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.

ę Forum Guidelines Ľ

Total Messages Loaded: 590


Linda -:- Everett Harrison -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- Article of the Month for March -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 21:02:51 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Article of the Month for March -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 22:00:27 (PST)

monitor -:- Written Word and Doctrine -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 13:37:44 (PST)
_
Brother Bret -:- Preach On Monitor N/T :^ ) -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 19:47:25 (PST)

Rod -:- Rewarding search -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 11:48:01 (PST)

kevin -:- why do some messages disappear? -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:29:50 (PST)
_
monitor -:- Re: why do some messages disappear? -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:39:01 (PST)
__ kevin -:-
thank you -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 17:47:39 (PST)

Rod -:- Concerning the Holy Spirit of God -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 12:23:59 (PST)
_
Brother Bret -:- Re: Concerning the Holy Spirit of God -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:45:36 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
Re: Concerning the Holy Spirit of God -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:06:31 (PST)

john hampshire -:- The substance of truth -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:05:30 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: The substance of truth -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 09:53:18 (PST)
_ E.V. -:-
GREAT post! n/t -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 09:04:06 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The substance of truth -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 08:40:24 (PST)
__ Christopher -:-
Re: The substance of truth -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:00:27 (PST)
__ laz -:-
Even BETTER post...(n/t) -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 09:35:51 (PST)

john hampshire -:- Got truth? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 04:50:02 (PST)
_
clark -:- Re: Got truth? -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 07:21:04 (PST)
__ laz -:-
Re: Got truth? -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 14:05:42 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Got truth?? -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:48:37 (PST)
____ clark -:-
Re: Got truth? -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 05:23:07 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Got truth? -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:44:42 (PST)
______ Rod -:-
Amen. n/t -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:03:03 (PST)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Got truth? -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 06:17:28 (PST)
___ E.V. -:-
Re: Got truth? -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:38:38 (PST)
_ kevin -:-
a little simple -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:31:01 (PST)
_ Christopher -:-
:) -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:12:16 (PST)
_ Mike -:-
Re: Got truth? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 10:26:31 (PST)
_ laz -:-
Re: Got truth? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 06:23:59 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
'For it is God...' -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:24:33 (PST)
___ Christopher -:-
Re: 'For it is God...' -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 12:21:32 (PST)
____ Rod -:-
Are we in agreement????? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:52:23 (PST)
_____ Christopher -:-
Re: Are we in agreement? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:05:38 (PST)
______ Rod -:-
As you can see, we're not in agreement. -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:53:01 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:-
Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement. -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:21:14 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 02:41:18 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:-
Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:16:35 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:32:21 (PST)
___________ Christopher -:-
Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:54:59 (PST)
________ Rod -:-
I'm not a 'Protestant.' -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 20:07:48 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:-
Re: I'm not a 'Protestant.' -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:59:38 (PST)
__________ Rod -:-
Now this is meaningful. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:18:00 (PST)
___________ Christopher -:-
Re: Now this is meaningful. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:38:42 (PST)
____________ Tom -:-
A Clarifacation please -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:50:48 (PST)
_____________ Christopher -:-
Re: A Clarifacation please -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 14:27:10 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: A Clarification please -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 16:00:32 (PST)
_______________ Christopher -:-
Re: A Clarification please -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 16:43:40 (PST)
________________ Pilgrim -:-
The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 20:53:20 (PST)
_________________ Christopher -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 19:41:00 (PST)
__________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 21:35:55 (PST)
___________________ Christopher -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:02:42 (PST)
____________________ Christopher -:-
Pilgrim, PS -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 12:16:36 (PST)
___________________ Tom -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 00:55:56 (PST)
____________________ Christopher -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:03:00 (PST)
_____________________ Rod -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:53:21 (PST)
______________________ Christopher -:-
monkery -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 14:41:16 (PST)
____________________ Rod -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:47:20 (PST)
____________________ kevin -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:26:42 (PST)
_____________________ a monitor -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:16:57 (PST)
_________________ Rod -:-
Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter! -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 21:19:18 (PST)
____________ Rod -:-
Not empty rhetoric. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:58:34 (PST)
_____________ Christopher -:-
Re: Not empty rhetoric. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:34:09 (PST)
______ laz -:-
Re: Are we in agreement? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:37:04 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
laz, you and I see it the same. -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:10:08 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:-
Re: Are we in agreement? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:50:23 (PST)
________ laz -:-
Re: Are we in agreement?? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:11:25 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:-
Re: Are we in agreement?? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:31:40 (PST)
______ Christopher -:-
Forgot one thing, Rod... -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:33:19 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
To imply that I've said otherwise is completely false, Christorpher. n/t -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:19:09 (PST)
________ Christopher -:-
Re: To imply that I've said otherwise is completely false, Christorpher. n/t -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:29:27 (PST)
_________ Rod -:-
That would be a totally false interpretation of my point. -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:37:42 (PST)
__________ Christopher -:-
See? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 18:02:37 (PST)
___________ Rod -:-
You must understand something else. -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 20:27:12 (PST)
_______ laz -:-
Re: Forgot one thing, Rod... -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:39:21 (PST)
________ Christopher -:-
Re: Forgot one thing, Rod... -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:51:21 (PST)
_________ laz -:-
Re: Forgot one thing, Rod... -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:02:26 (PST)

