace
From: laz
To: Mark
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 16:59:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The Internal Call: A Work of God’s Grace Fifthly, we furthermore wish to state by way of preface that the effectual call is a work of God’s grace. The Arminians also use the word grace in order to create the illusion that they speak scripturally. They explain it in such a manner, however, that grace is no longer grace. They acknowledge grace to be nothing else but that which enables man to perform. They maintain, however, that the ability “to will and to do” originates in man himself. They reason as follows: I may thank God that I have been able to repent, but I thank myself for the fact that I was willing to repent. They make a distinction between sufficient grace and efficacious grace. The Arminians understand sufficient grace to mean that God has given sufficient ability to all men—great and small, young and old, Jews, Turks, heathens, and Christians—to repent and to believe in Christ. They refer to this as quickening, prevenient, operative, instructional, and suggestive grace. This grace, however, by whatever name it is called, is entirely subject to the free will of man which determines whether or not it is to be accepted. They furthermore proceed to refer to grace as being helping, cooperative, and supportive. They understand this grace to be collateral in nature; that is, operating side by side, each functioning independently and the one assisting the other. Thus, each party operates independently—God from His side and man from his side. If therefore man receives the Word of God and begins to repent, God will assist him, stir him up, and will stimulate him all the more by various motives. This operation remains external, however, and man always remains free and in control to either submit to, or to reject the divine operations. Even after he has repented and becomes a believer, he is yet equally independent and is able to overturn the work of conversion again by the exercise of his free will, which does occasionally occur. Moreover, the Arminians understand effectual grace to refer to the result. It is not effectual by the almighty power of God who would thus in actuality convert man, but only in reference to the result. If man repents and believes in Christ, his calling is effectual because of what man has done. Others call this grace effectual due to some degree of suitability (congruitas), when God makes use of opportunities—either a man’s character or his condition being at its weakest and most pliable—making use of a given moment, while simultaneously holding before him and impressing upon him suitable motives which persuade and convince him. All of this, however, culminates in one thing: Free will remains lord and master, having ultimate power to either accept or reject. God is merely a servant or a friend who advises and urges him to act, whereas man himself determines whether or not he will allow himself to be persuaded. All of this we reject. Over against this we maintain the following: (1) There must be a distinction between the gift of grace and given grace. The gift of grace is the goodness of God, the fountain from whom proceeds all the good which man receives. Given grace refers to the benefits which man receives, has, and possesses. Concerning the gift of grace we read, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Phil. 1:29). Concerning given grace we read, “For this is thankworthy, ” if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. (1 Pet. 2:19). (2) Grace is either common or special. God bestows common grace upon all men by granting them temporal benefits. “Nevertheless He left not himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven” (Acts 14:17). To this grace also belongs all the good which God bestows upon all who are called, by giving them the Word—the means unto repentance and salvation. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11). In addition to this, God generally gives illumination, historical faith, convictions, and inner persuasion to almost become a Christian (cf. Heb. 6:4–6). Special grace is the effectual call whereby man is illuminated with wondrous spiritual light, effectually changing his will, and thus in very deed translating him out of darkness into light, out of death to life, and from the dominion of sin and the devil to Christ and His kingdom. “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 Tim. 1:9); “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son” (Col. 1:13). From these four prefatory propositions it is evident what the nature of the internal call is. We must now furthermore observe 1) how man is involved in his conversion, and 2) what God does in this respect. Brakel, Wilhelmus, Th.F., The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Volumes I and II, (Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group) 1999.

Subject: Re: Prevenial Grace
From: Mark
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 19:25:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, Thank you for replying in such detail. I want to be sure that I understand what you are saying. the Arminians would teach two types of Grace. One grace originates from god which offers salvation and another resides in man which effects salvation. So previnial grace is that of the formeer which is from and of God but somewhow depends on mans will. If I understand this correctly then it would stand to reason that we would praise ourselves along with God for our salvation, could there be greater herressy? I sruggle with this in my own church where my pasotr seems to preach some type of this false grace but he is hard to pin down on this issue. For His Glory, Mark

Subject: Re: Prevenial Grace
From: Pilgrim
To: Mark
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 11:28:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mark,
Analogies are often weak and ineffective compared to the Scriptural record, but perhaps this might help you to understand the Arminian concept of 'grace' (which is predominantly held throughout Christendom currently). Think of the situation where everyone is in jail and locked behind steel bars. God comes along and unlocks all the doors for everyone. Now it's up to the individual to either leave or stay. As you can see, God only makes it POSSIBLE for everyone to be set free from their 'bondage'. The actual freedom is only secured IF a person DECIDES to avail himself/herself of the 'grace of God'. Thus the 'prevenient/initial' bestowal of grace doesn't really secure ones freedom/salvation, but only makes it possible for salvation. Even from the beginning, this view is fatally flawed, for sinners are not just incarcerated and held in bondage as if in a prison, but rather they are dead and entombed in a spiritual grave. Man needs for more than an opportunity to walk out of prison; he needs resurrection from the 'grave.' So you keep with the above analogy, all men are in prison, but are found to be dead; corpses lying in their cells. Conversely and diametrically opposite to this view is the biblical/Calvinistic view which teaches that God's grace is EFFECTUAL; it actually accomplishes all that was purposed by supplying all that is necessary to and bringing to actuality the salvation intended. Thus God's grace is salvation itself and realized in His good time.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Prevenial Grace
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 18:02:51 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks laz, for going to all that trouble to 'graft' this info in. And thus, such 'grace' is not grace at all, but, as I just finished reading, 'grace violated' (a very apt description, BTW). The folks who claim such to be 'grace,' such as I once did, are very much mistaken and, whether knowingly or not, take away from the attributes and glory of God.

Subject: Re: Prevenial Grace
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 12:14:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks laz, for going to all that trouble to 'graft' this info in. And thus, such 'grace' is not grace at all, but, as I just finished reading, 'grace violated' (a very apt description, BTW). The folks who claim such to be 'grace,' such as I once did, are very much mistaken and, whether knowingly or not, take away from the attributes and glory of God.
---
Rod - it was absolutely no trouble at all cutting and pasting that piece from my trusty Ephesians Four Reformed CD library available to everyone on the planet FREE (minus 5-7 bucks S&H but you can affored that...being a $150 offer)by going to the Highway's Homepage and clicking on the 'Amazing Free CD Offer'. It took me about 2 minutes to find that appropriate piece on prevenient grace. Go get your free copy, Tiger...I love it! These people are dying to give these CD's away! blessings, Laz (or Lazy...which ever applies at the moment) Free, TOTALLY FREE! www.e4.net

Subject: Re: Prevenial Grace
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 12:20:25 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, I intend to do just that. Thanks.

Subject: AMEN!!! NT
From: Brother Bret
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 08:26:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Subject: prophetess
From: A Sheep
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 09:00:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have been doing a bible study in the book of Isaiah and in chapter 8-Isiah's wife was called a prophetess. I'm puzzled by what this means-could you deal with that word use in the scriptures for me?

Subject: Re: prophetess
From: Rod
To: A Sheep
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 11:33:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
a, May I call you 'a'? :>) I'm by no means an expert on this, but I can point out to you that there were female prophets, both in the OT and the NT. In the OT, consult Ex. 15:20, where Miriam is, curiously, referred to as not only a 'prophetess,' but 'the sister of Aaron,' not as 'the sister of Moses and Aaron.' See also Judges 4:4; 2 Chron.34:22; and Neh. 6:14, where a false prophetess is mentioned. In the Isaiah passage, it may be that his wife is referred to as a 'prophetess' merely because she is his wife (by association), according to the thinking of some. It seems that it is possible that she is an actual prophetess, but I wouldn't definitively state that. Hope this helps.

Subject: Biblical worship
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 16:12:26 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Hi I have been having an e-mail discussion with my pastor that first started after he read the sola's of the Cambridge declaration. As you probably know these sola's are not meant to be a detailed explanation so, because of my pastors limited time to study these matters he asked me to help him with a number of issues that pertain to the document. Over the last few months I have been studying this issue and out of that I answered him as to what these solas are saying. I have told him about what Regulative worship is, what Normative worship and something that is has become popular today called Pragmatic worship. Before I post his responce, I want to make you aware that his responce it not deversionary in any way. He asked these questions because his concept of worship encompases all of the Christian life. I am asking help with this issue, so I can answer him in a manner that is respectful, logical and biblical. Tom Hey Tom...thanks for taking the time to put together a long answer. Well done. Probably the biggest thing we might need to figure out is our definition of 'worship'. ...can entertainment be 'worship'? --seems God created us and wired us up to utilize all five senses...enjoy life...enjoy the arts. ...is a stained glass window a form of 'worship'? --can worship not be the admiration of the artistic talents God gave to a certain individual? In defining worship is where I probably would be in a certain amount of disagreement with both 'regulative' and 'normative' approaches; and to cut straight from there to 'pragmatic' without anything in between seems a little drastic. Thanks in advance Tom

Subject: Re: Biblical worship
From: mebaser
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 08:58:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Tom, I'm afraid that I have not studied the issues regarding regulative worship (or the regulative principle for worship) as much as I would like to. But I have always believed that the regulative principle was meant to be applied only to the worship that occurs when the church comes together coorporately, as in a Sunday morning service or a Bible study. So when you define worship, I think we are to understand that there is an overall definition that includes the elevation/exaltation of God, but also that there are different ways to worship in different settings. In Christ, mebaser

Subject: Re: Biblical worship
From: clark
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 07:45:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom-- Even though I am not the person who should be answering your questions--no great scholar on worship--your question did bring up some thoughts on the matter. 1 ...can entertainment be 'worship'? Worship can be entertaining, as in enjoyable--but should be theaterical, as I am being entertained. I have gone to churches where the music is too loud and the song leaders to 'entertaining'. This over powers the people in the congregation and make joining in with the singing difficult--I would say this is not a good method in a worship service. If the focus becomes being entertained instead of joining in then this is not worship. Entertained also has a negative meaning with it when it comes to worship. To be entertained means that the activity is designed to make you feel something--evoke an emotion, and the emotion is scripted--be it happy, sad, spiritual--they are emotions you experieince but they are not your emotions. I would think it would be better to go into a worship service with your true emotions and let God evoke the necessary emotions--regret, repentances, joy, awe... 2 ...is a stained glass window a form of 'worship'? Art is an expression of the artist's worship and can be enjoyed and admired by those who view the artwork. Again, as in entertainment the artwork is not the onlookers perception, but the artist's perception. But when we look in the Bible we see that God commissioned His temple to be built--His plans. The temple was designed to evoke 'holy emotions'. It was designed by God, and built by the artisians of the day. The temple was filled with, what I believe, were symbolic items. The Altar, curtain, candlesticks, ladle, pots...everything meant something. Now-a-day we have pretty but little symbolism. And no church that I know of has been handed plans from God. So as long as we keep in mind that the artwork is the emotion of the artists and not our true emotion, and we don't put emphasis on it as 'to be worshipped' or 'important in our worship' we can have beautiful things in the building where we go to worship. clark

Subject: Re: Biblical worship
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 16:39:14 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
I appreciate the answers that have come so far, but what I am looking for are scriptural and or logical reasons why you agree/disagree with my pastor. I want to be sure of my answers to my pastor, before I give him an answer. I owe him that much, talking about this matter is helping my pastor and I to get to know each other better. I do not know what God has in store, for our theology(worship in particular, but not completely) discussion, but I do believe God has something in mind. Tom

Subject: Re: Biblical worship
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 18:14:15 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
...but what I am looking for are scriptural and/or logical reasons why you would disagree with my pastor.' Tom, I'm sort of confused by this statement. I found both responses so far 'logical.'

Subject: Re: Biblical worship
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 13:14:03 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Sorry you are correct they were logical, however I am looking for scriptural support for what they said. Particularly scripture that is clear in their meaning. I should be careful how I word things. ;-) Tom

Subject: Re: Biblical worship
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 16:33:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
Sorry brother that I haven't more time, but I would have you consider the following passages and then simply let them shine upon any and all contemporary notions of 'worship', which I consider to be no worship at all or idolatry at best: Gen. 4:3-7 [Here we see that Abel brought a sacrifice which was commanded of God and Cain brought that which HE thought was 'acceptable' but immediately rejected by God.] Exod. 20:3, 4 [One must not only have the one true God as the object of one's heart, mind, soul and strength, but He must not be blasphemed by worshipping Him by the vain imaginative figures of man nor by any outward alleged simulations of man.] Exod. 20:25 [A reinforcement of the above passages, teaching that man is not to bring what HE thinks is proper worship. (cf. Deut. 27:5; IKings 18:31] Exod. 34:12f [A prohibition by God against adopting the practices of the world into right worship.] Exod. 35ff [Exacting instructions for building the Tabernacle and all its elements thus laying the foundation of the 'Regulative Principle' for the proper worship of God; i.e., Only that which God has commanded is acceptable worship.] Jer. 6:20 [Another rejection by God of those things used for worship, which although in themselves are marvelous, are nonetheless odious to God and unacceptable.] Psa. 89:7 [The proper attitude for worship displayed. cf. Heb. 12:28, 29.] John 4:4 [God is to be worshipped in 'Spirit' and 'Truth'. Thus only those who are indwelt by the Spirit of God can properly worship God and who seek to worship Him in 'truth: i.e., according to those commands found in His holy Word.] Heb 8:5 [The instructions for the building of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and all its glory are an 'example and typological' whereby the church is to learn that only that which God has given by way of commandment are to be included in proper worship through the Lord Jesus Christ.] IJohn 2:15, 16 [This world has nothing to offer to the Church that it may 'borrow' it's myriad abominable practices and incorporate them for the purpose of living and/or the worship of God.]
I hope these will suffice as a foundation for further reflection. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 00:42:33 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Am I misunderstand the following quote from Calvin, that leads me to think he was a Supralapsarian? The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. Institutes III.23.7 Tom

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 09:26:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
This statement by Calvin cannot be construed as being either Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian. Those who hold to either of these views can affirm what Calvin wrote there as being biblical and true. God's foreknowledge is based upon His own decree. Because God has purposed all things by His determinate and eternal counsel, therefore He 'foreknows'. All Calvin is affirming there is 'Double Predestination' which is a truth. But how one understands 'Double Predestination' is what would distinguish the two views. For the Infralapsarian understanding see: Double Predestination by R.C. Sproul. It is unclear whether Calvin was Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian in his view of God's eternal predestination. It has a matter of debate for centuries. However, you must understand, that a Supralapsarian view does not make one a 'Hyper-Calvinist' of necessity. Many of the signers of the Westminster Confession of Faith held to a Supralapsarian view yet were avidly evangelistic and held to a firm view of common grace. A misunderstanding is sometimes held that those who would hold to a Supralapsarian view deny a 'Free Offer' of the gospel to all men and that God has no 'Common Grace' to the non-elect. The two terms, Supralapsarian and Hyper-Calvinism are not synonymous.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 10:48:52 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'A misunderstanding is sometimes held that those who would hold to a Supralapsarian view deny a 'Free Offer' of the gospel to all men and that God has no 'Common Grace' to the non-elect.' I have noticed this very thing, Pilgrim, and it drives me slightly nuts. I monitor one list upon which there was a hot 'n' heavy argument going on about this, with some sounding as if the only folks to whom the gospel could rightfully be preached are those who already believe. Never did hear a response to the question, 'How does anyone ever get to hear it, who doesn't already believe? How the heck do you get new believers? What was Paul doin' there in Acts, preaching to anyone who'd stand still long enough to let him do it?' Also have come across the 'no common grace' POV. This seems to be because, to their minds, God hates the reprobate with a vicious, white-hot, 'Grrr!!! Just let Me at 'em!' hatred. Attempts to suggest that 'hate', as in God 'hated' Esau, was more akin to Christ's saying that unless we 'hate' our mother and father, etc., proved futile. No, no . . . . they happily believe that God is longing to have His chance to throw the repropate, kicking and screaming, into the lake of fire, with Him chortling with glee while He does it. Such a determination to cling to that POV about our Lord strikes me as smug, self-satisfied, and stuffed to the very gills with the boastfulness of which Paul warned us. Their attitude smacks of 'Ha! Ha! Sucker! God loves ME, not YOU! So YOU must be a much scummier creep than ME!' Debateable. Highly debateable. (Side ???: does that middle 'E' belong there? It looked wrong spelled either way.) Anne

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: john hampshire
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 21:30:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>>Highly debateable. Side ???: does that middle 'E' belong there? Answer: no But it is such a smal eror that I kan ovar lok et : ) john

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Anne
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 21:34:35 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'But it is such a smal eror that I kan ovar lok et ' Tank ewe verra mooch! (Am I amusing? It's debatable!) Anne

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 17:51:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne,
I was 'fortunate'??? to attend the seminary of the Protestant Reformed Church, among others, and I was exposed to the type of rhetoric, error and pride which you have witnessed on this other list. Officially, and I must stress 'officially', for there are those who belong to the PRC who do NOT hold to the official doctrines of that denomination, the PRC rejects the 'Free Offer' of the gospel and any type of 'Common Grace'. Yes, they hold to a Supralapsarian view of the decrees. However, it must be stressed that this distortion was not that held by the majority of Christians who also held to Supralapsarianism. As to the gospel and faith, it was told me that 'only the elect have the WARRANT to believe on Christ!'. Thus it was incumbent upon 'seekers' to first establish their election so as to be able to believe upon Christ. Incredulous as this may sound, it is unfortunately being taught and believed by many in that denomination. Again, there are exceptions; people who disagree with these doctrines, and perhaps even many at this point and time. To make this insidious doctrine easier to comprehend, it is teaching that only the elect have the RIGHT to believe, and thus unless you are sure you are one of the elect, you cannot JUDICIALLY/LEGALLY believe on Christ (it's against the law). And thus unless you are one of the elect, the preaching of the gospel is NOT directed to you. On another point, I would have to disagree that God's 'hatred' of the reprobate, as illustrated in the person of Esau, should not be construed as 'to love less' which you inferred by Jesus' statement about followers having to 'hate mother, father. . . etc.' I firmly believe that God's hatred of the reprobate is exactly that, HATRED! His wrath is temporarily restrained at this time in anticipation of the Judgment when those who are outside of Christ will receive the full measure of His wrath. This hatred was no less experienced by Christ on the cross when He bore the full intensity of God's hatred toward sin, and therefore Christ as the 'sin-bearer'. YET... it is ALSO TRUE, that God's hatred toward sin and sinner alike who are outside of the Lord Christ does not mitigate against His 'common grace' toward these same individuals. These seemingly contradictory expressions of God's 'general benevolence' on the one hand and 'hatred' on the other toward the reprobate can be partially explained by taking God's perspective on these individuals. As the Holy God who 'is of purer eyes to behold sin' (Hab 1:13) and Who 'hates all workers of iniquity' (Ps 5:5), He is 'angry with the wicked every day' (Ps 7:11) in His capacity as the Supreme Judge 'who shall do right' (Gen 18:25. But as Creator of those who are created with the 'imago dei', He is the One to whom David prayed, 'But thou, O Lord, [art] a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.' (Ps 86:15); the One whom Jesus taught, '. . . he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.' (Matt 5:45). This general benevolence of God Paul spoke of in Titus 3:4 'But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, . . .' The word 'love' here in the Greek is 'philanthropos', as opposed to 'agapaw'. The fact that God does not cast into hell all who are destined to judgment at their conception is testimony enough that He has restrained Himself for the present time. Additionally, although judgment is certain for the reprobate, it is true that God often lavishes them with many worldly goods and pleasures; many are gifted in the arts and other areas of life. In truth, Asaph was distraught over this fact as he pondered his own situation with that of the wicked around him (cf. Ps 73). And Paul indirectly also testifies to the goodness of God toward the wicked in that they are given many gifts and honors on this earth (1Cor 1:26); all such things are meant to genuinely lead men to repentance (Rom 2:4). The short of all this is that I think it is very important that we neither diminish the holiness of God and His hatred of all those who oppose Him, nor the genuine longsuffering and common love/grace of God even to those who are destined to be cast into the Lake of Fire.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 19:51:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I personally think it's pertinent to consider the 'Arminian's Passage' of 2 Peter 3:1-9 (actually they only look at verse 9). Where they interpret the 'us' as all men of the world. They point to God 'not being willing' to let anyone perish, not realizing the context of the nine verses. The context is that God is going to punish the ungodly, and that certainly (verse 7), but is 'holding back' that punishment so that none of His predestinated/elect will perish, but come to repentance. The NIV really muddies the waters at this point and misleads many, being a (faulty) commentary rather than a translation. Similarly, but with a different approach, Paul in Rom. 9:14-24, makes the same point: the Lord God is 'willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, [but] endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction' (verse 22). We see, however, in the succeeding verses why His is not executing punishment now. It's for demonstrating the 'riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory, even us...' (verses 23-24 and cp. Rom. 8:28-30). In each case the 'tares' and the 'wheat' are allowed to progress together until maturity so that the harvest may be gathered , the 'tares' first for the punishment of burning, and then the wheat into 'my barn.' See Matt 13: 24-30. The teaching is consistent on this.