Rod -:- Wesley & Whitefield musings -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:10:49 (PST)

Anne -:- Can we have an effect on God? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:26:15 (PST)
_
Gene -:- YES! -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 11:26:23 (PST)
_ Rod -:-
Re: Can we have an effect on God?? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:07:22 (PST)
__ kevin -:-
amen Rod -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:16:18 (PST)
___ Rod -:-
Amen, Kevin, and thank you. -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:30:13 (PST)

laz -:- ShowUS ShowMe -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:34:52 (PST)
_
ShowMe -:- Re: ShowUS ShowMe -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 18:02:50 (PST)
__ laz -:-
Re: ShowUS ShowMe -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:53:27 (PST)
___ ShowMe -:-
Re: ShowUS ShowMe -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 08:20:45 (PST)
____ laz -:-
Re: ShowUS ShowMe -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 14:21:19 (PST)
____ Christopher -:-
ShowMe -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:47:38 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: ShowUS ShowMe -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:52:00 (PST)
___ ShowMe -:-
Argumentum ad Populum -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 08:23:44 (PST)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Argumentum ad Populum -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 12:12:22 (PST)
_____ ShowMe -:-
Re: Argumentum ad Populum -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 12:46:19 (PST)
______ lazarus -:-
Re: Argumentum ad Populum -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 14:59:26 (PST)
_______ Gene -:-
Re: Argumentum ad Populum -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 04:27:05 (PST)
________ laz -:-
Re: Argumentum ad Populum -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 13:50:16 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: ShowUS ShowMe -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:45:42 (PST)

Rod -:- Are we who oppose Arminianism able -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:56:04 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 18:20:02 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:12:37 (PST)
___ Gene -:-
Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:01:34 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:26:26 (PST)
___ Anne -:-
Tell me ALL about it . . . . -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:37:20 (PST)
____ Howard -:-
All -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 20:18:35 (PST)
_____ Anne -:-
What the heck would you do if I said 'Yes'? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:37:30 (PST)
______ kevin -:-
lengthy but i hope helpful -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 05:10:54 (PST)
_______ E.V. -:-
Why not affirm... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:46:38 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: John 3:16 -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:43:29 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why not affirm... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:06:41 (PST)
_________ E.V. -:-
God's desires are more complex than you can understand -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 14:11:19 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: God's desires are more complex than you can understand -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:14:43 (PST)
___________ Christopher -:-
A fair question -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 14:01:58 (PST)
___________ E.V. -:-
I expected better -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:11:47 (PST)
___________ Rod -:-
There is little appreciation for the whole counsel of God. -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:51:51 (PST)
__________ Rod -:-
E.V., this is an ill-advised response. -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:13:54 (PST)
___________ E.V. -:-
I apologize if offense was taken, but -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:17:20 (PST)
____________ Rod -:-
If you read the title of that post starkly, it seems very condescending. -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:57:16 (PST)
_____________ E.V. -:-
Re: If you read the title of that post starkly, it seems very condescending. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 05:21:42 (PST)
______________ Rod -:-
I have understood and do now understand your view. -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:07:07 (PST)
_______________ E.V. -:-
Okay, Rod -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:34:50 (PST)
____________ laz -:-
Re: I apologize if offense was taken, but -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:18:22 (PST)
_____________ E.V. -:-
Hey laz -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 05:06:21 (PST)
______________ Gene -:-
and the scripture is... -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 02:57:01 (PST)
_______________ E.V. -:-
Re: and the scripture is... -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 13:16:19 (PST)
______________ Prestor John -:-
Terms: Benevolence vs Love -:- Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:35:52 (PST)
_______________ E.V. -:-
Re: Terms: Benevolence vs Love -:- Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 08:34:13 (PST)
________ Rod -:-
Can't affirm what the Bible declares untrue. -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 10:23:21 (PST)
_________ E.V. -:-
Might I suggest. -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:18:41 (PST)
__________ Rod -:-
Thanks, E.V., but... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:36:50 (PST)
___________ Gene -:-
Have you arrived? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:34:57 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Have you arrived? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:53:20 (PST)
_____________ Gene -:-
Re: Have you arrived? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:16:04 (PST)
______________ laz -:-
Re: Have you arrived????? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 22:10:53 (PST)
_____________ Rod -:-
Precisely, brother, thank you. n/t -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 14:07:50 (PST)

Christopher -:- Universal Redemption -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:20:32 (PST)
_
Rod -:- May God raise up more stalwarts like Whitefield! -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:41:53 (PST)
__ Anne -:-
It gets better! -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:33:29 (PST)
__ Christopher -:-
Re: May God raise up more stalwarts like Whitefield! -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:05:58 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: May God raise up more stalwarts like Whitefield! -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:18:13 (PST)
____ Christopher -:-
Matt 23 -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:23:36 (PST)
___ Rod -:-
I think I've dealt with 2 Peter 3:9 almost weekly... -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:43:43 (PST)
____ Christopher -:-
Re: I think I've dealt with 2 Peter 3:9 almost weekly... -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 14:16:15 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
the nature of God's offer -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:34:37 (PST)
______ Christopher -:-
Re: the nature of God's offer -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 18:02:38 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:39:47 (PST)
________ Tom -:-
Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 00:54:22 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:33:12 (PST)
_________ Rod -:-
Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:36:47 (PST)
________ Christopher -:-
Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 21:22:58 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:-
Rom 9:22-24 -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 22:08:43 (PST)
__________ Rod -:-
there are so many grounds on which to object to this. -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 00:14:29 (PST)
___________ Christopher -:-
Re: there are so many grounds on which to object to this. -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:29:38 (PST)
____________ Rod -:-
No discussion of the God of the Bible can legitimately... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:24:01 (PST)
_____________ Christopher -:-
Re: No discussion of the God of the Bible can legitimately... -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:41:33 (PST)
_________ Rod -:-
2 Peter 3 is crucial to the entire situation. -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 22:01:56 (PST)
__________ Christopher -:-
Re: 2 Peter 3 is crucial to the entire situation. -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 22:11:05 (PST)
___________ Rod -:-
The disagreement is that the text does say that. n/t -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 23:01:57 (PST)
____________ laz -:-
Re: The disagreement is that the text does say that. n/t -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:26:51 (PST)
_____________ Rod -:-
laz, was this directed to Christopher? n/t -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 10:16:53 (PST)
______________ laz -:-
you betcha (n/t) -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:54:31 (PST)
_______________ Christopher -:-
Clarification? -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 23:32:20 (PST)
________________ laz -:-
Re: Clarification? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 06:27:13 (PST)
_________________ Christopher -:-
Re: Clarification? -:- Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 10:57:01 (PST)