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 18:09:59 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'I firmly believe that God's hatred of the reprobate is exactly that, HATRED! His wrath is temporarily restrained at this time in anticipation of the Judgment when those who are outside of Christ will receive the full measure of His wrath.' If we are to try to reflect God's, I don't know, feelings, desires, will, whatever term you prefer to use, then are we obliged to hate those who were reprobate? What about family members who die out of the faith? To try and conform to God, need I try to hate my late grandfather, etc.? If God hates them with a passionate hatred, ought I to do the same? Am I to mentally and emotionally turn my back on my husband and children if they die unsaved . . . . tear their pictures up and cast the pieces into the fire? Does Scripture give us any clue as to what our feelings should be towards our loved ones who died unregenerate? Anne

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 22:01:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'I firmly believe that God's hatred of the reprobate is exactly that, HATRED! His wrath is temporarily restrained at this time in anticipation of the Judgment when those who are outside of Christ will receive the full measure of His wrath.' If we are to try to reflect God's, I don't know, feelings, desires, will, whatever term you prefer to use, then are we obliged to hate those who were reprobate? What about family members who die out of the faith? To try and conform to God, need I try to hate my late grandfather, etc.? If God hates them with a passionate hatred, ought I to do the same? Am I to mentally and emotionally turn my back on my husband and children if they die unsaved . . . . tear their pictures up and cast the pieces into the fire? Does Scripture give us any clue as to what our feelings should be towards our loved ones who died unregenerate? Anne
---
God rightly hates those who hate him by violating His laws. Your unsaved family/friends have not violated YOUR laws (you are a fellow law breaker)... so you are to 'love' them...biblically speaking....to look after their interests, etc... laz

Subject: Re: Was Calvin a Supralapsarian?
From: Anne
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 05:36:40 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'. . . . God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.' If we allow God total sovereignty over His creation, this must be true. If nothing can happen unless it be part and parcel of His divine plan for His glory, then the fall was no surprise . . . . not an accident, or an unforeseen event. If predestination is true, then I have been having a hard time understanding how anything other than the supra POV could be true, though the pastor of my church is certainly of the 'non-elect are just passed-over' mindset. The quote of Calvin's you posted most assuredly seems to be of a supralapsarian persuasion . . . . . the use of the word 'dreadful' is a strong term, is it not? Of course, heaps of people find the thought of God just having 'not elected' some to be dreadful, but this doesn't appear to be what Calvin is talking about.

Subject: Experiencing God
From: Mark
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 21:03:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Has anyone heard about the study Experiencing God by Henry Blackaby. I have heard a few people talk about it and they really liked it. Any comments about this study would be appreciated.

Subject: Re: Experiencing God
From: Five Sola
To: Mark
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 12:36:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have heard many positive comments about it by the general 'evangelical' crowd, but upon buying a few years ago (even in my pre-reformed days :-) I found it to be a highly subjective study. It is a 'based on your emotions' type of study which can be very dangerous. In some of the recomended group study, everyone is allowed to say 'this verse means to me...' causing a single verse to have dozens of different and sometimes contradictory meanings. This is something that is not healthy for the body of Christ to experience. Bible study should be based on the facts and the exegesis of the passage or topic not on sentimentality. I would have to discourage anyone from buying the study book. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Experiencing God
From: David McKay
To: Mark
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 18:42:52 (PST)
Email Address: music@fl.net.au

Message:
I have read some comments about it. Most are negative. I appreciate what Greg Koukl has said: http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9901.htm

Subject: What is the difference?
From: Vern
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 04:01:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Question.....What is the difference between 'Everlating life and Eternal Life* q uestion

Subject: Re: What is the difference?
From: Brother Bret
To: Vern
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 19:24:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The former means life will be everlasting and in Heaven with the One who died and shed His blood for our sins. The latter means life eternally in Heaven with the One who died and shed His blood for our sins. :^ ) NO DIFFERENCE Vern!

Subject: Re: What is the difference?
From: vern
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 02:24:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Bro, I agree with you in both statments, but have you ever given thought that everlasting life could have two meanings while life eternal has one meaning. 1, Everlasting..... could mean everlasting in heaven to the saved and to the lost, everlasting in hell. 2. Eternal life.... is for the saved only, I heard a man speaking on this subject and he threw this out for thought in the above way. I always looked at in the way you defind it to be

Subject: Re: What is the difference?
From: john hampshire
To: vern
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 21:20:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern, Whom ever 'threw out' the idea that everlasting and eternal relate differently didn't do their homework. Matt 25:46 says very plainly, 'And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal'. While the first group goes to everlasting punishment, guess what?...give up? The word 'everlasting' is the same Greek word as 'eternal' used of the righteous who have life. Everlasting and eternal are interchangeable and mean the same thing. The wicked will endure eternal punishment and the righteous eternal life. They do not refer to any special category of persons. It offers a good example of why translations should not try to spice-up the Bible with diverse renderings of words, it makes reading more interesting but hinders word study. john

Subject: Re: What is the difference?
From: Rod
To: Vern
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 14:13:15 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Vern, your link didn't work when I tried it. Why don't you just spell out what it is you're getting at? Nobody seems to be willing to 'bite' anyway. I assume this has something to do with the latest post to mebaser, which neither he nor I understood the meaning of .

Subject: For Vern
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 13:56:04 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Vern In a earlier message by Pilgim,he gave you a scripture to look at. Joh 1:12 'But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' Would you kindly exegete this verse for us. Please do not give us a run around, just exegete the verse and then(after)tell us why you came to that conclusion, if you like. Tom

Subject: Re: For Vern
From: vern
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 03:23:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, The answer to What you have ask is simply.... A man who is regenrated is done so by the hand of God. The flesh being man can not bring this about himself.

Subject: Re: For Vern
From: laz
To: vern
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 07:18:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, The answer to What you have ask is simply.... A man who is regenrated is done so by the hand of God. The flesh being man can not bring this about himself.
---
Vern - yes, a man in the flesh can not bring about his own rebirth, God must obviously do it. BUT, just as none of us had ANY PART in our natural conception and birth by our natural mothers... ...so it is with regeneration. God rebirths us totally apart from ourselves .... we don't ask for it, we don't believe in order to bring it about...IT JUST HAPPENS according to God's purposes in ELECTION to those predestined for His mercy...which He has on whomever He pleases (Rom 9). THEN and ONLY THEN can the person 'see' and 'hear' and respond in faith to Christ's command to 'COME OUT' (like his beloved Lazarus in the tomb four days). OK, we now understand that you have the 'cart before the horse'....which of course makes you an Arminian in your thinking about grace. Hey, you could be worse....check out ole Gene! He's still punching air. LOL! In Him, laz

Subject: Re: For Vern
From: Vernon
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:29:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Tom, Her is a posting that I shared with someone below andI believe it may explain my thoguts more clearly and answer your question. Look, I have no argument over the soverenigty of God. I have express this more than ones. I do not disagree in “Election” and “Predestination.” Election is the results of God’s soveregin iniative and He has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Is this not the very core and evangelical center of the doctrine of “election.” Our election is solely in Christ. Jesus is the incarnaed Mediator between God and man. Jesus is the “Elected” one. One should never speak of “Predestnation” apart from this central truth. My point made is this, Predestionation does not negate the necessity for human repentance and having faith; but would you say that the Predestant acts of God in His sovereign will established both? God does not relate to human beings as sticksand stones,but free as free creatures made in His image. If our salvatuon id based on election,then whay preach the gospel? Because God has chosen Preaching as the means to awaken faith in the elect. We should never preach election and predestionation above proclaiming the gospel to everyone without exception, knowing that it is only the Holy Spirit who can “Convict; Regenerate; and Justify.” There are those who preach a double predestination ( God has selecte some to damnation and some to salvation.( Ro. 9:11-23; 2 Cor. 2:15-16 ) Yet the also teaches that God does not wish anyone to perish but for all to be saved. Jn. 3:16; 2 Pet 3:9 ) Many have argue over this doctrine for many years and I admit that I do not understand how everthing the Bible says about elections and fit it all ina nice neat logical package for you. My feeling is this, “ My business is not to pry into the secrect councel of God but to share the message of salvation with everyone and be greatful that God in His grace and mercy has lead me from darkness into light through faith in Jesus Christ. A question was ask, “ DO YOU BELIEVE REGENERATION ( and thereby salvation) is conditional? Yes I do........ The New Birth comes from hearing the Word of God (Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:23) It is not a human accomplish but an act of God (Jas1:18 ) This does not mean that every person hearing the gospel will be saved. Since I have not the power to change a man’s heart, I will stick to speaking the gospel and allow God to do His work within the man. It all comes down to this, God’s intial work in the believer’s life solely by His working alone: Conviction of sin (3 Jn 16:8) Regeneration ( Luke 15:7,10; 2 Cor 5:17 ) Confession OF Christ Acts 2:21; Ro 10:9-10 )

Subject: Re: For Vern
From: Tom
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 00:26:40 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Vern Did you actually read my post to you? I do not see an exegesis of the passage I asked you to exegete. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but why do you insist on giving me and others things we haven't asked for? We have asked you simple questions and you have avoided answering them. You know something, I personally would get more respect from you if you just said something like 'I don't know the answer to that'. There is no shame in that. I ask you as a fellow poster, to post in a manner that does not avoid questions posted to you. Some of the answers you have given, can be taken a number of ways. You have been pointed out this on a number of occasions. Why is it that you still do it? Tom

Subject: Re: For Vern
From: Gene
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 05:44:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, You just didn't receive the answer you wanted!

Subject: Re: For Vern
From: Vern
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 02:30:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, I believe I did answer your questios. At the very bottom of the post conatines the understanding I hold about the New Birth. A question was ask, “ DO YOU BELIEVE REGENERATION ( and thereby salvation) is conditional? Yes I do........ The New Birth comes from hearing the Word of God (Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:23) It is not a human accomplish but an act of God (Jas1:18 ) This does not mean that every person hearing the gospel will be saved. Since I have not the power to change a man’s heart, I will stick to speaking the gospel and allow God to do His work within the man. It all comes down to this, God’s intial work in the believer’s life solely by His working alone: Conviction of sin (3 Jn 16:8) Regeneration ( Luke 15:7,10; 2 Cor 5:17 ) Confession OF Christ Acts 2:21; Ro 10:9-10 )

Subject: Re: For Vern
From: Pilgrim
To: Vern
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 09:08:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern, Is the reason that some don't believe due to the fact that they have not been regenerated? Pilgrim

Subject: Predestination Negated
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:18:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Don't want to pick on anyone but what's amiss in in the following statement/question (minor edits): My point made is this, Predestination does not negate the necessity of human repentance and having faith; but would you say that the predestined acts of God in His sovereignty will established both (i.e., faith and repentence)? blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Predestination Negated
From: mebaser
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 22:20:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Don't want to pick on anyone but what's amiss in in the following statement/question (minor edits): My point made is this, Predestination does not negate the necessity of human repentance and having faith; but would you say that the predestined acts of God in His sovereignty will established both (i.e., faith and repentence)? blessings, laz
---
Dear laz, I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but God's 'acts' are not predestined, only human souls are. Acts can be foreordained though. mebaser

Subject: Re: Predestination Negated
From: Vernon
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:40:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Have you read Acts 2:23? What is it here that God has predetermind in His foreknowledge? What did He have fore- knowledge of? Did God say a man must believe,and in whom? What is the means by which God chose to bring man to his lost condition? Those who believe, what happens to them? Those who do not believe what happens to them. When did God determine this? Would you say this is all of God's predestinayed plan?

Subject: Re: Predestination Negated
From: mebaser
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 07:01:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Acts 2:23 says that God PREDETERMINED not PREDESTINED His plan. Predestined implies a destiny and a person who will get to that destiny. mebaser

Subject: Re: Predestination Negated
From: Vern
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:49:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
God did not predesetaine that death would be defeated thru Christ. God did not predestaine that those who believe would receive eternal life'

Subject: what?
From: mebaser
To: Vern
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 13:48:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
God did not predesetaine that death would be defeated thru Christ. God did not predestaine that those who believe would receive eternal life'
---
Vern, I don't know what you're trying to communicate with me here. mebaser

Subject: Need some clarification...
From: Eddie33
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 07:39:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have been just a reader on this site for a while and agree with the views this site represents. I could use some clarification on a couple of scripture verses. John 15:16 I have seen people (here and other places) use this verse in defense of election but wasn't Jesus talking directly to his disciples when he said 'You did not choose me; I chose you..' and not about the elect in general? Hebrews 6:4-6 These verses seem to say to me that you can lose your salvation if you choose which contradicts the doctrine of election Appreciate the help E33

Subject: Re: Need some clarification...
From: Rod
To: Eddie33
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 10:48:11 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eddie 33, Glad to see you and I'm glad you're here and really reading with discernment. In regard to the first verse you cited, let me just ask a simple question. Does God save some people differently than others? Rom.8:28--'And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.' The twelve were 'called' irresistibly. Paul was 'called' irresistibly (Acts 9:1-16). All men who are saved are 'called' irresistibly, though the circumstances are less dramatic for some than others. Compare John 1:12-13 to see who are 'given' the power to become 'the children of God' and why. __________________________________ Hebrews 6:4-6 is one of the favorite refuges of the Arminian. But if it is read carefully in the context of the book itself, it doesn't teach that men can be saved, then lost. I think a real key can be found in verses 7- 8 and 9 following the section you cite. 'But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is near unto cursing, whose [definite] end is to be burned' (verse 8). When, looking at verses 7-8, one is immediately stricken by the parable of the Sower, which the Lord Jesus interprets in Matt. 13:18-23, in which He is protrayed as the Sower going into all the world and sending the seed, the Word of God, upon all sorts of soils (people). The people react differently to this seed, some apparently receiving it, but not actually, because it doesn't have any real 'root' in them. But the Lord Jesus describes those who do receive it truly and with root as the ones who have been prepared by God, just as a real farmer expects to receive yield of harvest from the cultivated areas he plants. The purpose of the writer to the Hebrews is to cause the people to examine their faith and commitment to God, just as the Apostle Paul was inclined to do (see 2 Cor. 13:5). In this way, they were strengthened by the Word of God and also understood their salvation more completely. Please note the encouragement of the Hebrews author to his hearers in verse 9-11.

Subject: Hutterites
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 21:53:41 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hope I spelled this correctly. I'm curious about this group, about which I know next to nothing. Any answers or sites?

Subject: Re: Hutterites
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 21:26:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Och, laddie dinna tell me that you want me to print out another article? Do yourself a favor lad go and buy the Ecyclopedia of American Religions like I did and its companion volume the Encyclopedia of American Religious Creeds and you'll have more information than ye'll know what to do with. Prestor John

Subject: Re: Hutterites
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 05:44:44 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
According to their website (hutterianbrethren.com) they consider themselves Anabaptists. Communist Anabaptists, in that they hold their property communally, it seems. Well, that's like most religious orders with vows of poverty, so I suppose the term 'communist' could be viewed as unnecessarily negative. Looks like they're exclusively in Canada and the very northernmost states. Huh! Didn't know they was there. Quiet little dickens, the lot of them. How'd you hear about them? Anne

Subject: Re: Hutterites
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 11:39:55 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, I forgot until now to check their website. It seems very sketchy on the info and not very strong in describing their core beliefs. The one Hutterite I've had contact with on the web is very much suspect in his salvation and has been charged by the "webmaster" and some others with being a con-man and huckster. The charges are that he, his wife, and son have organized in a tax-exempt status for their 'commune,' but that the son doesn't even live there! His view of salvation is works oriented. In his posts to me he has denied salvation by grace through faith, believing, as he states that salvation is not realized until death, after God apparently adds up his 'points' (my word, not his) to see if he has enough obedience to be saved. This may or may not be their core teaching, but the few things this site says indicates that works are highly emphasized by them. Thanks for the info.

Subject: Re: Hutterites
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:05:45 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, My brother-inlaw and family live in Montana and there are several communities there. In a nontheological incident (please forgive me, monitors), one of the men came up to me as I was 'rubbernecking' and observing the goings on in a large discount store in Great Falls years ago. He approached me unawares from behind and I was startled by this low voice in my ear asking me a question ending with the words '...ladies house shoes?' I turned and asked, 'What?' He asked from his beard, 'Do you sell ladies house shoes?' (Momma was nearby, but quietly behind). 'Uh, I don't work here,' was my eloquent reply. He squared up and sort of glared at me. 'Are you sure?' Guess he was used to being ignored and didn't like it. I was flabbergasted, but I carefully explained in my best West Texas speech that I didn't and they wandered off to seek someone who did. Recently on another board there has been some discussion of this sect and I got curious all over again.