Starr Stevens -:- Openess of God theology -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:53:31 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Openess of God theology -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:10:31 (PST)
_ mebaser -:-
Re: Openess of God theology -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 23:54:47 (PST)
__ laz -:-
Re: Openess of God theology -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:02:30 (PST)
___ mebaser -:-
Re: Openess of God theology -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 18:38:06 (PST)
___ kevin -:-
short definition -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:53:11 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: short definition -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:55:46 (PST)
____ Rod -:-
short summary: It's blasphemy! n/t -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:57:19 (PST)
___ John -:-
Re: Openess of God theology -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:39:27 (PST)
____ laz -:-
Re: Openess of God theology -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:02:02 (PST)

Rod -:- Questions for Kevin -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 06:35:41 (PST)
_
kevin -:- answers for rod -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:16:29 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
Thanks for answering. -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:31:25 (PST)
___ Rod -:-
Response continued -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:44:58 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Response continued -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:00:57 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
Thank you, Pilgrim, and these are excellent points. -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:59:27 (PST)
______ kevin -:-
Re: Thank you, Pilgrim, and these are excellent points. -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:05:24 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
The Atonement -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:46:14 (PST)
________ kevin -:-
Re: The Atonement -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:37:02 (PST)
_________ Rod -:-
I hope we are in essential agreement! -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:00:26 (PST)
__________ kevin -:-
Re: I hope we are in essential agreement! -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:46:27 (PST)

laz -:- Enoch NOT from Cain -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 18:43:58 (PST)

Rod -:- Defying the written Word and logic -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:12:49 (PST)

Joel H -:- Please show me! Showme! -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:06:04 (PST)

kevin -:- James 5:13-18 -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 19:58:32 (PST)
_
stan -:- Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 20:40:12 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
amen! n/t -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:30:49 (PST)
_ laz -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:17:42 (PST)
__ kevin -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 19:04:49 (PST)
_ Tom -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:16:12 (PST)
__ kevin -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:42:07 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 22:10:10 (PST)
____ a monitor -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:01:23 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
a monitor: exactly! Thanks. n/t -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:35:36 (PST)
____ kevin -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:04:54 (PST)
_____ laz -:-
Re: James 5:13-18 -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 07:30:23 (PST)
______ Rod -:-
'if' -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:09:54 (PST)
_______ Tom -:-
A thought occured to me -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:00:59 (PST)
________ Rod -:-
You are correct, brother Tom. -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:59:07 (PST)
_________ kevin -:-
small point on gifts -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:46:55 (PST)
__________ Rod -:-
a couple of other significant points -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:13:32 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: small point on gifts -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:23:41 (PST)
___________ kevin -:-
thank you -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:43:29 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: thank you -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:57:37 (PST)
_____________ kevin -:-
Re: thank you -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 14:57:58 (PST)
______________ kevin -:-
post by kevin titled Re: thank you for Rod and Pilgrim -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:21:41 (PST)
________ kevin -:-
Re: A thought occured to me -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:47:46 (PST)
_______ laz -:-
Re: 'if' -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:00:58 (PST)
________ Rod -:-
Re: 'if' -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:35:02 (PST)
_________ laz -:-
Re: 'if' -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 14:26:02 (PST)

E.V. -:- Calvinist's view of sanctification -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 18:11:15 (PST)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:21:41 (PST)
__ E.V. -:-
Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:05:59 (PST)
___ Prestor John -:-
Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 22:08:09 (PST)
___ Hesed -:-
SYNERGY YES... -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 16:54:40 (PST)
____ E.V. -:-
Further questions -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:53:55 (PST)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Further questions -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:20:32 (PST)
______ kevin -:-
amen and amen -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:15:44 (PST)
______ E.V. -:-
Okay laz, -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:51:01 (PST)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:34:48 (PST)

Rod -:- Okay, 'Show Me' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:53:34 (PST)

ShowMe -:- Sin Withoug Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:53:37 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:53:04 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:22:40 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 13:14:04 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:09:29 (PST)
_____ Tom -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:08:03 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:-
You Must Be Born Again -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 05:53:19 (PST)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: You Must Be Born Again -:- Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:24:05 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: You Must Be Born Again -:- Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:12:51 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 12:29:17 (PST)
______ laz -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 07:49:05 (PST)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 19:02:33 (PST)
____ Rod -:-
I hope everyone here sees this post of yours. -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:19:08 (PST)
_ Tom -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:14:07 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:06:35 (PST)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:09:39 (PST)
_ laz -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:52:37 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:31:36 (PST)
___ Five sola -:-
no tempter? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:55:30 (PST)
____ Gene -:-
Re: no tempter? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:35:49 (PST)
_____ Five Sola -:-
your point? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:42:04 (PST)
______ Gene -:-
Re: your point? -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:02:25 (PST)
_______ Five Sola -:-
oh ok! -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 18:43:51 (PST)
___ laz -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:19:32 (PST)
____ Rod -:-
Cain, Cainan, and Kenan -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:12:49 (PST)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Cain, Cainan, and Kenan -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:23:28 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:-
Re: Cain, Cainan, and Kenan -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:09:16 (PST)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Cain, Cainan, and Kenan -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 00:45:30 (PST)
__ Gene -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:16:19 (PST)
___ Five Sola -:-
works salvation? -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:00:27 (PST)
___ laz -:-
Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:21:39 (PST)
____ Gene -:-
Psalm 22:6 -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:18:15 (PST)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Psalm 22:6 -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:59:11 (PST)
______ Gene -:-
Re: Psalm 22:6 -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:17:54 (PST)
_______ laz -:-
Re: Psalm 22:6 -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:32:46 (PST)
________ Gene -:-
Re: Psalm 22:6 -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:12:53 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:-
Sinless Mary -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:09:17 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
Unwarrented assumptions -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:02:33 (PST)
______ clark -:-
Re: Unwarrented assumptions -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:58:42 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
Re: Unwarrented assumptions -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:25:37 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Unwarrented assumptions -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:37:26 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:-
Re: Unwarrented assumptions -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:13:15 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
Another unwarranted assumption -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:43:23 (PST)
________ Gene -:-
John 1:14...again! -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:11:14 (PST)
_________ Rod -:-
Wrong assumption...again! -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:43:54 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
Re: Unwarrented assumptions -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 02:50:54 (PST)
___ Rod -:-
Context, context, context -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:35:38 (PST)
____ Gene -:-
Re: Context, context, context -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:29:09 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Context, context, context -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:25:04 (PST)
_ Rod -:-
For 'Don't Show Me' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:16:01 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:-
Re: For 'Don't Show Me' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:47:50 (PST)
___ Hesed -:-
Dear Senior 'Show Me' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:35:24 (PST)
____ laz -:-
Dear Senior 'Show Me' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:46:59 (PST)
_____ ShowMe -:-
Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me' -:- Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:31:18 (PST)
______ Gene -:-
Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me' -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:08:35 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me' -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:46:00 (PST)
________ Gene -:-
Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me' -:- Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:07:29 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- The Highway UPDATE! -:- Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:15:18 (PST)

stan -:- FYI -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 15:08:47 (PST)
_
kevin -:- extra info -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 19:07:02 (PST)

Rod -:- clarification -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 16:48:52 (PST)
_
mebaser -:- Re: clarification -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 08:18:14 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
Concerning the 'false accusation.' -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:42:40 (PST)
___ mebaser -:-
Thanks -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 18:50:56 (PST)
_ Gene -:-
How do you know? -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 18:48:33 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
Christians believe, first and foremost -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 19:41:10 (PST)
___ Gene -:-
Re: Christians believe, first and foremost -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 02:47:19 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Christians believe, first and foremost -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 14:44:23 (PST)
____ Rod -:-
Gene, this is a perfect example of your inability to see... -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:31:11 (PST)
____ mebaser -:-
Re: Christians believe, first and foremost -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 08:01:24 (PST)