Subject: Calvinist Mennonites???
From: Kiffin
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 06:54:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This is slightly off the subject but I'm curious. I have been told that in the Midwest there are Mennonites who hold to Calvinist theology. Anyone know if there is any truth to that? Kiffin

Subject: Re: huttermens
From: stan
To: Kiffin
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:48:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
There was a group of Hutterites in South Dakota that some classed as a cult. I read as much as I could on them in local news etc. and found nothing to indicate much about their doctrine, but they are very conservative and to themselves. It is of interest in the denominational book I have the hutterian brethren is in the middle of the mennonites. Their founder Jacob Hutter, was burned as a heretic in Austria in 1536 - if this is the same bunch. 'Most of them today are of German ancestry and use the German tongue in their homes and churhes. Aside from the common-property idea, they are quite similar to the old order Amish; they have a Bible centered faith that they seek to express in brotherly love; they aim at the recovery of the New Testament spirit and fellowship; they feel that this requires nonconformity to the world, and accordingly they practice nonrisistance; refuse to participate in local politics, dress differently, make no contributions to community projects, and have their own schools, in which the Bible is paramount.' Handbook of Denominations in the US by Frank Mead. Abingdon Press; Nashville. CALVINIST MENNONITES: Yep, I've met some that I think would qualify. The Mennonites have a wide variety as any other group - some on west coast are quite good churches. Most still hold to pacifism yet - the ones I've run across anyway. stan

Subject: Pentatauch
From: Sewer Mouth
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:42:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Does Moses necessarily have to be the very hands that penned the books of the Law or could have others in his immediate circle, scribes or something, written parts of them? A coworker (liberal Romanist) has a relative studying for Doctorate in RC Theology or something in Germany and her alledged modern scholarly textual criticism cronies believe without a doubt that based on heterogenious writing styles throughout the Pentatauch and other similar evidences (likely similar to the JEDP(?) debate) the first five books were actually penned by more than one person..even later than Moses time. My coworker believes that we can still maintain what Christ seemed to suggest about the Laws authority and authorship (i.e, penned during Moses' 'administration' but not necessarily his two hands) and divine inspiration. laz

Subject: Re: Pentatauch
From: Rod
To: Sewer Mouth
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 17:14:46 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Laz, This sort of thing is nothing new. Liberals and critics have long claimed that it was impossible for the prophets to have been so accurate, so the dating ot the prophecies 'has to be wrong' and they actually wrote after the events themselves. There has been a contention for a very long time that Isaiah was actually written by three people. (How many Isaiahs did the Lord Jesus recognize in the pronouncements He made in the NT?) I have even read the charge that Leviticus was written by the Aaronic priesthood to preserve its authority against the ursurpation of the kings. Rubbish! And there was a committee meeting a few years ago to decide which of the 'sayings' of the Lord Jesus were actually spoken by Him. I don't know if they're thorugh yet. I also don't care. The Lord Jesus, by His teachings in the NT, authenticates many of the books of the OT by His direct references to them. He replied to Satan in the wilderness exclusively from Deuteronomy, made reference to the truth of Jonah, Isaiah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Elijah and others. There was never, as far as I can tell, any doubt that the books of Moses were ever questioned by the Jews. They were recognized as inspired long before the arrival on the earth of the Savior. While we don't have the original autographs of the Bible writers, I'm convinced the sovereign God has been able to preserve for us His essential Word, though there are a few recognized and acknowledged insignificant areas where the manuscripts or translations are faulty. Scholars say that the NT has many more and better manuscripts to authenticate it than any other book of antiquity. And the NT authenticates the OT, both indirectly by its spirit and intent, and directly by the writers' quotations. If all these folks don't mind, I'll accept the Word of God as my Lord has providentially preserved it for us.

Subject: Re: Pentatauch
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 20:06:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hey Rod, I am familiar and reject the work of the Jesus Seminar, etc...but can we still accept the pentatauch (sp?) as providentially inspired and preserved as a collection of books attributed to Moses's time, leadership, superintentence but not necessarily his hands? just askin'....don't mean to turn into a 'Gene'. hehe laz

Subject: Re: Pentatauch
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:26:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, I heard that! :) If Moses wrote ALL the Pentatauch then explain these verses: Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. Numbers 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.) The evidence is clear there had to be a redactor. However, I believe Moses wrote most of it. How much? I don't know (nor do you as far as that goes!)

Subject: Re: Pentatauch
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:36:32 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
So, Gene, in addition to denying the diety of Christ, you're declaring that God couldn't have inspried Moses to have written these things about himself?

Subject: original question?
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 03:53:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I think this is your 'original question.' I suppose God could have but it makes more sense that an 'inspired' redactor 'filled it in.'

Subject: Re: original question?
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:01:57 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene--'I suppose God could have, but it makes more sense that....' Gene, here we have the fundamental problems with your theology. It is that you deny the diety of the Lord Jesus Christ, Whose very name and title attest to it, as do the Scriptures directly in numerous places. Also, God is so limited to you that you're really not sure He can inspire people to achieve His ends without giving them 'outside help.' You grudgingly admit, 'I suppose God could have, but....' Not exactly a ringing endorsement of His power and ability! You simply believe the parts of the Bible which are convenient to you in your blasphemous view. It's time to face the truth of the Lord God and deal with it than to make all these things 'fit your niche. ' I'd suggest starting with Is. 55:8 in regard to your statement, 'but it makes more sense that....' You have a 'christ' who is not the Christ of the Bible at all and you have a God who struggles to get the job done. Can you honestly not see that?

Subject: I answered it.
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:35:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now that I answered your question you said you would answer mine.

Subject: Re: I answered it.
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:55:55 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene, you barely grazed mine and I have already dealt with yours, as you've discovered by now, it seems. It takes me a little time to deal with things, as my typing skills are so poor. Also, I don't like to shoot from the hip in these matters.

Subject: Re: Pentatauch
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:48:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Now you are getting unreasonable! It is a lot more reasonable to think there was a redactor than thinking Moses wrote those words! Why can't a redactor be inspired?

Subject: Re: Pentatauch
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 15:39:51 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Ah, but Gene, you didn't answer the question I asked. Personally, if I were going to doubt something, I would doubt that God could get 'the exact info' to Moses about Genesis in inspiration. In fact, I would doubt inspiration itself. What you're questioning is insignificant in comparison of these considerations. Once again, your emphasis is on the wrong syl-LAB-le!

Subject: Inspiration
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 14:19:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Define 'inspiration'(as per the Bible). By the way, where does it say in the Bible that Moses wrote the (whole) Pentatauch? Does Moses have to write it for it to be inspired?

Subject: Re: Inspiration
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:33:56 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Okay, Gene, you gave a very lame and incomplete answer to my question. Let's deal with yours. 'Define inspiration (as per the Bible).' I have to be real honest with you. This question is a little confusing. I don't think the Bible defines 'inspiration.' I infer you must mean, 'What does the Bible term, 'inspiration,' mean? Well, you've pointed out that you are a great student and expert in the original languages, but most everyone interested in the Bible knows that it is a reference to the 'breath,' the English words, 'inspiration,' and 'respiration' being somewhat akin. The usual and common translation is, 'God breathed.' God breathed life into Adam and He breathed, by the action of the Holy Spirit, His truth into the writers of the Bible, imparting to them His exact meaning and truth. That is the reason the Apostle Paul declares, without faltering at all, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable...' (2 Tim. 3:16). [You knew we were going there, I assume.] 'Where does it say in the Bible that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch?' First, I've never said it says that in the Bible, for, as far as I can recall, it doesn't. What I have said, and you insist on blowing off, is that there is specific reason to accept His authorship, based on the internal evidence and testimony of the Bible. Nowhere is it denied. If it's important, as you insist, that it doesn't specifically state that Moses did write it, it must be equally important that, whenever the authorship is brought up, it is always attributed to Moses. And it isn't ever attributed to anyone else. Even God the Son, the Lord Jesus, speaks of it as so. Since He is the 'Word incarnate,' according to the Bible, I trust His veracity. 'Does Moses have to write it for it to be inspired?' Try this instead: Is it 'less inspired' if Moses did write it, as the indications all are?

Subject: Re: Inspiration
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:41:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, ' Try this instead: Is it 'less inspired' if Moses did write it, as the indications all are? Answer: NO! Also, it would not be less inspired if Moses did not write ALL of it. God does not need a 'famous' author to write His Word.

Subject: Re: Inspiration
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 10:04:24 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene, You didn't deal with the rest of the statement made in response to your question(s). Also, Who made Moses 'famous' in the first place? Was he notable in and of himself? According to his own testimony, God had His hand on Moses from before his birth and his being set afloat in the ark, before he was nursed by his own mother, before being educated in Pharaoh's court. His whole life was one of the leading, direction, and growth in the leading and knowledge of the sovereign God. Why do you keep fighting that sovereignty?

Subject: Re: Inspiration
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 19:59:17 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tell you what, Gene, you answer my original question and I'll answer yours.

Subject: Re: Pentateuch
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 20:33:59 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, I suppose my implications weren't strong enough. Let me be more direct. The Lord Jesus and the Apostles didn't question the Mosaic authorship anywhere that I can see, but rather affirmed it whenever they wrote. See Matt. 8:4; 19:7-8; 22:24; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44...need we go on? The internal evidence is that Moses is the author. The Jews attributed the authorship to him. What reason do we have to question it? BTW, I mentioned the other things, such as the 'Jesus Committee,' so that it was clear that the Enemy is always trying to get people to question the Bible. I say let the critics and liberals and unbelievers have their dissertations--we have the Word of God.

Subject: Question from below.
From: scott lewis
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:04:18 (PST)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
I moved this string back up to the top does anyone have access to material from the early church fathers concerning this topic. I realize that there is a debate, even amongst fundamental Bible believeing Christians, that deals with whether or not the reference to 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12 (in the King James Version) is referring to Satan. Hey Mebaser, I have a question concerning your comment. What did the early church fathers and other great theologians down thru time have to say about the references to Satan in ISIAH. Is this dispute/disagreement about Isiah 14 in its reference to Lucifer recent last 100 years or has this been a dispute for much longer. Below is what strongs had to say. 01966 heylel {hay-lale'} from 01984 (in the sense of brightness); TWOT - 499a; n m AV - Lucifer 1; 1 Lucifer = 'light-bearer' 1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer 1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.) 2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon
---
Hi Scott, I too have the TWOT handy here in my library, and I did consult it when I answered in my post. But as you can see, not much is said about whether or not Satan is in view here beyond what you wrote here. As far as the Church fathers are concerned I do not know. If anyone reading this post has any insight, or a resource to go to, please help us out. Thanks. In Christ, mebaser

Subject: Re: Question from below.
From: stan
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 17:47:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This is long - hope it helps - sorry didn't have time to completely reformat it - have to pick up wife afore she reformat me. Bunyon seems to hold to Satan
---
Spurgeon 'Poor reason! poor wisdom! how art thou fallen from heaven; like Lucifer thou son of the morning thou art lost;'
---
Keil and Deiitzsch Vol 7 'How art thou fallen from the sky, thou star of light, sun of the dawn, hurled down to the earth, thou that didst throw down nations from above?' heeyleel is here the morning star (from hâlal, to shine, resolved from hillel, after the form mee'een , Jer 13:10, cee`eep , Ps 119:113, or rather attaching itself as a third class to the forms heeykaal , `eeyrom : compare the Arabic sairaf, exchanger; saikal, sword-cleaner). It derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (sun of the dawn), just as in the classical mythology it is called son of Eos, from the fact that it rises before the sun, and swims in the morning light as if that were the source of its birth. (Note: It is singular, however, that among the Semitic nations the morning star is not personified as a male (Heoosphoros or Phoosphoros), but as a female (Astarte, see at Isa 17:8), and that it is called Nâghâh, Ashtoreth, Zuhara, but never by a name derived from hâlal; whilst the moon is regarded as a male deity (Sin), and in Arabic hilâl signifies the new moon (see p. 94), which might be called ben-shacar (son of the dawn), from the fact that, from the time when it passes out of the invisibility of its first phase, it is seen at sunrise, and is as it were born out of the dawn.) Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage, which the fathers (and lately Stier) interpreted, without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders. The appellation is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominant astrological character. The additional epithet chooleesh 'al-gooyim is founded upon the idea of the influxus siderum: 289 (Note: In a similar manner, the sun-god (San) is called the 'conqueror of the king's enemies,' 'breaker of opposition,' etc., on the early Babylonian monuments (see G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies, i. 160).) cholesh signifies 'overthrowing' or laying down (Ex 17:13), and with 'al, 'bringing defeat upon;' whilst the Talmud (b. Sabbath 149b) uses it in the sense of projiciens sortem, and thus throws light upon the cholesh (= purah, lot) of the Mishnah. A retrospective glance is now cast at the self-deification of the king of Babylon, in which he was the antitype of the devil and the type of antichrist (Dan 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4), and which had met with its reward.
---
Aquinas I answer that, Some have maintained that the demons were wicked straightway in the first instant of their creation; not by their nature, but by the sin of their own will; because, as soon as he was made, the devil refused righteousness. To this opinion, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 13), if anyone subscribes, he does not agree with those Manichean heretics who say that the devil’s nature is evil of itself. Since this opinion, however, is in contradiction with the authority of Scripture — for it is said of the devil under the figure of the prince of Babylon Isaiah 14:12): “How art thou fallen . . . O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning!” and it is said to the devil in the person of the King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:13): “Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God, consequently, this opinion was reasonably rejected by the masters as erroneous. Hence others have said that the angels, in the first instant of their creation, could have sinned, but did not. Yet this view also is repudiated by some, because, when two operations follow one upon the other, it seems impossible for each operation to terminate in the one instant. Now it is clear that the angel’s sin was an act subsequent to his creation. But the term of the creative act is the angel’s very being, while the term of the sinful act is the being wicked. It seems, then, an impossibility for the angel to have been wicked in the first instant of his existence.
---
- Fathers, Ant-Nicene, v.04 (4) Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power. The prophet says, “How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven! He who assailed all nations is broken and beaten to the ground. Thou indeed saidst in thy heart, I shall ascend into heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my throne; I shall sit upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains which are towards the north; I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be like the Most High. Now shalt thou be brought down to the lower world, and to the foundations of the earth.
---
Fathers, Ante-Nicene, v.05 (5) Thy pomp is brought down to earth, thy great rejoicing: they will spread decay under thee; and the worm shall be thy covering. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! He is cast down to the ground who sends off to all the nations. And thou didst say in thy mind, I will ascend into heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit down upon the lofty mountains towards the north: I will ascend above the clouds: I will be like the Most High. Yet now thou shalt be brought down to hell, and to the foundations of the earth! They that see thee shall wonder at thee, and shall say, This is the man that excited the earth, that did shake kings, that made the whole world a wilderness, and destroyed the cities, that released not those in prison. All the kings of the earth did lie in honor, every one in his own house; but thou shalt be cast out on the mountains like a loathsome carcass, with many who fall, pierced through with the sword, and going down to hell. As a garment stained with blood is not pure, so neither shalt thou be comely (or clean); because thou hast destroyed my land, and slain my people. Thou shalt not abide, enduring for ever, a wicked seed. Prepare thy children for slaughter, for the sins of thy father, that they rise not, neither possess my land.”
---
Fathers, Ant-Nicene, v.1-(10) But the angels also wonder at the peace which is to be brought about on account of Jesus on the earth, that seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.
---
Fathers, Nicene & Post-Nicene, s.1 v.07 (17) John beareth witness of Him, and crieth, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is made before me.” He came after me, ad He preceded me. What is it, He is made before me”? He preceded me. Not was made before I was made, but was preferred before me, this is “He was made before me.” Wherefore was He made before thee, when He came after thee? “Because He was before me.” Before thee, O John! what great thing to be before thee! It is well that thou dost bear witness to Him; let us, however, hear Himself saying, “Even before Abraham, I am.” But Abraham also was born in the midst of the human race: there were many before him, many after him. Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: “Before Lucifer I have begotten Thee.” He who was begotten before Lucifer Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named Lucifer, who fell; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, “Lucifer, who did arise in the morning, fell” And why was he Lucifer? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark! Because he abode not in the truth. Therefore He was before Lucifer, before every one that is enlightened; since before every one that is enlightened, of necessity He must be by whom all are enlightened who can be enlightened.

Subject: Re: Question from below.
From: David McKay
To: stan
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 04:34:17 (PST)
Email Address: music@fl.net.au

Message:
Stan and Scott: My dad was named Stanley, but called Scot from his earliest days.

Subject: Re: Question from below.
From: Stan
To: David McKay
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 14:33:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I've never been partial to the name, but wife wanted to name our son stanley so we did - he is proud as punch and named his first son that as well. Scott seems a little better to me , but then I ain't me folks ;-) Strange how name go - had an uncle floyd that went by 'babe' from teen years till 70's. Then there are those calvinists that go by the name of Christian - DID I SAY THAT - THEY IS GUNNA KICK ME TONGUE FROM HERE TO WHERE IT'S HOT! just checkin to see if everyone is awake! stan

Subject: Re: Question from below.
From: stan
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:56:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have never read/heard anyone that questioned it being Satan - context doesn't fit much else. I have access to the Fathers - will ask them in a little bit - excuse me check them :-) Will get back if I find anything of great interest. stan

Subject: Help with ethical question?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 11:16:35 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Several years ago I owned a flooring business. Man who had done some installations ordered some carpet from me, so he could sell it to some people in his church. Simple transaction, really: I call in the order to the mill, notify him when it comes in so he can pay me, he goes to the receiving place to pick it up. Well, all went great except he decided to go pick it up without paying me. Never did get around to paying me, as a matter of sorry fact. I sued, he defaulted, I won, he ignored the judgment, I slapped a lien on his property. My best hope was that if he decided to sell his house, the title company would insist on his paying me, even though his homestead is exempt from judgments (except mechanic's liens). Well, he is selling his house, and it turns out the law's changed, and now I have to sign a partial release of judgment, so thatI don't get sued, myself. I am considering getting an execution of judgment, thereby sending a constable after him, which'll cost me about $100, but will please me to think of him getting a visit like that, though it undoubtedly isn't the first one. I've also considered turning the judgment over to a firm that specializes in debt collection, even ones like this. Again, I probably won't get anything, but at least he'll be being bothered about it by someone. But. Always, always, there's a 'but.' Scripture says that debts are to be cancelled after seven years, and this April will be the seven year anniversary of the judgment. Paul even groused about Christians trying to get their money back in the courts, saying 'The very fact that you have lawsuits means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?' 1 Cor 7. Bummer. I just HATE that passage! It drives me simply wild to think of that horrible liar and thief will get away with Don's and my money without any fight from us. I do not LIKE being cheated, lied to, and stolen from. BTW, he was supposed to work off part of the debt by installing some carpet in my sons' room, so Don and the boys worked the day after Christmas that year getting the furniture moved and the old stuff pulled up. Guess who never showed. He agreed to send $20 per week (we were desperate for money of any amount). Not one check. This man declared bankruptcy about five years ago, and I wasn't included, so my judgment's still active. My father, who is attorney, knows the lawyer who is representing the title company, and heard that John H. is now threatening to sue the bankruptcy attorney for omitting me. Apparently this guy is lawsuit happy. Dad looked at his bankruptcy cause and said it was appalling . . . . . . John H had cheated everyone around. I wasn't much of a businesswoman, I fear. So what do you all think? Can I, as a Christian, pursue all legally available means to see if I can recover our money, or should I consider it as money stolen from God, so that it is God's problem, and He should deal with it? I have been puzzling and praying over this, and am still baffled. Thanks, in advance, to anyone who cares to address my sticky wicket! Anne

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:56:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Anne, I love responding to moral dilemnas for which I have absolutely no expertise to base my opinion. I love to live dangerously! ;-) I do have a kneejerk reaction to your situation. ;-) If we are to be satisfied at being wronged...should we allow thieves to break in and steal ... for rapists to have their way with our wives and daughters...ought not we protect the helpless and innocent? Discipline/punishment is necessary for moral/social order whether it's in Church affairs (commanded) or in the civil sphere (ordained). We serve a God of JUSTICE...we should have a mind bent after justice so long as we pursue it biblically (i.e., for the right reasons). God does not wink at injustice...we ought not either - while keeping in mind that He grants mercy....so I guess we also must grant mercy as God gives us grace. First, you have reason to want justice...you have been wronged and continue to be wronged by this individual. Your indignation is justified. Second, I think we should treat 'believers' whom we know and worship with (and consider rightly or wrongly within the household of faith) with more grace, being our bretheren, when they wrong us under the Church's 'jurisdiction' - and treat unbelievers (those outside the Church) with some measure of grace also, but without necessarily foregoing our legal right to pursue justice in the civil realm. In civil affairs...God's view is an eye for an eye...you are entitled to justice and to seek it thru the courts as you have. The punishment should fit the crime? Feel no guilt! (Remember, I'm just expressing my opinion here, hehe) I am not a theonomist so I don't buy the seven year and 50 year of jubilee practice relative to debt cancellation. Biblical context is everything and another subject altogether. What Christian run bank could survive under those all-forgiving monetary practices? Bankruptcy is 'bad (or good?) enough. Hey, one of my elders actually owns a local bank. Been meaning to talk to him about a 30-yr mortgage.... I'll mention it to him. hehe We derive general principles (case law?) from the Civil Law but in the final scheme...your court of arbitration for this matter is not the Church, it's with the civil authorities which I'm sure know nothing about this seven year freebie. You are living in a democracy/republic/monarchy (not sure) but definately not a theocracy, so you work and play by the rules of the ordained and reigning govt. This is a civil, not a church matter. I guess the bottom line is how charitable do you feel God is calling you to be.... I'm sure you don't want vengence...or to make him squarm...you just want your money and for him to stop stealing. Right? ;-) Gee, I was of no help....sorry. Ramblin' Laz ha, just read Pilgrim's response and agree...but having just come out of a church displine situation...don't hold your breath.

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Anne
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 14:17:21 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
' Hey, one of my elders actually owns a local bank. Been meaning to talk to him about a 30-yr mortgage.... I'll mention it to him. hehe' LAZ! You're awful. Wickedly amusing, mind you, but awful! ;-> 'I'm sure you don't want vengence...or to make him squarm...you just want your money...' Is squarming more uncomfortable than squirming? If so, then that's what I want. Well, that or my money. Both would be a bit greedy of me. Actually, I'd settle for the original bill, and forego the interest. Heck, at this point, I'll settle for a gift certificate at Amazon.com!

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:20:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
' Hey, one of my elders actually owns a local bank. Been meaning to talk to him about a 30-yr mortgage.... I'll mention it to him. hehe' LAZ! You're awful. Wickedly amusing, mind you, but awful! ;-> 'I'm sure you don't want vengence...or to make him squarm...you just want your money...' Is squarming more uncomfortable than squirming? If so, then that's what I want. Well, that or my money. Both would be a bit greedy of me. Actually, I'd settle for the original bill, and forego the interest. Heck, at this point, I'll settle for a gift certificate at Amazon.com!
---
...no, I meant 'squarming'...from WV you know. LOL laz

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Anne
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 17:10:47 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'. . . . from WV you know. ' Wicked Views? World Values? West Virginia? I just hate this. As you can tell, no, I don't know. I feel a real stupid attack coming on, coinciding with the time I read your response. What's WV mean?

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: West Virginian
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 19:14:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
get that? LOL

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Anne
To: West Virginian
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 20:04:59 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I get it, I get it. Honestly. ;-> Anne

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:12:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne,
Sorry to hear of your 'sticky wicket'. First off, the 'seven years' rule applies only to the Theocracy of Israel, which is no more (I can hear the Dispies and Posties grinding their teeth). Secondly, I believe you have a right and an obligation to pursue people who are indebted to you in regards to business transactions. It's the 'law of the land' and such laws, established by God's agent, the government, aren't in opposition to any Biblical mandate as far as I know. When it comes to 'personal' debts however, Paul's admonition to 'be wronged' is surely one that should be observed after there is no solution obtained between parties. BUT, I also believe that this admonition pertains ONLY to true believers and thus it is not applicable to debts incurred between believers and non-believers. Now, as to how far you should pursue this individual? That, I believe is a personal decision which only you can make. It appears that this person is a habitual thief and that your situation is not an isolated one. If it were me, who also hates to be lied to, cheated and/or conned, and my present situation wasn't one of indigence, I would probably drop it, knowing that 'vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.' However, you did mention that this man ordered the carpet originally for another individual who was a member of his church. If this were true, and it very well might not be true at all given this man's history, I might contact the pastor of his church and inform him of this man's unacceptable behaviour. IF, and that's a mighty big 'IF', the church is one that strives to be faithful to the Scriptures in all things, and especially in administering disciple, they might and should call this man before the eldership and ask him to give an account of this affair. This would indeed force this man to either make amends or to be possibly excommunicated with the hopes that he would repent of his sin and return with an 'obedience of faith.' (Rom 16:26).
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:47:56 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, Pilgrim has done a masterful job of analyzing the situation, particularly the part about the individual's church. The passage you quote goes on to indicate that Christians are to judge in matters of dispute between church members. Be forewarned, however, that the 'churning' effect of the actions you take, either at law or in the church, or both, may cause you personally more distress than the situation is worth--I say this based on some of the statements in your post. You have my complete sympathy. I too would feel as you do and I (selfishly) am glad I don't have to make the decision you face. May God give you His direction and peace in the matter.

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 14:11:36 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'Pilgrim has done a masterful job of analyzing the situation, particularly the part about the individual's church. The passage you quote goes on to indicate that Christians are to judge in matters of dispute between church members.' Indeed he has, Rod! That's a wonderful notion, about contacting his church, assuming he has one, but I have no idea which it is, and am not desirous to have any contact with him. Unless it's in a courtroom so I tell the world what a thieving SNAKE he is! But that doesn't sound Christian, does it? That, actually, is an idea that has me thinking, hey, LET him sue me. So what? This is Texas! We don't hafta pay our debts in Texas! Isn't that right, Rod? I believe I read that you are here, too? It's one thing I dislike about our home state . . . . it was created by deadbeats, for deadbeats, according to a collections attorney I consulted years ago. The amount of money isn't that much, BTW. It was originally $2,450, and has grown to, I guess, about $4800, with interest. I really think I'm going to see if Don will agree to just let the judgment lapse at the end of its 10 year anniversary. I'd have to renew it to keep it alive. Those dratted words of Paul's keep bugging me, though it's a good point - about the laws of the government being in place as part of the common grace provided for our protection (I paraphrased it a bit......sorry!). Oh, well. Some poor people wind up holding mortgages for incomplete houses built by deadbeat builders . . . . at least this wasn't a fortune, though it seemed so at the time. Took us months to pay the mill off. They were nice about it, fortunately. I think execute the judgment, then drop it. Yup, I don't think the Lord would have a problem with that. I hope it's what He had planned for His glory! Isn't it awful how close the old Adam or Eve is to the surface at all times? I think to myself that I should pray for the snake's salvation, then worry that that would mean he gets Heaven PLUS my money, and that ain't fair! Why God doesn't drop bricks on my head at regular intervals, I can't imagine. Anne

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 16:27:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
$4800!!!!!!! You didn't say it was REAL money!? ....I changed my mind....SUE THE B******!! ROFL!! oooooo...is that a drop kick I feel comin' on? laz

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 15:52:15 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, Yup, Ah'm uh Texan. born and bred. Spent 11 years as a 'displaced person' in Oklahoma, though, during the oil and gas boom. When you said, you thought about praying for the 'snake's salvation,' I momentarily misunderstood and thought you were speaking of the serpent in the Garden! :>) (I don't have a very high I.Q., I suppose!) As far as the dropping bricks on your head goes, if God dealt with us as we all deserve, we'd be nothing but fine ash! He has recetnly 'taken me to the woodshed' for willful disobedeince to what I knew was right in a particular circumstance. Very painful, but I thank Him for it. And I do most earnestly pray that the remembrance of the punishment will prevent a reoccurence! I'm truly glad that the Lord has enabled you to reach the point where the money isn't the burden it once was and that the principle of being cheated is the main concern. May the Lord give you guidance and peace in this matter, my sister.

Subject: Re: Help with ethical question?
From: Gene
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:09:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, What a quagmire! I do have one question. Just because he was going to sell it to a church does this make him a Christian? With the way he is acting I would say he is not. Therefore, the passage in 1 Cor 6 does not apply. The whole affair may be more trouble than it is worth. I guess you are the one to decide that.

Subject: Time Travel
From: sgvic2000
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 23:22:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Do you all of you agree that time travel is not going to be a possibility since it would allow man the opportunity to tamper with events such as the crucifixion? Let me know your thoughts. God Bless.

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Prestor John
To: sgvic2000
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:23:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Time travel (ie: going into the future or the past) can not exist. First of all the past doesn't exist anymore how could we travel back to it? We can't it doesn't exist, since it doesn't exist there is nothing to travel to. As for the future it also doesn't exist in so much as there is no tangibility to it, all that exists is 'now' to see outside of the 'now' means that you must transcend time and space and since only God can do that time travel can't exist. Prestor John

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Anne
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:45:14 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'First of all the past doesn't exist anymore how could we travel back to it? We can't it doesn't exist, since it doesn't exist there is nothing to travel to. As for the future it also doesn't exist . . . . ' You know, I'm not absolutely sure I agree with you about this, P.J. Since God isn't bound by time, and sees everything at once, then the end and the beginning must exist together somewhere, on some level. Now whether God would be willing to allow us to get our sticky, messy fingers on either is another matter! I shouldn't think so. Anne

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Five Sola
To: sgvic2000
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 18:21:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well since Man has no control over time, he can never 'travel' in it. God controls time. So time travel is an impossibility reserved for the SciFi books. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Tom
To: sgvic2000
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 14:11:34 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Your post kind of reminds me of the tower of Babel, where God confused their speech. Man thinks they are in control of their destiny, but in reality it is God in control. Tom

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: john hampshire
To: sgvic2000
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 01:18:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Let's see, time travel, what do we need for that? Just need to travel faster than the speed of light, which would take infinite energy and in the process our ship would become infinite mass in an infinitely small space. No problem, our government should have a prototype ready in about a gazillion years. :) Time travel is an impossibility reserved for Jules Vern and Gene Rodenberry. The truth is we have very little time left before the end of history... the game is about over. john

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Five Sola
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 18:24:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, The 'end' or 'last days' as you post implies has been around for 2000 years so could be for another 2000 :-) We have had numerous people throughout history that have claimed the end is near. If I'm not mistaken, I think Johnathan Edwards thought that the second coming was close in his days (not in a fanatical way as most TBN crowd but he seriously thought the 'signs' were there.) We could have another 10,000 years before Christ returns. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Rod
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 18:49:05 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
As best as I recall, I think I read Augustine say words to the effect that 'the end is near,' in the vicinity of A.D. 400.

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:41:15 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'As best as I recall, I think I read Augustine say words to the effect that 'the end is near,' in the vicinity of A.D. 400.' Come to that, Paul didn't see why anyone single had to marry, since Jesus was returning like, you know, next Thursday afternoon. ;-> If they HAD to, well, then, go ahead. And that's why the stern injunctions about the disciples being sure to work to support themselves, I understand . . . . some of them were expecting the end to come promptly, so why bother knocking themselves out working? A few less-than-industrious disciples were causing a certain amount of scandal. it seems. Paul had to rap 'em upside the head, so to speak. Anne

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:30:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'As best as I recall, I think I read Augustine say words to the effect that 'the end is near,' in the vicinity of A.D. 400.' Come to that, Paul didn't see why anyone single had to marry, since Jesus was returning like, you know, next Thursday afternoon. ;-> If they HAD to, well, then, go ahead. And that's why the stern injunctions about the disciples being sure to work to support themselves, I understand . . . . some of them were expecting the end to come promptly, so why bother knocking themselves out working? A few less-than-industrious disciples were causing a certain amount of scandal. it seems. Paul had to rap 'em upside the head, so to speak. Anne
---
I strongly believe that Paul's admonition and sense of urgency was on account of the impending doom to befall the Jews and Christians in the coming years leading to the destruction of the Temple (and the persecution that would always follow where the Gospel is preached....even today) - as also spoken of in Revelation 1 (and Matt 24)... these horrific events being a foreshadow of the End Time apocalypse/judgement. I agree with Five Sola... the Last Days, the 'generation/age' to see all the stuff pretribs fear most (Matt 24:34) is the Church age. We are in the thick of it and it could go on for centuries. 1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: We ARE that generation that will see redemptive history thru to fruition...so WATCH OUT AND BE READY for none know when the Master returns. laz

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 21:11:46 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
We could probably all use a good rap now and again. :>)

Subject: Re: Time Travel
From: David McKay
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 03:02:57 (PST)
Email Address: music@fl.net.au

Message:
John you said: The truth is we have very little time left before the end of history... the game is about over. What do you see as evidence for this?

Subject: Primitive Baptist
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 20:21:15 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Has anyone had firsthand experience with the Primitive Baptist folks? I have met a couple of them on the net who have become friends of mine. They are believers in sovereign grace, but dislike the expression 'Calvinistic' because of Calvin's treatment of the Anabaptists. These two individuals shy away from conflict and, though they say things like, 'I don't always agree with you [me],' they never really get into deep discussions to let me know what their objections are. That is, as I interpret it, not a policy of PB's, but their particular personalities. If you have experience with this group, I'd solicit your opinions.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 20:11:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Primitive Baptists from the Encyclopedia of American Religions: After the American Revolution two Congregationalists missionaries adopted the Baptist position on immersion and lost their support from their home churches. These two missionaries Luther Rice and Adoniram Judson appeal to the Baptists created a the General Missionary Convention to the Baptist Denomination of 1815. Elder Martin Ross reported on this convention to the Kehukee Association in favorable terms. There arose an opposition to this missionary attitude and this group influenced the Kehukee Association to dissolve all ties to Missionary Societies, Bible Societies and Theological Seminaries. There was also a general motion against all societies especially the Masonic Lodge. This did not go with out opposition and there arose many splits in the Baptist churches especially in the South. Those that followed the non-missionary position became known as 'old-school' or 'primitive' baptist associations. By 1840 the Primitive Baptist Associations covered what was considered at that time the United States; northern to Pennsylvania, to the west to Missouri and south to Texas. Primitive Baptists have held both Calvinist and Arminian positions although most have held to a Calvinist style of theology. Primitive Baptists have and extreme congregational form of government. They have Deacons, Elders, and Members. All members must be baptized by immersion and they have closed communions. Ministers have no theological training except to study the Bible and must hold down a normal job as well. Primitive Baptists do not hold to musical instruments and singing is a cappella in four part harmony sounding much like eighteenth century folk music. Among Primitive Baptists there are at least 13 distinct groups. Prestor John (Much edited from original article)

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 21:15:34 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks, Prestor John! Very interesting.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Five Sola
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 22:08:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I have not had not too much experience with them until recently. A calvinist email discussion group has one member who is Primitive baptist. So I do not know if it is his character or primitive baptist in general but he is very argumentative. Not to mention he says (according to the teaching of his church) that they (primitive baptist) are the one and only direct and uninterupted line from john the baptist and all other churches are corrupted to one extent or another. It is kinda funny, I haven't heard that nonsense since I was involved with a Church of Christ 'cult'. He or the denomination is KJV only witch is an obvious failing as well. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Linda
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:41:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola, Off the subject, but out of curiosity, do you know if Church of Christ is same as Christian Church? Weren't they all the same at one time with Thomas Campbell being their leader? He broke from Presbyterian because he did not like the 'arguing' over doctrine. Consequently, now it seems to be a denomination where everybody believes about everything and nobody knows difference...nor do they want to. I left too.:-) Linda

Subject: Church of Christ denomination
From: Five Sola
To: Linda
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 18:02:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Linda, I am not familiar with the teachings of 'Christian Church' as a 'denomination'. I am familiar with the 'Church of Christ' because of a friend of mine who escaped from it. He personally doesn't label it a cult or apostate church but all the things he gives as their beliefs are fitting to a cult or an apostate church. I guess I wouldn't feel it was a full cult in the fullest sense of the word but it is definately not christian. Thomas Campbell was Presbyterian but when he and his father moved to the U.S. they left the church over issues of baptism, and Campbell's disgruntleness with predestination. :-) They tried baptist for a bit because of their view of baptism being similar but then started their own denomination. Of course most church of christ members will deny most of this (even though most of their elders know it) and they claim to be a church with an unbroken successive line from the apostles :-), they are very legalistic, Anti-RCC even though they are RCC without the icons :-), they of course think they are the one and only true church (a common sign among cults), and of course salvation is a on/off thing depending on your obedience to their '10 commandment' or the 'Law of Christ' I could go on but I won't. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Rod
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 09:37:59 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks for the reply, Five S. Here is what I've gleaned to supplement your info. They emphatically deny that they are a 'denomination.' They point to no national organization or heirarchy beyond the local congregation, which is autonomous. The pastors called themselves 'ElderJohn Doe' or whatever their name is. I don't know if they have an 'ordination ceremony' or not. Women aren't eligible to lead worship. They do believe that they are the one, true 'apostolic' Church. In fact one of my friends online is a pastor/elder. He spoke so much about their being the one true line back to the Apostles that, finally, another poster and I concluded that he thought we were unsaved. We noted that he never called us 'brother' or 'sister,' in his posts, reserving those terms for the other PB's. When we pointed this out to him, he apologized profusely, going out of his way for awhile to use those terms in relation to us. I'm not certain exactly how, since I'm not a PB and haven't been immersed by them (Are you familiar with the concept of 'alien baptism?') and since they are 'the only apostolic church,' but this man and his friend and fellow church member acknowledge me as saved. It seems very convoluted to me. They both claim to have "learned a lot from" me, but each has said "I don't always agree with you," more than once. I don't know if it is universal among them or not, but the non-elder among my two PB friends has posted on another board about how the KJV is the only version acceptable. It's like the old joke which says, 'If the KJV was good enough for Paul and the other Apostles, it's good enough for me!' Thanks again for the input and let me know, please, if you get any other insight. BTW, on the subject of your contact's being argumentative. Neither of these two men is confrontational at all. If someone vehemently disagrees with them, they usually don't reply further. The degree of "belligerence" is probably a character trait. After all, not everyone is mild mannered, as I am. :>)

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: JohnS
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 07:34:01 (PST)
Email Address: methos1957@hotmail.com

Message:
Five Sola: I am a baptist and the position you have described is known as 'Landmarkism.' It is a small but popular position among some baptist circles. The Baptist Bible Fellowship is landmark, as well as the American Baptist Association. Both these groups are not calvinistic. Within the Southern Baptist Convention, we have our share of Landmarkists. They seem to get their theology from a booklet called 'The Trail of Blood' that purports to trace modern baptists back to John the Baptist in a unbroken string of 'baptistic' churches. The flaw with this is they claim kinship with groups that are clearly heterodox and/or heretical (example, the Montanists). It is a baptist form of Catholicism. They have an unbroken string of bishops, baptists have an unbroken string of churches. Each 'true' church was planted by another 'true' church tracing all the way back to the first churches planted by the church Jesus started in Jerusalem. If you are not a church planted by a church with the 'authority' to plant true churches, then you are outside the Body of Christ. Oh, by the way, Landmarkists deny the existence of any kind of 'universal' church. They believe only properly planted local, baptist churches are correctly the Body of Christ. All other Christians are part of the Kingdom of God b ut not inside the Body of Christ. If you are wondering...I surrendered to preach in a BBF church. It was where I learned all this stuff. There is more information about them on Phil Johnson's Bookmarks. In Christ, JohnS