Rod -:- Unity, when there is none. -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 11:21:04 (PST)
_
Christopher -:- Re: Unity, when there is none. -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:04:40 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
Thanks, Christopher. n/t -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:08:10 (PST)
___ hESED -:-
Re: Apostolic succession -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 20:48:03 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Apostolic succession -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 21:48:06 (PST)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Apostolic succession -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 22:21:17 (PST)
______ Hesed -:-
Re:Holy Spirit & successors -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 23:33:01 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Re:Holy Spirit & successors -:- Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 12:33:47 (PST)
________ Hesed -:-
Re: Re:Holy Spirit & successors -:- Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 20:59:32 (PST)
______ laz -:-
Re: Apostolic succession -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 11:06:30 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
laz, AMEN! n/t -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:28:25 (PST)
______ Christopher -:-
Re: Apostolic succession -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:17:58 (PST)
_______ Rod -:-
Christopher, my thoughts on this are pretty simple and direct. -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:03:57 (PST)
________ Christopher -:-
Re: Christopher, my thoughts on this are pretty simple and direct. -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 11:01:31 (PST)

Kent W -:- Justification -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 09:06:17 (PST)

Gene -:- Pharaoh's heart -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 03:44:25 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Pharaoh's heart -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 13:03:53 (PST)
__ Gene -:-
Re: Pharaoh's heart -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 14:02:23 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
The actual question asked... -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 13:43:40 (PST)
___ Gene -:-
Re: The actual question asked... -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 13:55:17 (PST)
____ Rod -:-
Gene, I wonder what you'd have said to Pilgrim, -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 14:23:01 (PST)
_____ Gene -:-
Re: Gene, I wonder what you'd have said to Pilgrim, -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 14:46:25 (PST)
______ Rod -:-
Gene, here's a better question. -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:03:44 (PST)
_______ mebaser -:-
Re: Gene, here's a better question. -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 16:02:29 (PST)
________ Rod -:-
What unfair accusation would that be? n/t -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 16:11:28 (PST)

Tom -:- Gene -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 13:31:13 (PST)
_
Five Sola -:- Re: Gene -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 19:25:23 (PST)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Gene -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 11:58:42 (PST)
__ Gene -:-
Re: Gene -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 04:48:13 (PST)
_ Gene -:-
Re: Gene -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 14:09:44 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Gene -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 15:25:06 (PST)
___ Gene -:-
Re: Gene -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 18:58:39 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Gene -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:37:22 (PST)

george -:- 'Wicket Gate' -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 16:50:51 (PST)

Rod -:- An explanation of my return -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:49:54 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Glad you're back, Rod!!! We missed you. EOM -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:12:39 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: An explanation of my return -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:09:49 (PST)__ Rod -:- Re: An explanation of my return -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:15:18 (PST)
___ David Teh -:-
Re: An explanation of my return -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:09:10 (PST)

danny -:- leviticus -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 12:50:43 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Re: leviticus -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 17:30:55 (PST)
_ Rod -:-
A few considerations -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:23:45 (PST)
__ Anne -:-
Re: A few considerations -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:32:40 (PST)
___ Rod -:-
Re: A few considerations -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:06:41 (PST)
_ Gene -:-
Re: leviticus -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:00:36 (PST)
__ Rod -:-
Re: leviticus -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:08:01 (PST)
___ mebaser -:-
Whoah! wait a minute -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 15:10:44 (PST)
____ laz -:-
Re: Whoah! wait a minute -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 20:19:47 (PST)
_____ mebaser -:-
Amen -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 00:16:37 (PST)
____ Rod -:-
mebaser, have you really read the thread??? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 16:02:11 (PST)
_____ Gene -:-
It is so nice... -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:54:16 (PST)
______ Rod -:-
Gene, I'm pretty sure that several share your sentiments -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:28:40 (PST)
_______ Gene -:-
Re: Gene, I'm pretty sure that several share your sentiments -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 07:55:18 (PST)
________ monitor -:-
Re: Gene, I'm pretty sure that several share your sentiments -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 21:12:22 (PST)
_____ mebaser -:-
Did you read MY post?? -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 00:24:09 (PST)
______ Rod -:-
Why, yes, I read and understood your point -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 01:58:54 (PST)
_______ mebaser -:-
Answering for Gene -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 18:11:33 (PST)
_______ Gene -:-
Re: Why, yes, I read and understood your point -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:50:58 (PST)
________ Rod -:-
Gene, I'm very pleased to hear that! -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:20:34 (PST)
_________ Gene -:-
Re: Gene, I'm very pleased to hear that! -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 07:50:45 (PST)
__________ Rod -:-
Gene, that doesn't answer either question, but -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:50:40 (PST)
___________ Gene -:-
Re: Gene, that doesn't answer either question, but -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:01:27 (PST)
____________ Rod -:-
What does it have to do with God and culture?? -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:47:27 (PST)
__ laz -:-
Re: leviticus -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:51:26 (PST)
___ mebaser -:-
C'mon Laz -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 15:34:46 (PST)