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Rod
To: JohnS
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 09:56:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
John S, I was a member of a Southern Baptist local church for a few years and I've never heard this term 'landmark,' or really been exposed to its concepts. Thank you for the info. I don't think, from what I've learned, that the PB's go back to the baptizer, only to the Apostles, as their foundational basis. I also don't think they have 'bishops' in the manner of, say, the United Methodists, since they disavow (from all I've read of them) any church organization beyond the local level. They used the term 'elder' exclusively as far as I know, not using the form 'bishop.' Maybe you can clarify this for me.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 15:05:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I'm a baptist and about as primitive as they get :-) Now, my dealings with them on the net has been quite cordial - the ones I've met seem well versed in their beliefs and are usually pretty reform. As to Church of Christ/Chrisitan church movements - not well informed in that area but grew up in a Christian church and when it split the split became a Church of Christ. This was in the midwest in the early fifties. We had two pastors for awhile - the split people called the second one without asking the other folks. Imagine stepping into that situation as a pastor ;-) The trail of blood is on the net - just search for 'trail of blood' and it should show up ifen yer thinkin o convertin. stan

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:13:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, The Primitive Baptist's that I have met expressed many incorrect beliefs. They thought the earth was flat, they think a camera can capture their soul, have a fear of fire and lightning, eat a diet rich in grubs, spoke only in grunts, and wore a loin cloth for a covering when performing water immersions; don't get much more primitive than that. : ) Primitive Baptists have a simple monthly (sometimes weekly) worship service, closed communion, membership is by Primitive Baptist immersion. They believe ministers should have a second job and remain untrained and unsalaried. They hold a rigid Calvinism and predestinarianism, whatever that is, and an opposition to organized missions, church auxiliaries, Bible/tract societies, seminaries, and Sunday schools. Their desire is to recapture the original faith and order of the NT apostles without adding anything not prescribed by the Bible. Since they hold to water immersion I wonder if they understand Covenant Theology, probably not. Someone might want to ask a Primitive Baptist about their understanding of Calvinism. It would be interesting to know what they believe, and why they don't wear clothes, and why they sometimes dance around a bonfire in grass skirts. john

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Linda
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:47:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, Bonfires in grass skirts? Oh, woe is me! Like Dr. Walter Martin used to say....'Run, don't walk, to the nearest exit!' Rod, I'd stay in Texas if I were you! Good thing you're checking this out with your friends here first! Blessings, Linda

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Rod
To: Linda
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 09:34:24 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks for the advice, Linda. Don't worry, I have no intention of joining a PB church.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:06:35 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, john, The guys I've met online are a pastor and a member of Zion PB church in Brunswick, GA. They hold weekly services and have initiated a mid-week meeting of some sort also. I believe they hold the equivalent of 'Bible conferences' periodically. The pastor and the other man are both 'TULIP' people, adhering to the five points. I have been invited to emigrate to Georgia (LEAVE TEXAS?!!!!) and join them by being 're-baptized' in their local church! You know, john, I wonder if it's universal that people think of 'wildmen' when they hear that term? I know I do. I always keep my spear handy when I post to them or read their posts! :>)

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Kiffin
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:01:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I am a Reformed Baptist and can tell you Primitive Baptists hold to Landmarkism (Baptist Successionism or an unbroken chain of churches to the days of the Apostles). Generaly they are not evangelistic and may lean to hypercalvinism but that is debatable. Most will not acknowledge the Baptism of even other Baptist churches as being valid. They are a very exclusive group. Kiffin

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: T.R.
To: Kiffin
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 10:41:50 (PST)
Email Address: fbp@junct.com

Message:
In the U.S.A. Primitive Baptists are represented mostly by the Old Liners and the Absoluters. There is also some representation in the Old Regular Baptists. The Primitives, both groups, have many web-sites. Just to give a differing experience: For about 25 years I have found them to be the most evangelistic of any denomination I have known. I have chaired some interdenominational groups, to which they of course would not attend. But their exclusivism does not curtail their evangelism. More confusing at first is the fact that many of them self-describe themselves as not being evangelistic (they are non-convention, non-psycho-emotionalists, etc.) but will often travel many miles and spend large amounts of personal funds to proclaim the gospel to any interested party, saved? or otherwise. Being a Southern Baptist pastor, I see their long held belief in direct regeneration bringing the most criticism. I wish most Southern Baptists were as interested in quickly and simply sharing God's Word as the Primitives I know. Many, if not most denominations would rather hire a pschologist or someone else to figure out what to do and do it, than actively go and proclaim the good news. When others have done their demographic studies and decided an area to be too unproductive, and have taken flight. The Old School remains, as they never placed their trust in gimmicks to begin with. The big denominations aren't too concerned with their presence, other than to make them the object of their jokes (a real brotherly thing to do), but the thing that impresses me is that by simply trusting in Jesus and the good news of His Gospel, they're still here. Because they are repulsed by identifying with an Arminian or works based religion you are right in that they refuse to accept other's baptisms.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: lindell
To: T.R.
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 04:51:18 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net

Message:
Dear T.R., I am a member of a Southern Baptist church in Kokomo,Indiana. My spiritual temperature is at an all time low and I now turn to you for some words of encouragement or rebuke.Here is my dilemma.I have a pastor who graduated from Louisville,Ky. Seminary which is Southern Baptist.He does not believe in the doctrines of grace as you would find them represented by the folks here on the Highway.As a matter of fact,the only one he acknowledges is total depravity.As you know,being called Southern Baptist tells very little about a man's religious beliefs because the local church is the lord over its' own,I believe it is called autonomy.So,my questions are:Do you believe wholeheartedly the doctrines of grace,as they are known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.? and do you preach them from the pulpit on a regular basis? This past Christmas holiday season,we were given over to a guest speaker and this is what the little sheep received for nourishment.The text was Isaiah 53.But before this chapter was read,he inserted 2Peter3:9 into his preliminary remarks and I would have bet the farm that the last two verses in 53 Isaiah would be ignored or mangled,they were ignored.So now we go to the altar call.Quote:'Every head bowed and every eye closed and no one looking around.All those who are christian and on their way to heaven,just lift up your hand.'Some reached for the sky as if Jesse James was in the area.Some raised their hands about head high and others did so hesitatingly about shoulder high.Back to quote:'All you that couldn't raise your hand,I'll be up front here and someone will talk to you and you can be saved.'No response.Quote:'Well I know it's a long aisle,Satan made it that way.Tell you what,just make the commitment to God right now where you are at, in the pew.' By this time,my temperature was rising and I thought of those men and women who were torn apart by dogs and other savage beasts for their testimony of Jesus.Those in Hebrews 11 who were sawn into and tortured for His name,their properties confiscated and then condemned by families and friends.What a contrast between those saints and me and my brothers in the Lord.In terms of cost,I couldn't be on the same corridor with these darlings of the Lord.On the way home,I was wallowing in self pity and shame.It seems that since that sermon I have had no joy or peace of mind with self, nor a kind thought towards those who hold christianity in low esteem.So if you will,administer a dose of vitamins or cyanide,I could use some relief.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: den
To: lindell
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 21:45:14 (PST)
Email Address: parks_place@yahoo.com

Message:
lindell I can't speak for T.R. but I can tell you he teaches and preaches the doctrines of Grace from the pulpit and to everyone he speaks too.As time goes by there appear to be more sbc churches seeking the Whole council of God-Do not be discouraged ,there are more of us that believe and defend the doctrines of Grace than you think-only God can open eyes and ears ,I pray continually for my family and friends that God will make known these Great Truths .Seek encouragement from those that hold fast the faith once delivered,knowing the only difference between those that don't believe and us is Gods mercy and His Love.Have you been to the -founders.org-site? seek and ye shall find! also a southern baptist-den-

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: lindell
To: den
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 11:01:00 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net

Message:
den, I do read the material on founders.org. As a matter of fact, I ask the folks on Highway to critique the article by Ernest Reisinger. I also listen to the sermons on line at the grace for today web site. There are three sbc churches in Kokomo and one in the town of Greentown. When I moved here four years ago, my wife and I spent time at three of the four in hopes of finding a church of like precious faith. I have not met anyone yet who is delighted to dwell on the Lord's sovereign grace. I don't want to leave you with the impression that I walk around on my lip for I find no greater joy than looking forward to meeting the Lord. I know that it is the Lord who opens the heart of understanding. I just get a case of the blues now and then and it would be nice to have a person that can cheer up the heart. It seems that Titus was Paul's tonic for a cheerful heart and I hope to find such a one here in Kokomo. I have been blessed with two saints of the Lord who would fit into the Titus role, unfortunately they live in Michigan and the Lord has planted me and mine in Indiana. You are a very fortunate fellow to have a preacher like your friend T.R.. Perhaps the Lord will put such a one in this environment, I have been petitioning Him for a long time to do that. I'd be delighted if you would join me in that prayer. lindell

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: den
To: lindell
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 20:47:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I would be honored to pray with you and for you and the town the Lord has placed you in-The last few years the Lord has been opening eyes and ears in our area-has truly been a blessing!One lady stood alone for years in our church so I know from talking to her that its hard,now she is excited. -May the Lord create brethern in your town- den

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Rod
To: Kiffin
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 12:51:38 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hello, kiffin, don't believe I've seen you around here before. If you're new, pleased to meetcha! If you aren't new, please forgive my not recognizing you from before. My posts indicate that they do claim to be traced back to the Apostles and have, as you say, the only unbroken lineage to the present day. What I've not heard them claim is lineage to John the Baptist. The only person I've ever heard claim that was a baptist pastor when I was in high school, unsaved and largely ignorant ot the Bible/chruch history. (I'd like for him to confront me with that assertion again today!) Marty, the pastor I've mentioned, is making a concerted effort at evangelism, recognizing that his group as a whole has not done so. Depending on your definition of 'hypercalvinism' (and believe me, it varies), these folks may be so. The two men I've met are not so, according to my understanding of the term. Marty very strongly denounces the belief that people are 'elected to hell.' He also most definitely would not allow anyone as a member of his group unless they were PB baptized. Thanks for the input.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Kiffin
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 13:34:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Nice to meet you Rod, You are correct on your view of Landmarkism, Rod. Generally Landmarkers go only to the personal ministry of Christ (I'm an Ex Landmarker by the way) In Christ, Kiffin

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Tom
To: Kiffin
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 14:33:27 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
I was wondering if the Primative Baptists have any famous people in their history. For instance John Knox in Presbyterianism. Tom

Subject: Re: Other than John, I don't think so ;-) NT
From: stan
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 15:12:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
.

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: laz
To: Kiffin
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 13:58:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Nice to meet you Rod, You are correct on your view of Landmarkism, Rod. Generally Landmarkers go only to the personal ministry of Christ (I'm an Ex Landmarker by the way) In Christ, Kiffin
---
Dear Kiffin - I recognize you from CRTA...excellent site. I can understand you saying 'no way, Jose'...but would you care to share with us how you found yourself in the Landmarkian sect and how you got out (by the grace of God, of course). blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: Kiffin
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 06:50:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey, Laz, Good to see you again. Join a Landmark BC in college (though they would be considered liberal in Landmark theology) Attended a Landmark Baptist Seminary and pastored in Landmark baptist work for close to 10 yrs. Theology was very oppressive and thank God he open doors into the SBC. Many good Christian people in Landmarkism but that belief in Baptist chain link ecclesiology tends to give them a bunker mentality. God Bless, Kiffin

Subject: Re: Primitive Baptist
From: laz
To: Kiffin
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 06:57:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Wow...you really must know what you're talkig about on this subject! ;-) Thanks for sharing. Blessings, laz

Subject: Anyone else get Spurgeon daily?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 08:45:59 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I get the morning and evening 'daily dose of Spurgeon', and I really loved this one, and thought y'all might like it, too: 'There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.' --2 Timothy 4:8 Doubting one! thou hast often said, 'I fear I shall never enter heaven.' Fear not! all the people of God shall enter there. I love the quaint saying of a dying man, who exclaimed, 'I have no fear of going home; I have sent all before me; God's finger is on the latch of my door, and I am ready for Him to enter.' 'But,' said one, 'are you not afraid lest you should miss your inheritance?' 'Nay,' said he, 'nay; there is one crown in heaven which the angel Gabriel could not wear, it will fit no head but mine. There is one throne in heaven which Paul the apostle could not fill; it was made for me, and I shall have it.' O Christian, what a joyous thought! thy portion is secure; 'there remaineth a rest.' 'But cannot I forfeit it?' No, it is entailed. If I be a child of God I shall not lose it. It is mine as securely as if I were there. Come with me, believer, and let us sit upon the top of Nebo, and view the goodly land, even Canaan. Seest thou that little river of death glistening in the sunlight, and across it dost thou see the pinnacles of the eternal city? Dost thou mark the pleasant country, and all its joyous inhabitants? Know, then, that if thou couldst fly across thou wouldst see written upon one of its many mansions, 'This remaineth for such a one; preserved for him only. He shall be caught up to dwell for ever with God.' Poor doubting one, see the fair inheritance; it is thine. If thou believest in the Lord Jesus, if thou hast repented of sin, if thou hast been renewed in heart, thou art one of the Lord's people, and there is a place reserved for thee, a crown laid up for thee, a harp specially provided for thee. No one else shall have thy portion, it is reserved in heaven for thee, and thou shalt have it ere long, for there shall be no vacant thrones in glory when all the chosen are gathered in.' Isn't this a most marvelous thought? What a fit subject for meditation on this Sunday! That Spurgeon . . . . his writings are a continual delight to me. Anne

Subject: Re: Anyone else get Spurgeon daily?
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 10:44:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, Do you frequent the 'Open Forum' here on The Highway? RJ has been posting daily Spurgeon's 'Faith's Checkbook' meditations there. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim PS. Thanks for posting this from 'Morning and Evening'. Food for the soul indeed. :-)

Subject: Re: Anyone else get Spurgeon daily?
From: Anne
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 14:57:05 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
'Do you frequent the 'Open Forum' here on The Highway? RJ has been posting daily Spurgeon's 'Faith's Checkbook' meditations there.' No, I had never checked that out, but shall certainly do so from now on. How kind of RJ to take the trouble to post those meditations, and thank you for alerting me to it! Anne

Subject: There was a rat afoot
From: john hampshire
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 18:23:01 (PST)
Email Address: hampshij@ppp.kornet.net

Message:
>>>He died for the sins of the whole world so that those who would trust in Him would have eternal life. John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:15; The quote above comes from Vern’s website under discussion. This statement is the body of the rat which I responded to earlier. The rat I smelled first was the statement 'Once volition accepts the plan of salvation by faith, sovereignty seals the decision'. My response to the second statement was ignored by Vern, so I will assume that he is not currently interested in knowing why this is an unbiblical position and is happy enough where he is. However, unless anyone should see this statement and think it credible we should check the verses used to support it and see if it be true. John 1:29, 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world', a proof text that Christ died for the whole world. 2 Cor 5:15, speaks of Christ saying 'and He died for all', again implying that Christ’s sacrificial death was for all mankind. On this belief is supported the idea that by our volition we accept salvation. Knowing that 'all' are not saved [some die in their sins] it is determined we must cast the deciding vote, thus excusing God for not truly saving 'all'. But what does 2 Cor 5 say: to quote it as proof of a universal atonement one must ignore everything else written before and after the word 'all'. Arminianists are equal to the challenge of playing hop scotch with scripture, otherwise they would soon admit defeat. 2 Cor 5:15 goes on to say of the 'all' whom Christ died for 'that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf'. This implies does it not, that whoever the 'all' are that Christ died for on their behalf, they will ultimately 'live…for Him'. In other words, every single person represented by 'all' will become a believer. Vs 18 states plainly 'God, who reconciled us [all that Christ died for] to Himself through Christ…namely that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself'. Here we see God has reconciled us, the believer through Christ. Christ died and rose again on their behalf. And He died for all. Putting that together we learn that by Christ’s death and resurrection, God was able to reconcile the world to Himself. If we think 'the world' is 'all' of mankind we have ignored that 'He died for all' and this 'all' will then live for Him. Since the wicked will not live for Christ, and are not reconciled to the Father, and are not 'a new creature if any man is in Christ' (Vs 17) we must conclude rightly that Christ did not die for all mankind. Notice we are on safe ground, for verse 19 states 'God, reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them' and verse 21 'He made Him who knew no sin sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him'. Do you see that the 'all' that were redeemed by Christ do not have their trespasses held against them by God. Can this be anything but the believer, does any other group become the righteousness of God? So it is easy to see from 2 Cor 5:14 that indeed 'having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died', and speaking in verse 14 of Christ who died for all, 'For the love of Christ controls us'. The 'us' is the believer, we are controlled by the love of Christ, we are the ones who died, as it were, with Christ 'therefore all died'. We, the believer are the 'all' and the 'world' (vs 19) which Christ has reconciled to be the righteousness of God, without trespasses, a new creature in Christ. Thus, John the Washer (Baptist) can say look, here comes the sacrificial Lamb sent by God to take the sin of the world away. The 'world' being the same 'world' spoken of here, 'Christ reconciling the world to Himself'… that as we have seen is speaking of only those who will believe. Now someone will say Christ must wait on mankind to believe, the choice of belief rests with man’s volition. We have seen in 2 Cor 5 that all Christ died for WILL live for Him and not themselves. This implies that those who believe are also directed by God so that none escape or might die in unbelief. If this is true, we should find Biblical support for it, and indeed in John 6:37 we find 'All that the Father giveth Me shall come to me; and him that cometh to Me will in no wise cast out'. We find an example of this in Acts 13:48, 'And when the Gentile heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed'. The ones who believed believed because they were the ones ordained to eternal life, thus the 'shall come to Me' is assured. Eph 2:10 says of the believer [not all of mankind] 'we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them'. Remember, we are a 'new creature' in Christ, one that lives for Christ; here we see that the reason this occurs is because God ordained it from 'before'. When did God ordained that some should believe? John 15:16 says of Christ, 'Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit…'. Here we see that indeed God ordained the ones He chose. 2Th 2:13 says of the chosen, '…beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation…' and Eph 1:4, 'According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world…'. The choosing that God did in picking who would be saved was done before the world was even made. These same ones are elected (or chosen) by God to eternal life in Christ, and thus they are the only ones Christ redeemed and are the same group represented by the 'all' and the 'world'. As Jesus said in John 17:9, 'I pray for them [the believers]: I pray not for the world [the wicked], but for them which Thou hast given me; for they are Thine'. Jesus was sent by the Father to redeem sacrificially the chosen ones of God, the ones given to Him by the Father. In John 10:25 Christ pictures Himself as the good Shepherd who cares for His sheep. He says of the wicked 'But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep… My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me'. The act of belief is reserved only for Christ’s sheep, and none other, these are the ones known by God, 'Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His'. (2Ti 2:19). God knows each one He chooses to inherit salvation 'and He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out' (John 10:3). He ordains their salvation, He calls them by name, these are His people which comprise the 'all' that Christ died for, 'and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins'. (Mt 1:21) Just to be sure we understand, those that God knew WILL attain salvation and one day be glorified. There is no possibility that He will lose a single on of His sheep. 'For whom He [God] did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son…' (Rom 8:29). You see, those that God foreknew, the sheep called by name, they are before hand destined to be saved, it is God’s ordained will that the chosen [elect] be saved. 'Moreover, whom He [God] did predestined, them He also called…them He also justified….them He also glorified' (Ro 8:30). The very same ones then that are foreknown will one day be glorified. There is nothing that our will can do to alter this, God will build His church, God will save by His strong arm the elect. The chosen of God are predestined unto 'adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself', and why did He adopt us?, 'according to the good pleasure of His will'. (Eph 1:5). Remember 'the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost' (Lu 19:10), and this is not everyone in the whole world, but rather the chosen ones of His Father, 'That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which Thou [Father] gavest Me [Christ} have I lost none'. We do not enter into salvation by ‘our volition’
---
we enter into salvation because the Father chose us [not us choosing Him] from before the foundation of the world, that Christ should sacrificially redeem these sheep ensuring all the Father gave the Son will be saved, because it is God’s good pleasure to do so; we are predestined to salvation, ordained to eternal life, so that 'all' that the Son died for WILL be justified [declared just] and one day glorified. That is the true fragrance of the gospel of Christ. It stands opposed to the stinking rat of man’s volition and choice. john

Subject: Re: ToJohn/Laz
From: Vern
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 02:29:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To John/Laz, Ihave pasted this from another site to try to focus my position in my belief of 'Regeneration. When I spoke of violiation,I ment that Adam chose to dis- obey God,thereby infecting every soul born thereafter to the nature and penalty of Sin. I know that you may disagree, but man sins and disobey the Laws of God by choice. Because of his sin nature. Ido not believe that God created man to sin,I do believe God foreknew that man would fall to sin, and He in His foreknowledge predetermind that His Son would come and do for man, what man could not do for Himself (TO SAVE HIMSELF). He came to save the lost man who will believe. Now, below explains how man comes to the knowledge of God's mercy and grace. This is my understanding of 'Regenration' cut/pasted by :Vern Regeneration is the theological term for the Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth in Christ. By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life to man upon the single condition of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior. Several words and phrases in the Bible express the concept of regeneration. The following passages show how frequently the doctrine of regeneration is found in the Bible. * In John 3:7 the words 'born again' express regeneration. * In Eph. 2:5, the words 'made alive' refer to regeneration, the new life * In 2 Cor. 5:17, the words 'new creation' speak of the new birth * In 1 John 3:1,2, the expression 'children of God' refers to regeneration. * In Titus 3:5, the word 'regeneration' itself is used. There are several aspects about regeneration which are important to give attention to. All People Need Regeneration Our condition demands it. Eph. 2:1 declares us to be 'dead' in sins. Death is a condition for which 'life' (regeneration) is the only solution. Out family connection demands it. Rom. 5:12 indicates that we are dead because of a family relationship. Therefore, we need a new birth, a new family, a new Father, all of which are provided by regeneration. The Author of Regeneration: GOD John 1:12 informs us that we must be 'born of God.' The word 'of' points to the source and origin of the new life - God is the origin and source of regeneration. John 1:13 eliminates all human aspects of regeneration. The phrase 'not of blood' shows that regeneration cannot be inherited. The phrase 'not of the will of the flesh' shows that God's life is not the fruit of a man's search for God. 'Not of the will of man' - man cannot generate eternal life. The Means of Regeneration - The Word 1 Pet. 1:23 makes it clear that the written word of God is the means of the new birth, because the written word is actually the living Word (see also Heb. 4:12; John 6:63; Acts 7:38) In practice, this means knowledge must precede the new birth. The miracle of the new birth cannot occur where the Word of God is not taught in some form. The Power of Regeneration - The Resurrection We are 'born again...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ', 1 Pet. 1:3. This shows us the kind of power needed for regeneration. According to Eph. 1:19,20 the power that raised Christ from the dead is the greatest power ever displayed. This same power is applied in bringing regeneration to us. The Instrument of Regeneration - Faith Gal. 3:26 explains that faith is the hand by which we receive the gift of eternal life. The Basis of Regeneration - Blood Those who call on the Father, 1 Pet. 1:1719, the family concept of regeneration. It is the blood of Christ that makes this possible (v. 19). The Agent of Regeneration - The Holy Spirit John 3:5,6, the necessity of birth through the agency of the Holy Spirit. 'Flesh' begets 'flesh', 'spirit' begets 'spirit'. Divine life requires divine parents. John 1:12 '...to them gave He power to become the children of God' Author:Warren Doud...wdoud@bga.com

Subject: Re: ToJohn/Laz
From: Pilgrim
To: Vern
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:40:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern,
I know we have gone around and around on this very issue too many times to recount. And it amazes me that you can continue to argue for the same heretical doctrines which have been soundly refuted here by myriad people. It is also astounding that the very biblical passages that prove this false doctrine wrong are quoted as being supportive of it????? You wrote via the quote, 'Regeneration is the theological term for the Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth in Christ. By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life to man upon the single condition of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.' Now, Rod has done a fine job of expounding the truth of God and exposing the error of this statement. But the text that singularly, in my opinion, clearly refutes it is thus:
Joh 1:12 'But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.'
I can't think of another passage in all Scripture which is more perspicuous in pointing out that those who received the Lord Christ were those who WERE=[PRIOR TO BELIEVING], BORN OF GOD. Paul of course extrapolates on this truth in Ephesians 2:1-5 and says that 'while we (Christians, looking back at the time before they were believers) yet DEAD, God made us alive. . .' A DEAD person has no life. Therefore no ability to do ANYTHING. And so to use an earthly analogy of spiritual truth, it would be likened to you going to a cemetery and preaching the gospel to those in the graves. Tell me, which of those entombed there under the earth would believe upon Christ which you would be preaching to them? And thus believing, God would 'make them alive'?? I do hope you would say, NONE! Indeed, for it is impossible for a dead person to see, hear, think and thus cast themselves upon the Living Christ in faith and repentance. The truth is elementary my dear Vern!! UNLESS GOD first regenerates a sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, he CANNOT and WILL NOT have any interest whatsoever in God nor in a bloody atonement so as to be reconciled to God and receive justification. Sola Gratia!! Soli Deo Gloria!! 'Salvation is of the LORD! Jonah 2:9.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: ToJohn/Laz
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 13:59:25 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Even though we're in complete agreement and I was in remembrance of many of those same passages before, it is still a thrill to see the truth of God affirmed so ably! Paradoxically, even though it's a 'chore of frustrating proportions' to continually deal with such obstinance as Vern displays, it is of benefit so that those of us who accept God's word at face value can be strengthened in our commonality of belief. Thank you.

Subject: Re: ToJohn/Laz
From: Rod
To: Vern
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 10:20:27 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Vern, I know it's virtually useless to point this out to you as I've carefully explained it before and have others, including john and Laz, but, just in case someone has come by who is confused... You wrote: 'Regeneration is the theological term for the Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth.' So far, so good, that is correct; that's exactly what it is. You continue, 'By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life to man...' and up to that point, you are still correct, but you add the Arminian/semi-Pelagan kicker, '...upon the single condition of faith in Christ as a personal Savior.' And there you have erred signifcantly and contradicted the Scriptures. Please try to grasp what I've pointed out to you so many times. God says, 'there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:11). If faith is a requirement before the second birth, a man would have to seek God in faith while still spiritually dead. That, Vern is a patent impossibility. Christ tells us this in His dealing with Nicodemus: He patiently declares and explains that what one needs, first and foremost, is the regeneration of the Spirit: 'Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again' John 3:7, cp. verse 3). That, not faith, is the necessary condition which initiates the process by which faith can be imparted to man as a part of grace. You would probably say it is faith which saves; in fact, you do say it in the statement quoted above. Again God declares you wrong by His Apostle: 'By grace ye are saved' he notes parenthetically in Eph. 2:5 and, 'For by grace are ye saved,' he plainly restates in verse 8. Grace makes the salvation of faith possible, because the first event to occur in election is the regeneration of the elect individual. He is thereby made clean by being made newly spiritually alive. That new, clean life, resulting from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God has a will to turn to God in Christ in faith and does so upon the presentation of God's truth to him: 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. 10:17). That fact is precisely the reason for the pronouncements of the Lord Jesus in John 3:3 and 3:5-6. Read them with the spiritual eyes of understanding, please, if so be that you are saved of God: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' (verse 3; note, he cannot even 'see' it!). 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit [the cleansing power and regeneration of God, the Spirit], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh [every lost man] is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit [the regenerate] is spirit' (verses 5-6). Being now spirit, the new man is enabled by God the Spirit within him to be saved by being given faith through the hearing of the truth of God which he can now, being alive to God, receive. 'Flesh' cannot be saved, being evil and condemned by God: 'God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh [but not actually sinful Himself] and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit' (Rom. 8:3-4). And the fact that man must be born again preceding faith is emphasized by this Bible statement: 'Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9). He has to receive the Spirit, as a gift, before anything else can happen. Without that, 'he is none of his.' Did you see that, Vern? A person must have the Spirit of God, the new birth from above, prior to being Christ's. Once and for all, the new birth is the basis for salvation, not its result. May God enable you to see.

Subject: Re: ToJohn/Laz
From: laz
To: Vern
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 09:58:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern: you posted: Regeneration is the theological term for the Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth in Christ. By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life to man upon the single condition of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior. Question: Do you believe that regeneration (and thereby salvation) is conditional? lazarus

Subject: A Simple Question
From: john hampshire
To: Vern
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 11, 2000 at 23:47:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern, For the sake of Vern, in case you don't understand why people keep trying to get you to fess-up to your true beliefs, I'll give a hypothetical demonstration. I will play the part of you, let's see if we can answer a simple question as presented. Question: DO YOU LIVE IN A HOUSE? Answer: I have cut-n-pasted a lengthy explanation which follows on this, but I will say simply that I do believe houses exist and that people live in them. I know many fine people who own houses and am familiar with condos, apartments, and mobile homes. I do not believe I live in a condo, apartment, or a mobile home. I do believe that a house has a chimney, a roof, and walls, which I truly affirm to be the case. To say it plainly: a house is a place for people to live, so you could say that I have not ever disagreed with that statement. Thank you for asking, I hope I have explained you question. Question: You did not say if you lived in a house or not, please answer the question? Answer: I tried to explain my position on houses, I have provided the same cut-n-paste job for you to review because I am not an architect and cannot comment to the level of understanding that you desire. You asked if I live in a house, we'll I believe that I live in an area zoned for residences so that I am in agreement with you. I am sorry I am not a commercial contracting agent and do not know everything about building a house, so I cannot say more than that. Thanks for you question. Question: You still haven't answered, ..... Answer: Repeat basic evasive non-committal verbiage so that nothing of substance is ever stated and no communication or understanding is ever displayed until the questioning party just gives up in frustration of ever getting a square answer. In case Vern you are confused as to the kind of answer that people want, here it is: 1. I believe that faith is a by-product of regeneration and is a gift of God [does not come from man but from God] 2. I believe man first displays faith and God acts upon that faith to regenerate [faith is man's work toward salvation]. Please select answer 1 or answer 2. It is that easy, it is called communication, wanna try (no cut-n-paste required)? john

Subject: Re: A Simple Question
From: Vern
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 05:40:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello , Look, I have no argument over the soverenigty of God. I have express this more than ones. I do not disagree in “Election” and “Predestination.” Election is the results of God’s soveregin iniative and He has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Is this not the very core and evangelical center of the doctrine of “election.” Our election is solely in Christ. Jesus is the incarnaed Mediator between God and man. Jesus is the “Elected” one. One should never speak of “Predestnation” apart from this central truth. My point made is this, Predestionation does not negate the necessity for human repentance and having faith; but would you say that the Predestant acts of God in His sovereign will established both? God does not relate to human beings as sticksand stones,but free as free creatures made in His image. If our salvatuon id based on election,then whay preach the gospel? Because God has chosen Preaching as the means to awaken faith in the elect. We should never preach election and predestionation above proclaiming the gospel to everyone without exception, knowing that it is only the Holy Spirit who can “Convict; Regenerate; and Justify.” There are those who preach a double predestination ( God has selecte some to damnation and some to salvation.( Ro. 9:11-23; 2 Cor. 2:15-16 ) Yet the also teaches that God does not wish anyone to perish but for all to be saved. Jn. 3:16; 2 Pet 3:9 ) Many have argue over this doctrine for many years and I admit that I do not understand how everthing the Bible says about elections and fit it all ina nice neat logical package for you. My feeling is this, “ My business is not to pry into the secrect councel of God but to share the message of salvation with everyone and be greatful that God in His grace and mercy has lead me from darkness into light through faith in Jesus Christ. A question was ask, “ DO YOU BELIEVE REGENERATION ( and thereby salvation) is conditional? Yes I do........ The New Birth comes from hearing the Word of God (Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:23) It is not a human accomplish but an act of God (Jas1:18 ) This does not mean that every person hearing the gospel will be saved. Since I have not the power to change a man’s heart, I will stick to speaking the gospel and allow God to do His work within the man. It all comes down to this, God’s intial work in the believer’s life solely by His working alone: Conviction of sin (3 Jn 16:8) Regeneration ( Luke 15:7,10; 2 Cor 5:17 ) Confession OF Christ Acts 2:21; Ro 10:9-10 )

Subject: Re: A Simple Question
From: Rod
To: Vern
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 11:16:32 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Oh, Vern, You're just too much! How avoiding can you be? I got a good chuckle out of your simple response to a one sentence question calling for a 'yes' or 'no!' Tip: One doesn't 'pry into the secret counsels of God' if God has plainly declared the truth in His Word for all who have spiritual ears to hear.

Subject: Re: A Simple Question
From: monitor
To: Vern
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:12:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Vernon - Did you say that CHrist is the only person truly elected from the foundations of the world ... and that believers join Christ in this election by being found In Him through the process of responding favorably to the Gospel? Is that what you believe? In Him, monitor p.s. here is your statement: Our election is solely in Christ. Jesus is the incarnaed Mediator between God and man. Jesus is the “Elected” one. One should never speak of “Predestnation” apart from this central truth.

Subject: Re: A Simple Question
From: Vern
To: monitor
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:28:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello, In Acts 2:23 God predeterminded Christ would come an die for sinful man. Yes, Christ was the ceif elected one to die on the cross. There is no way we can have a relationship with God except it be in and through Christ.

Subject: Re: A Simple Question
From: laz
To: Vern
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 08:07:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern - I believe you have taken the first step towards meaningful dialogue. You have confessed that a person FIRST needs to respond to the hearing of the Gospel with the 'ears of faith' (coming from where?), followed by repenting of his/her sin as God's Spirit prods/convicts ....and only after God sees this contrition, will He regenerate their soul. You have FINALLY made this point clear. Thank You!!! Oh, by the way, you are decidely Arminian in your understanding of salvation. laz p.s. So if a person is successfully convicted of their sin, having sincerely repented (and thus been forgiven as Christ's blood is applied to their account)....AND thereby stand eternally justified before God....what is the point of being 'regenerated/reborn' after-the-fact? Is regeneration merely God's means of facilitating the lifelong process of sanctification....as it's probably alot easier to train a domesticated sheep than a wild mountain goat?

Subject: Re: A Simple Question
From: john hampshire
To: Vern
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 18:45:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern, 1. I believe that faith is a by-product of regeneration and is a gift of God [does not come from man but from God] 2. I believe man first displays faith and God acts upon that faith to regenerate [faith is man's work toward salvation]. Please select answer 1 or answer 2. Just for grins and to prove you can do it, please select which applies to you. You accidentally forgot to answer this basic question. 1 or 2? john

Subject: Re: A Simple Question
From: Vernon
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:58:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John... *Eph 2:8-9 faith is God's giftBut is belief and faith the same.

Subject: Re: A Simple Question for Vern
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 19:25:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, If I may distill your 2 very simple questions into even simpler terms? :-)
Vern,
Pick One Please!
1) Man believes and then he is born again = (God regenerates him) 2) Man is born again = (God regenerates him) and then he does and must believe.
Thanks, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: A Simple Question for Vern
From: Vernon
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:22:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SIMPLE.....#2, Have never denied this. It is God who brings mah able to believe or have faith. Paul in chapter# 10 explains the process in how we reach the lost with the Gospel. g

Subject: Re: A Simple Question for Vern
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 07:16:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern, So, you affirm that ALL whom God regenerates WILL/MUST believe in Christ? In other words, FIRST a sinner is 'born again' and as a result/because of this new birth (regeneration) he/she INFALLIBLY believes on the Lord Christ? Let me ask this same question in the negative: Is there any who are 'born again' who do NOT believe and who will be condemned to hell? Pilgrim

Subject: Re: A Simple Question for Vern
From: Vern
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:55:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All who go to hell do not believe. No one who is 'Born Again' will disbelieve.

Subject: A Simple Summary for Vern
From: Pilgrim
To: Vern
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 13, 2000 at 12:14:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern,
Since ALL those who are regenerated by God do WITHOUT FAIL, believe on Christ. And since it is God ALONE who sovereignly regenerates whom HE WILL. Then it is, as the Scripture says, ONLY THE ELECT who have been predestinated before the foundation of the world in Christ are those whom God regenerates. The reprobate have been predestinated/foreordained before the foundation of the world to remain in their sinful state (dead in trespasses and sins) and thus they live out their lives in total rebellion against God and suffer the consequences due them at the end of time at the Great White Throne Judgment. Now, let's move just a bit further in this and discuss the redeeming work of the Trinity. Since it is the Father who had elected some to eternal life from before the foundation of the world (in eternity), to accomplish this gift of redemption for them, it was necessary that the Son (the second person of the Trinity) take upon Himself human flesh and live and die in their stead. Thus it is for the ELECT and them ALONE that Christ came to be a substitute for as He Himself testified:
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
and again The Lord Jesus' prayers to His Father were consistent with this truth, that the Father sent the Lord Christ into the world to save ONLY those whom He had predestinated to salvation in Christ:
Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. . . . 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. . . 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. . . 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. . . 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare [it]: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
The 3 persons of the Trinity are ONE, and thus in perfect agreement and harmony. The Father elects a remnant of sinners out of Adam's fallen race; the Son comes to redeem those same sinners; the Holy Spirit regenerates those whom the Father elected and the Son atoned for. It is NOT true that the Father salvifically loves all men without exception; the Son died for all men without exception; the Holy Spirit regenerates all men without exception. Neither is it nor can be true that the Father elects certain sinners to be saved, but the Son atones for all and the Holy Spirit only regenerates some. Nor is any other combination possible, for the Scriptures are adamant that salvation is of the Lord, and man has no part in determining his own destiny, having been given some 'mystical' power to believe from the grave of his spiritual death. If God loves all men and Christ died for all men, then of necessity, the Spirit would also regenerate all men and consequently, all men would be saved. And we know that this is categorically denied, but rather many will be cast into the Lake of Fire with the Devil and his angels at the last Judgment.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: There was a rat afoot
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 09:00:55 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Good job, john. Has anyone else noted the irony of the title of Vern's thread, 'God is in Control,' while the text of his posts denies that very fact and places man in the sovereign position? The inescapable conclusion is that the man is either deceived or is a deceiver himself.

Subject: Re: There was a rat afoot
From: Anne
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 18:50:52 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
As usual, you have written a masterful exposition on the subject of election! The work that goes into your instructive posts certainly shows, John. Anne

Subject: Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 06:31:12 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Have you all been following the hoo-hah on the news, and in magazines, etc. about feng shui? That's the belief that if you'll just arrange your furniture in a certain way, using particular colors in particular places (I think; don't hold me to that), employing certain design elements according to a set plan, then, basically, all your troubles should be over! Yes! You, too, can have prosperity! Health! Romance! Whatever! Just make sure the energy in your home or office is flowing a certain way, is all. Last time I checked, this is superstitious behavior. Why is it, that just because something came from the 'East' it is automatically okay? I read just recently ('How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth') that the admonition in the OT against boiling a kid in its mother's milk was God being very plain about a particular Canaanite fertility rite. They actually would do that, ghastly thought, believing that by doing so, their herd of goats would be improved and enlarged, through 'sympathetic magic.' God said, 'Don't do that.' The Canaanites also believed that by 'marrying' two different breeds, seeds, etc. together, they would produce magical 'offspring'; i.e. future bounty. God said, 'Don't do that, either.' Hmmm, let's put on our thinking caps and ponder what He might be expected to say about feng shui.....d'you suppose it might be, 'Don't do that!' ? This type of behavior is just another ploy of man's to try and sidestep God's sovereignty. Yeah, right......just put the sofa HERE, and use blue THERE, and God'll fall right into line. I don't THINK so! I dislike seeing CNN, ABC, virtually every magazine, etc. promote such superstitious behavior, especially since they refuse to label it as such. The church has been resolutely silent on the topic, at least so far as I can tell. Anne

Subject: Re: Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:46:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Have you all been following the hoo-hah on the news, and in magazines, etc. about feng shui? That's the belief that if you'll just arrange your furniture in a certain way, using particular colors in particular places (I think; don't hold me to that), employing certain design elements according to a set plan, then, basically, all your troubles should be over! Yes! You, too, can have prosperity! Health! Romance! Whatever! Just make sure the energy in your home or office is flowing a certain way, is all. Last time I checked, this is superstitious behavior. Why is it, that just because something came from the 'East' it is automatically okay? I read just recently ('How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth') that the admonition in the OT against boiling a kid in its mother's milk was God being very plain about a particular Canaanite fertility rite. They actually would do that, ghastly thought, believing that by doing so, their herd of goats would be improved and enlarged, through 'sympathetic magic.' God said, 'Don't do that.' The Canaanites also believed that by 'marrying' two different breeds, seeds, etc. together, they would produce magical 'offspring'; i.e. future bounty. God said, 'Don't do that, either.' Hmmm, let's put on our thinking caps and ponder what He might be expected to say about feng shui.....d'you suppose it might be, 'Don't do that!' ? This type of behavior is just another ploy of man's to try and sidestep God's sovereignty. Yeah, right......just put the sofa HERE, and use blue THERE, and God'll fall right into line. I don't THINK so! I dislike seeing CNN, ABC, virtually every magazine, etc. promote such superstitious behavior, especially since they refuse to label it as such. The church has been resolutely silent on the topic, at least so far as I can tell. Anne
---
Idolatry comes in many forms...this is just another not-so-new form...putting your trust in some mystical force/energy instead of God. As for the Church involvement...hey, we got our own idolatrous practices in Rome, Constantinople, TBN, CBN, various bible/divinity colleges/universities and '-isms', etc, etc. laz

Subject: Re: Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:31:50 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, You know, I've never understood how, when we've had such greatness in this nation with our Judeo-Christian values, and our 'can do' mindset historically, people can so easily turn their backs on our heritage and throw it all over to embrace the things which have not brought us to the point where we now are. (I'm speaking purely on the human plane now of course, God is still determining all things.) All this has happened in a relatively brief period, historically speaking. Amazing.

Subject: Re: Feng shui, or Life Isn't Wierd Enuf
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:58:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes indeed; 45 days after God parted the Red Sea the Israelites made the golden Calf! Humanity doesn't change.

Subject: Pastor Don Matzat
From: Linda
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:05:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have tried to order a book by Don Matzat, THE LORD TOLD ME, I THINK. I am told it is out of print. Any ideas where I can locate this book? It is his fourth, and the first three were very good. Hope someone can help with this. Blessings, Linda

Subject: Re: Pastor Don Matzat
From: Anne
To: Linda
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 10:38:18 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Go to ABEbooks.com, plug in Don Matzat, then the book you want will be the first listed, when the search results come up. It's available for $4.50 + S/H from Tattered Pages. I adore ABEbooks, and it is my first resource for out-of-print books. You'll love it! Anne

Subject: Re: Pastor Don Matzat
From: Pilgrim
To: Linda
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:34:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Linda,
Try requesting the book you are looking for from these folks. David Jacks is the owner and also the designer of the great 'Dead Theologians' T-shirts of which we have some information on The Highway's home page. They have been good in locating books for me. J Theological Pursuits 5801 Westcreek Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76133 Phone/Fax: (817) 294 - 8083 E-mail: theologicalpursuits@juno.com
In His Service, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Pastor Don Matzat
From: Linda
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 13:58:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Anne and Pilgrim, So good to know these resources! I appreciate your help. Thank you! Linda

Subject: God is in control
From: Vern
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:07:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Ref: http://www.biblefragrances.com/pages/voltheo.html 1. Sovereignty related to salvation: 3 phases to God's plan of salvation. A. Phase One: salvation itself 1. Provided by the Sovereignty of God. Eph. 1:11; Acts 2:23 2. But volition is responsible for entrance into it. Jn. 3:16-18, 36 3. Once volition accepts the plan of salvation by faith, sovereignty seals the decision and makes salvation a permanent status for the believer. Eph. 1:13-14; Rom. 8:38-39; Jn. 6:39-40; 10:27-29 B. Phase Two: Life on earth - the Christian way of life (CWL) Psalm 139:16; 2 Pet. 2:3-4; 1 Thes. 4:1-8; Prov. 8:1-11; Eph. 5:18 C. Phase Three: Eternity - life with God in heaven John 14:1-3 Philippians 2:9-11; 3:20-21 1 Pet. 1:3-5 2 Application of sovereignty to the Christian way of life: 1 Chron. 29:11-13; 1 Sam. 2:6-8 A. God is in control of history. He is both directing and permitting the course of humanity under the rulership of Satan. B. The believer is in a place of unique privilege, responsibility and protection. C. Our salvation is secure. D. Our daily life is provided for. E. Therefore, confidence, contentment, happiness, motivation for service. 1 Cor. 15:58

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: Vern
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 05:07:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Pilgrim, (You said) Just what motivates you to return here and start spewing the same garbage all over again? Some of us who are familiar with you know how deceitful you can be. Thus the 'newbies' here, who haven't had the 'pleasure' of dealing with you and who have good intentions to help you see the truth will be spending much of their valuable time for naught.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Vern posted Why have you returned and started spewing the same old garbage? Well let us see what it is you call garbage. 1. Provided by the Sovereignty of God. Eph. 1:11; Acts 2:23 Eph 1:11 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:(KJV) Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:(KJV) John 6:43-44 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.(KJV) 2. But volition is responsible for entrance into it. Jn. 3:16-18, 36 John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(KJV) John 3:18 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. (KJV) John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.(KJV) 3. Once volition accepts the plan of salvation by faith, sovereignty seals the decision and makes salvation a permanent status for the believer. Eph. 1:13-14; Rom. 8:38-39; Jn. 6:39-40; 10:27-29 Eph 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.(KJV) Rom 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.(KJV) John 6:39-40 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV) John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.(KJV) 4, The believer ‘s Life on earth - the Christian way of life Psalm 139:16; 2 Pet. 2:3-4; 1 Thes. 4:1-8; Prov. 8:1-11; Eph. 5:18 Ps 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.(KJV) 2 Pet 2:2-4 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (KJV) 1Thes 4:1-8 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.2.For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God :6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit. Prov 8:1-11-Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.10 Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.(KJV) Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (KJV) 5, Life with God in heaven John 14:1-3 Philippians 2:9-11; 3:20-21 1 Pet. 1:3-5 6. Application of sovereignty to the Christian way of life: 1 Chron. 29:11-13; 1 Sam. 2:6-8 7. God is in control of history. He is both directing and permitting the course of humanity under the rulership of Satan. B. The believer is in a place of unique privilege, responsibility and protection. C. Our salvation is secure. D. Our daily life is provided for. E. Therefore, confidence, contentment, happiness, motivation for service. 1 Cor. 15:58 Now, Do “ You, Pilgrim” call this garbage? This was my intial post taken from another site. Why have I come? I came in good faith and in hopes to part the truth to all and also receive the truth from others who may enjoy in sharing it with me. You are correct, Just because I have posted what I have called truth makes it not truth unless it is backed by God’s word and also if the scripture has been used in the right context. Now, I would say that this includes you or anyone who speaks God’s word. We all should test everything given to us as God’s word to the measure of prayer and the word of God. Pilgrim, I may not be at the same educated level of You , nor am I at the same level of knowledge of many here who do post the word of God. I must deal at the level where I am with God. I know this, “ My soul is secured in Christ and the witness that bares witness with me assures me that this is tue.” Therefore, call me what ever, God calss me His child in Christ Jesus. Most others call me a brother in Christ. I would like doing this with you, and others here as well. I do not agree with everything that is posted here nor do I believe everyone should agree with me just because I have posted it. But it seems to me if I do not dot every i or cross everything to the letter of Calvanism, I am labled a heretic or what ever you choose to call me. “Why?” I realize that you claim to be well educated in life and the scriptures, I find this to be true. I simply disagree in how you have labled me.

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: Rod
To: Vern
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 08:52:50 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Vern, You either ignornantly, or knowingly (which is even worse) have been obtuse about what people here have been telling you. You ignore the facts about your points 2 and 3 (I didn't examine farther; it's the same old thing) which are something no sovereign gracer would ever accept and which are repugnant to all of us who believe in absolute, free, sovereign grace. That's why we all, as john puts it, 'smell a rat!' That means you are no Calvinist at all and apparently haven't even a fundamental understanding of its basis, though I and the others have explained it to you several times. You are, by your own witness, Arminian/semi-Pelagan. That belief system, with its emphasis on man over God is, in our understanding of the Bible, 'garbage,' a foul stench in the nostrils of God and those who accept His revealed truth in the whole of the Bible. Do you actually think you have presented views we haven't heard before? Some of us even used to be of the same persuasion. We deal with these issues by more or less belligerent people almost on a weekly basis here in the time I've been participating. It's the same on the other boards I'm on and have been on. You, as do all of your persuasion, read the Bbile 'creatively' and selectively, throwing out the passages which don't agree with your position, the ones which have been cited for you previously. May the Lord God open your eyes to your error and lead you into truth.

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: Vern
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 11:21:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Rod, I have been called heretic by the Universalist, By the Calvinist,been called a Calvinist by those who call them- selves 'Free Willers. I suppose my view of secured salvation and that not all will be saved covers the view of the 'U's' and for the 'CAL's' they do not like my understanding of regeneration. For the 'Free Willer's' they hammer me on my stand,'Once Saved always saved.' In my own behalf, If I spoke to you in the manor of Peter I would say to you,' according to the foreknowledge of God, by the sancitifying works of the Spirit,do I obey Jesus Christ and have been sprinkled by His blood. ( 1Peter 1:2) It is by God's mercy that has caused me to be born again and given me a living hope in the resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. ( 1 Peter 1:3 ) Because of God's mercy, the sancitifying works of the Holy Spirit and Christ's works upon the cross, I have the promise of an inheritance which is unperishable and will not fade away. It is reserved for me in heaven. ( 1 Peter1:4 )God said, that my inheritance is protected by Him. ( 1Peter 1:5 ) In regards to regenerations my view has always been spoken with the level of my understanding of the subject. I have repeatably said that God is the one who regenerates the heart of man. Never disagreed with this! Jesus said to Nicodemus,' Ye must be Born Again.' Now, this could be translated as being ' Born From Above.' John 3:3 This clearly emphasizes the sovereign role of God causing the regeneration of man. I continue to say that those who receive salvation is those who do 'Believe.' (John 3:16) The above supports how man comes to the understanding faith in Christ. As for man choosing to sin, 'Did not Adam choose to disobey God's commandment to not eat of the tree?' Adam fell to sin and all mankind fell in sin with him. In God's predetermind foreknowledge sent His Son to die on the Cross for fallen mankind. But Rod, 'ONLY THOSE WHO WILL BELIEVE WILL BE SAVED.' Now, you nor I know whom God will regenerate, do we? Should we not share the Gospel with every Nation and creature as Jesus commanded in hopes that God will regenerate their heart? You people seem to have a blocked understanding of this fact. Rod, Salvation is called a free gift, Can we have the gift unless God gives it to us. Of course not! Rod, man does not chose God, God choses man.

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: john hampshire
To: Vern
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 05:05:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern, You said, 'I continue to say that those who receive salvation is[are] those who do 'Believe.' (John 3:16) The above supports how man comes to the understanding faith in Christ'. You continue to say it, but you continue to say it incorrectly. I will dare to say for you what you will not say yourself. You would say, if you said anything plainly, that because a man believes God, then God regenerates that one. You would say of John 3:16, that whosoever believeth in Christ shall, after that demonstration of faith, be regenerated [saved]. As you said to Rod, 'ONLY THOSE WHO WILL BELIEVE WILL BE SAVED.' So despite so many attempts to crack your nut, you continue to wonder where the problem is, presuming yourself to be a Calvinist. But a Calvinist, in keeping with Scripture itself, does not believe that man first believes and then God rewards that belief with salvation. That is the Arminianist’s favorite lie. You will say, no doubt, that God helps man get to the point of belief by utilizing our witnessing. As you said, 'Should we not share the Gospel with every Nation and creature as Jesus commanded in hopes that God will regenerate their heart?'. 'In the hopes'?-- hmmm
---
your theology is not new or novel, it is the same old bloated rat of Arminianism. You, my friend, are a dyed-in-the-wool Arminianist, something you apparently do not accept [though I'm certain you have accepted God instead]. Do you not see, no matter how you couch your words trying to blend yourself chameleon-like, you will not get the warm-fuzzy you crave on this site. It might even be refreshing for everyone involved if you would simply say plainly: I believe a man must first exhibit faith and belief before God will act to regenerate. You could continue your refreshing testimonial with: I believe God waits helpless, submissive to man's freewill, revealing Himself in various opportunities, but always hopeful that someone will awaken and make that salvation request of Him [like a large, blue Genie that grants wishes]. Then with that out of the way, you can confess: I believe a Sovereign God is helpless to save, He has only made it possible for some to get close to salvation, but in reality has secured salvation for no one, unless man does his part, no one can be saved. Since the true face of Arminianism is ugly, as you know--enter word-play and gamesmanship. All designed to cover a self-adulating, ego-centered, prideful theology of illogical, twisted, unscriptural contradictions that cannot be systematically expressed without falling flat on one’s face. No Arminianist can explain adequately Christ’s purpose on earth, or why He went to the cross. They cannot say, where faith comes from. They are not sure if you can loose your salvation. They are not sure what salvation is, or foreknowledge, or predestination, or calling, or confessing, or sanctification, or faith, or God’s wrath, or judgment, or the lake of fire. They are befuddled by those who die before they can exercise their supposed volition. They are absolutely sure of nothing. Question: Can a head-hunter's retarded, comatose baby living in the unpopulated darkest Congo be saved? The Calvinist says yes, no problem. The Arminianist does a soft-shoe dance speaking of special dispensations and ages of accountability. Arminianist's don't know what Jesus did while on the cross. Did He pay for everyone's sins in the whole world? Is all we have to do then is accept Him? They are immediately in trouble: if I die in unbelief, what value was Jesus' death? Can they explain how a substitutionary atonement can become nullified? The Arminianist is clueless. The have traded the Bible away to keep their 'gift' analogy alive, keeping themselves the king-maker, a soothing theology for fallen man. Can they explain why anyone would stand for judgment when Christ stood in their stead already? The Arminianist says it’s because rejection is an unpaid sin, yet they themselves admit rejecting Christ many times before 'acceptance' occurred. Are they then not done for after the first rejection? Have they not committed the same sin which places the non-Christian before the Judgment Throne?. Yes, but the Arminianist slides by all that, no judicial sense required, they are puppy-eyed love struck with the notion of a friendly fur-ball God who is just like them-- sentimentally forgiving their multiple rejections because they finally accepted. It is an adhoc theology--plastic and malleable, twist it like gumby any way you want until you're happy with it. Vern, you cannot be unaware of this vacant void of a theology called Arminianism. You hide from it, you try and spin it favorably, you pretend to instruct other's on the various points of Calvinism, all the while refusing to acknowledge your own critics. You will no doubt deny all this, and in the next instance confirm the very thing you deny, proving yourself again and again to be a typical Arminianist-wolf wrapped in the cloak of Calvinistic verbiage. It is somewhat interesting that despite your being exposed again and again as a wolf, you continue to baa: I'm a sheep!, I'm a sheep! Sorry, I can see the zipper on you sheep-suit. john

Subject: Re: To John Hampshire
From: Vern
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 17:24:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello John, Salvation Salvation is the deliverance from sin. When someone appeals to God and seeks forgiveness in Jesus, his sins are emoved. He is cleansed. His relationship with God is restored, and he is made a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). All of this is the work of God, not man. Salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23). We are saved from damnation. When anyone sins, and we all have (Rom. 3:23; 6:23), he deserves eternal separation from God (Is. 59:2). Yet, because of His love and mercy, God became a man (John 1:1,14) and bore the sins of the world in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 2:2). We are forgiven when we realize that there is nothing we can do to earn the favor of God and we put our trust in what Jesus did for us on the cross (Eph. 2:8-9; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Only God saves. The only thing we bring to the cross is our sin. Both God the Father (Is. 14:21) and Jesus (John 4:42) are called Savior; that is, deliverer from sin. Remember, it was the Father who sent the Son (1 John 4:10) to be the Savior. John,I am not here to bring down Calvinism nor to agree with Arminian.I do not know enough about either doctrine to argue over them or defend them. It is true that really know little about difference between the two theologies.I never knew whatan Arminianist, Cal- vinist or a Universalist was until I came to this site about 4 years ago. To be honest with you, none of these theologies ever agreed with me. Really know little about them, But I know that God said if I would believe in His Son, I would be saved. He also said I should love my brother and have love for my neighbor. Plus,He said I was to be going and sharing the Gospel. John, I may not know in knowledge what you know,but I know this, 'I am saved because of what Jesus did for me on the cross. He did what I could not do for myself.' He died for my sins.? I believe this and He is the only Hope that I have in going to Heaven. In God's foreknowledge He predetermind that Jesus would come and die for my sins. John,this is spelled out in Acts 2:23. Jesus was the the 'Elected one' who came and died for me. Until I was saved, I was a unsaved sinner. I did not deserve God's mercy and grace, but He loved me enough to save me. When I was saved, 'Regenerated' I became one of his elected ones through faith in Christ.

Subject: Re: To John Hampshire
From: monitor
To: Vern
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 06:31:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Vern - if you are still as ignorant as you claim relative to the diametrical differences between 'free and sovereign grace' (calvinism) and 'grace plus works' (arminianism) after being patiently and repeatedly engaged these last 3+ years then I must in all brotherly conscience rebuke you for your lack of interest and/or or possessing an unteachable spirit on such important matters. The very heart of the Gospel is at stake with many having lost their lives in defense of the Gospel. It is not a no-nevermind matter. The historical churches have repeatedly met to repel Satan's onslaught against the church...and all you can say is ... 'John,I am not here to bring down Calvinism nor to agree with Arminian.I do not know enough about either doctrine to argue over them or defend them.' Where have you been, sir? What business do you have preaching a Gospel you have no clue about? The Gospel is either calvinistic or arminian....it's one of the two yet you say you understand neither. This is a TEACHING ministry - make yourself available to it if you want to at least understand, if not necessary embrace, either position. As someone who wants to proclaim the Gosple to the nations, Vern, remain in ignorance no longer! Learn and decide which gospel you will preach. James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. How can you expect to teach people if you lack the desire, the wherewithall, to learn even the most basic doctrines of the Church. The blind ought not be leading the blind. Oh, I am not questioning your salvation, Vern, (nor do I believe anyone else on this board has recently) .... only your theology is in question...which at this point is lamentable. monitor

Subject: Re: To John Hampshire
From: Rod
To: monitor
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:15:52 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
monitor, I agree wholeheartedly with your admonitions and appreciate your giving them. The only thing I would say to Vern is this: for someone who doesn't understand Arminianism, you do a great job of teaching it! I tend to believe the 'ignorance' is willful and/or feigned.

Subject: Re: To John Hampshire
From: Vern
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 16:56:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, I did not say I was a Calvinist. As for regeneration, Jesus said all when He spoke to Nicodemus. He said, 'Ye must be 'Born Again.' John, this could be translated as 'Born from above.' Would you say that 'Born Again' is the same as regeneration? I believe it is. Therefore, thhe scripture tells you who it is that brings about regeneration. John, how could a man believe if he has not been regenerated by God to believe? John, You can call me what ever you will, But the Lord calls me his. You can not take this away from me, so, donot tell me what it is that I believe. John, if the you died this very second are you sure that you would go to heaven? If so, what do you base your assurance? John, I am not her to argue the difference between Calvinist or the Arm's. I am here to premote the Gospel and to learn what it is that others do believe. As for you infor..... Jesus came to do the will of the Father and to save the Lost. John, just because you may have knowledge of God's word, this makes you not a Christian. Your attitude speaks much about what your hearts may be. You can call me what you will, and it matters not. God's judgment is everything. 'Amen'

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: laz
To: Vern
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 17:26:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Chief - your view of salvation (if it's indeed semi-pelagian) is heretical...if you embrace it, fully understanding it's implications, and defend it...you MUST be heretical. How else can I put it? Now, if you are simply ignorant of what you truly believe and what it really means...then I personally will cut you some slack. ;-) As for knowing who the Elect are....no one truly knows who is of the Elect which is why as a Calvinist, I and all good Calvinist preach the Gospel to EVERY LIVING CREATURE as you have implied we don't. Hey, historically, Calvinists have preached to a lost and dying world without regard to who is Elect (since no one knows) like nobody's business. The gospel is preached to EVERYONE! OK? You keep suggesting that we Calvinists bring the gospel to only those whom we believe are of the Elect. RUBBISH! The call of the Gospel goes to EVERYONE for EVERYONE is commanded to repent! What you have failed to address is Pilgrim's assertion about 'prevenient grace'. You and Romanists (and others) believe in salvation by grace thru faith....but you also add the fine print that only those that exercise their volition (free will) get saved. We both believe that it's God's sovereignty that enables us to accept Christ as Lord and Savior....GREAT...but then you add the bit about God ENABLING EVERYONE (to give them a fighting chance perhaps) and so only those that CHOOSE correctly (make the most of their opportunity given by God - prevenient grace) get saved and thus regenerated. This is false. Where the heck does Election fall into this scenario? We have been saying and defending the historic understanding (and the plainly biblical one) of election whereby only those predestined by God ever make it to heaven. God has already picked His team and He has every right to do that for all men are guilty and worthy of hellfire. In His mercy...He elects those whom the Son would die for (and eventually take as His bride) - in time, the Spirit draws precisely these ones. God does not leave it up to us to decide our eternal state. There is no prevenient grace whereby God makes it POSSIBLE for us to decide for Jesus. God does not make us partially alive - pricking or convicting us just enough to awaken us so we can make an informed decision. He makes His Elect for whom Christ died FULLY alive in time by the regenerating power of the Spirit and plenty thirsty for living water. Vern, sorry, but some people are destined for hell...the reprobate...that's the Bible speaking and you simply need to get over it if you EVER want to understand God's grace and leave the ranks of synergistic heretics. Ok, now stop monkeying around with us and tell us what YOU think about this prevenient grace thing as I have tried to explain it to you. Do you agree, understand? And please, I am not interested in your testimony (again) and that you are saved and eternally secure...etc, etc...that may all be true. Simply address the above theological issue in the best way you know how. What do you disagree with in my post? No more cut/paste...changing the subject...just give me your understand of grace and election. Does God have to give everyone 'a shot' in order to be fair? We can help you but you gotta try to stick to the subject and answer a few basic questions like the ones above. ;-) If you still don't agree with free grace...fine...you are free to believe in semi-pelagianism/arminianism...and I'm sure free to chime in...but expect to be corrected everytime you error in your soteriology. As you know, it can get ugly...so, just cooperate and no one will get hurt. LOL laz

Subject: Re: God is in control/Laz
From: Vernon
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 04:26:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Laz, You have posted: What you have failed to address is Pilgrim's assertion about 'prevenient grace'. You and Romanists (and others) believe in salvation by grace thru faith....but you also add the fine print that only those that exercise their volition (free will) get saved. You say that I have said or believe it is in a man's choice alone to reach salvation. What I believe is this..... Jesus said that a man must be ' Born Again.' Now, this translated means....' Born from above.' I beleive this gives God full contol in the way man is brought into believing.' If you remember, The 'Word' states that only God can change the sinful heart of man. With the above being true and the implication of this sentence being true, ' then, I agree that it is fully God who regenerates the heart to believe. God's law has brought man under guilt and it is His grace through faith in Christ that pardons man from His wrath. But man in his sinful nature would never come to this under- standing without the 'Hearing of the Gospel' and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit in causing the man to understand and to believe. Now, we know not all that hear the gospel do believe and because of their disbelief, they are lost. So, I am saying a man must 'Believe' before he can be sealed by the Holy Spirit. Once a man has been brought under conviction by the Spirit of God and confesses his sin which he will after being brought to his knees by the power and mercy of God. I know the above may be a bit wordy, but, 'NO!' I do not believe in free will in the since of man picking and choosing his salvation. Laz, The sinful act of Adam made us sinful in nature. God gave the Law to every man to show the man that he was guilty before God and without faith, he was condemned. Grace came to free man from the curse of the Law, but for man to be free from the guilt of the Law he must be saved. Therefore, the Gospel is to all men, but it's saving grace is received by those who believe. I do not know who will believe, but God does. My responsibility is to obey my Lord and be going and share the Good News that a Savior has come to save all who will believe. Since I do not know who will believe nor do I have the power to change the a man.s heart. I leave the heart of man to God and obey in sharing the Good News. It is true that I do believe that salvation is by grace thru faith. (Eph 2:8-9 ). I would never disagree with this. I also believe because of 'Adam's violition in the garden and failure in keeping God's commandment, he sinned and this nature was passed to every living man there after. This makes us all sinners. I agree that not every man created will be saved. One only must read the Bible to find the truth. Since it is God whom reads and changes the heart of man, I must believe that it is God who elects the man into His fold. If you will allow me to say..... God before the foundations of the earth set the requirment by which man would be elected. No man can change this requirement. Now this may be a poor way to explain my self, but it is my level and under- standing of the subject and the only way I know how to express myself. You see, In my understanding, I believe God foreknew that man would fall. He knew Satan's nature and how he would decive man even before man was created. In His predetermind foreknowledge decided to send His Son to die for the sins of man. ( Acts 2:23 ) A few verse above this verse, Peter gives the account who will be saved. Now, violition.... Do you sin? Dont get edgy now. I do sin and if I say that I do not, I make God a liar. When I sin, 'Is it God who made me to sin?' No!, never. I sin because I chose to sin. Do you understand this? This takes not from God's power and control. The truth is, God could have decided not to even create man. I often in my weak understanding wonder why God even created such a worm like me. As for God being fair, He was more than fair. Laz, He saved me and I deserved it not. Think about, God does not need me, I need God. He made it possible for me to have a relationship with Him through Christ Jesus. I hope this may open the door way to a better relationship here in The Highway with me and all others. I admit that I am not at the levels of understanding of many here. Because of this, I will debate you to find understanding and with the understanding I have. I cute and paste often for this reason.... I find subjects which I feel represents my beliefs.Thank you for taking the time in tring to come to an understanding with me. In Christ Vernon

Subject: Re: God is in control/Laz
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 10:33:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern - you having heard the Gospel as a youth, having been convicted by the Holy Spirit of your wretched state... ...could you have said 'NO' to Jesus' offer to come and follow Him? In Him, laz

Subject: Re: God is in control/Laz
From: Vernon
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 16:37:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, I know this,my parents, grandmother,unlce who was a Pastor, and others witness to me and I did not accept what they were sharing with me. However, I did hear them and I knew they loved me and was right in all that they were trying telling me. One day, I heard the story told how Christ suffered and died for me. The Sunday after I headed the story, I went to church with my mother and when the preacher gave the altar call, I could not refuse the invitation to go forward and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. No laz, when a man has been brought to the true nderstanding of his lost condition and been offer the mercy and grace of God in Christ our Lord, a man can not refuse. In Christ Vernon

Subject: Re: God is in control/Laz
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 06:37:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Vern - you said: 'No laz, when a man has been brought to the true understanding of his lost condition and been offer the mercy and grace of God in Christ our Lord, a man can not refuse.' Does this mean that those that are eternally lost are hellbound because they were NOT brought to a true understanding of the mercy and grace of God (otherwise they would always accept Jesus)? If so, who's failure is it? Mine or the Holy Spirit's? Why do some 'understand' and some do not? In Him, laz

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: Rod
To: Vern
Date Posted: Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 11:46:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Again, you have not understood a thing I said.

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: Rod
To: Vern
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:50:57 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: Does the term 'Bible fragrances' trouble anyone else? The fragrance isn't the flower.

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 06:07:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>But volition is responsible for entrance into it. Jn. 3:16-18, 36 That www.biblefragrances website smells a little foul. If our volition is responsible for entrance into salvation, then we control our salvation and God waits and hopes, sometimes in vain evidently. It implies that Christ could not redeem His elect one and all, for our volition leaves the final choice unknown. It destroys the Sovereignty of God and gives man the power and kingship in salvation. It joins man and God in an unholy alliance. >>>>Once volition accepts the plan of salvation by faith, sovereignty seals the decision and makes salvation a permanent status for the believer. Eph.1:13-14; Rom. 8:38-39; Jn. 6:39-40; 10:27-29 No, Sovereignty wouldn't be Sovereignty now would it if God waited unknowingly and helplessly for men to enter salvation. Who would be a sovereign, acting like the king-maker, why it is none other than man himself. How could our decisions make salvation permanent anyway? If Christ died in your stead, and you DIDN'T choose to decide for Christ because of your free volition to do so, have you nullified Christ's redemption and payment. Can a man's non-decision or even positive decision make ANY difference concerning the judicial act of Christ in paying the debt owed. No!, our decision is meaningless, it is ONLY Christ's decision to redeem His elect that matters, we cannot get a piece of the action... we are not involved in our own salvation. As for Eph.1:13-14 'having also believed you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise'. Are we sealed ‘when we believe’ because God is waiting on our volition? No! The seal spoken of here is for the future promise of redemption. Not of our spirit, but of our bodies. Ephesians, of all books to quote, very clearly says several verses back: '...just as He [God} chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world,...He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will'. Or 'also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will'. (Vss 4,5,11) Do we read anything here about God waiting for us to make a decision so he can seal our salvation. No! He chose us before the world was made. He didn't choose us because we chose Him first, He chose us 'that we should be blameless'. That means those God chose WILL be found blameless, our volition be damned. It is according to 'His will' not ours, God waits on no one. Rom. 8:38-39 Rom 8:38 says nothing will separate us from the love of God. But more information is found in Vss 28, 29. God doesn't love us because we made a decision for Him. Nor does He love everyone universally. Scripture says, 'We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God': who are those who will love God then?: 'to those who are CALLED according to HIS purpose'. So then, the ones who will love God do so because that was God's purpose [which was decided as we saw from before the foundation of the world]. 'For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son...'. The ones God foreknew were those He chose. Speaking of foreknowing, in Rom 11 God speaks of Israel, 'God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew'. Who are these He foreknew, those that would choose God? No!, 'In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's CHOICE of GRACE'. Those that God foreknew were foreknown because they are indeed God's choice. He chose His elect, and thus He foreknew those who He would one day redeem, by grace. No way did man decide for Christ, quite the contrary, it was God who chose some to be His own inheritance, and those are the ones He foreknew, those are the ones He also predestined: that is, God planned ahead to redeem them [not because man made a decision], they were chosen by God for that specific purpose from before the world was made. It was start to finish God's actions, the outcome has always be assured, they will 'become conformed to the image of His Son', they will be 'justified' , and that because they are 'predestined', and in the end they will be 'glorified'. It is an unchanging, God ordained progression that cannot be altered. God has decreed it to be so. Let's not pretend to give God His Sovereignty and at the same time pull the rug out from beneath Him with 'man must decide to enter salvation'. In one fell swoop we make man the sovereign, we have turned the tables on God. And as we have seen that idea is clearly unbiblical. The truth being that God saves, in Christ, all those He chose, and all He chose will be glorified in heaven with Him one day. 'What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? john

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: Vern
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 04:17:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello John Hampshire, I have noticed that you have a quick gun to pull upon those whom you will. I thought I would in kindness to the people of Bible fragance post their statment of faith for you so that you may have a clear understanding of what they believe John, knowledge in its self is nothing, but the Love of God is everything. 'Amen' 1. ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD: 2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture consists of the 66 books of the bible as they exist in the original languages, and contain God's complete revelation to man during the church age. There is absolutely no additional revelation from God, whether by dreams, visions, teachers, prophets or angels. 2. THE GODHEAD: The Godhead eternally exists in three persons;God the Father, The Word and the Holy Spirit. All 3 arecoequal and coexistent, having the same character,attributes and essence. 1 Cor. 8:6; John 1:1; Heb. 9:14 3. SPIRITUAL DEATH: The human race is in a condition of separation from God; totally helpless, ungodly, sinful and therefore at enmity with God.Romans 5:6-10; Ephesians 2:1-3 4. SALVATION: Salvation has been totally accomplished for mankind by the work of Christ on the cross. He took upon Himself the entire penalty for our sins by undergoing separation from the Father.Rom. 5:6-9; 2Cor.5:21; 1Pet. 1:18-19 He died for the sins of the whole world so that those who would trust in Him would have eternal life. John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:15; 5. RESURRECTION: After the Lord accomplished the work of salvation on the cross, He died physically, was buried and then raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit to confirm His victory over sin. Rom. 1:4; 4:25; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor.15:3-5, 20-22; 6. FAITH IN CHRIST: Man now receives the personal application of Christ's death on the cross by total trust in Him as the savior and the only source for eternal life with God. John 1:12-13; Acts 16:31; 26:18; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6 7. SALVATION SECURITY: Once a person enters into salvation through faith in Christ, he can never lose salvation. God saves him and God preserves him. Rom. 8:1, 38-39; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 10:27-29. 8. ETERNAL JUDGMENT: Anyone who rejects Jesus as savior must himself bear the penalty of spiritual death for all eternity, separated from God in perpetual pain and misery. John 3:36; 2 Thes. 1:8-9; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:11-15 9. BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: At the moment of salvation, God the Holy Spirit indwells every believer and baptizes him into union with Christ. This makes the believer one with Christ and in 'position' shares perfect unity and equality with all other believers. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28. 10. SERVICE: The responsibility of every believer after salvation is to glorify the Lord as His personal ambassador and representative here on earth (2 Cor. 5:18-20). The only way this can be fulfilled is to learn God's word and allow the Holy Spirit to control & guide our life. Eph. 5:18;Rom. 8:8 11. SPIRITUALITY: The filling of the Holy Spirit is when the Holy Spirit controls the life of the believer, using God's word in the soul to produce the fruit of the Spirit. Gal. 5:16-23 12. PERSONAL SIN: Every believer is filled with the Spirit from the moment of salvation. But when he commits any act of personal sin, it grieves and quenches the Spirit which removes His control in the life and breaks fellowship with God. But this does not remove His indwelling presence. Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thes. 5:19; Rom. 8:9. 13. FELLOWSHIP: The filling of the Holy Spirit and fellowship with God is restored by removing the obstacle of sin that caused the problem.This is done through proper application of 1 John 1:9, ie,confession of personal sin to the Father. Prov. 28:13; Ps.32:5 14. PHYSICAL DEATH: When the believer dies, his soul and spirit go immediately into the presence of God to remain there in constant bliss until the resurrection of the body at Christ's 2nd coming. 2 cor. 5:1-8;Philippians 1:23; Jude 6-7. 15. RAPTURE: At the beginning of the DAY OF THE LORD, Jesus Christ will return in the clouds for all church age believers. At this time these believers will receive a resurrection body which is exactly like Christ's and He will take them to heaven to be with Him forever. John 14:1-3; 1 Thes. 4:13-18; Acts 1:11; Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:51-53; 1 John 3:1-2. 16. JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST: It is a this time that the judgment seat of Christ will take place where all the things done by the believers on earth will be evaluated and be either rewarded or rejected by God's justice.(2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:10-15) But regardless of the amount of acceptable works accomplished in his life, the believer himself will remain saved. 1 Corinthians 3:15. 17. GRACE: Grace thinking is the attitude that recognizes God as the source and provider of all things.A. It is the word which describes how the plan of God operates and how the Christian way of life is to be lived.Heb. 13:9; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18 B. Salvation : According to Ephesians 2:8-9, God provides it and we accept it in total trust, inde-pendent from human works. C. Giving : There is absolutely no scriptural basis for putting a price on any services or resources provided by God`s people by the church (tapes, bibles, books, literature). 2 Cor.2:17; Mt. 10:8.Grace-giving involves no gimmicks, no pressure, no tithing. 2 Corinthians 9:7

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: Vern
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 03:49:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, Did you go and investigate to find its real meaning before you exbit your thoughts rendered? It may pay you to do this more often before you punch the keys on the board.

Subject: Re: God is in control
From: JohnS
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 06, 2000 at 07:13:16 (PST)
Email Address: methos1957@hotmail.com

Message:
John H.: I agree. God is sovereign except at that place where man is sovereign? This is Bible? JohnS