ShowMe -:- Sin without free will? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 09:21:21 (PST)
_
Hesed -:- Both are true! -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:03:11 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 21:48:54 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:09:12 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:07:48 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 16:44:22 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 17:47:28 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 13:05:29 (PST)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 13:38:31 (PST)
________ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 17:03:26 (PST)
_________ Rod -:-
It seems you should change your handle to... -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 19:44:07 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:-
Sin without free will??? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 21:07:43 (PST)
___________ Rod -:-
That's some of the most 'creative' exegesis I've ever heard! -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 22:40:59 (PST)
____________ ShowMe -:-
Sin without free will????? -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:46:53 (PST)
_____________ Tom -:-
Re: Sin without free will????? -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 13:19:19 (PST)
______________ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will????? -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:04:02 (PST)
_______________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin without free will????? -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 18:00:49 (PST)
________________ Tom -:-
Re: Sin without free will????? -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 01:08:06 (PST)
_________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin without free will????? -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 17:36:19 (PST)
__________________ Tom -:-
Re: Sin without free will????? -:- Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 00:36:42 (PST)
__________________ na -:-
Hey, brothers,... -:- Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 18:50:21 (PST)
_ Diaconeo -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 10:43:17 (PST)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:05:20 (PST)
___ Diaconeo -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:22:16 (PST)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 13:15:03 (PST)
_____ Diaconeo -:-
Apology accepted (nt) -:- Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 12:27:56 (PST)
__ AHMNOTEAR -:-
Sin is from a will 'free from righteousness.' -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 14:58:20 (PST)
___ Diaconeo -:-
Re: Sin is from a will 'free from righteousness.' -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:33:36 (PST)
___ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin is from a will 'free from righteousness.' -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 19:42:33 (PST)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Sin is from a will 'free from righteousness.' -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:53:45 (PST)
_____ Scott -:-
Re: Sin is from a will 'free from righteousness.' -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 22:25:39 (PST)
___ a monitor -:-
Re: Sin is from a will 'free from righteousness.' -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:03:43 (PST)
____ AHMNOTEAR -:-
Thank you sincerely, monitor -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:29:59 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 11:43:08 (PST)
___ Scott -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 22:29:04 (PST)
___ laz -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 16:52:35 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 19:46:27 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:17:52 (PST)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 07:26:33 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:15:56 (PST)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 14:04:25 (PST)
_____ Hesed -:-
Re: Sin without free will? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 20:01:40 (PST)
____ Anne -:-
Re: Sin without free will??? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:21:50 (PST)
_____ AHMNOTEAR -:-
But... -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:40:37 (PST)

scott lewis -:- Answers for PILGRIM -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:43:41 (PST)

john hampshire -:- Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 22:38:42 (PST)
_
Gene -:- Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 05:37:55 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 13:16:43 (PST)
___ Gene -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 17:16:40 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 19:19:36 (PST)
_____ Gene -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 03:22:55 (PST)
_____ Five Sola -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:11:43 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 01:35:17 (PST)
_______ Five Sola -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 18:48:27 (PST)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 09:48:20 (PST)
________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:33:35 (PST)
_________ Tom -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 00:40:03 (PST)
__________ john hampshire -:-
[ no ] nt -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:07:18 (PST)
___________ Tom -:-
Re: [ no ] nt -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 13:49:22 (PST)
____________ john hampshire -:-
PhD vs hot O2 -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 05:40:08 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: PhD vs hot O2 -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:36:27 (PST)
______________ mebaser -:-
I must agree -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 23:07:45 (PST)
___________ laz -:-
Re: [ no ] nt -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:21:26 (PST)
_ mebaser -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:56:12 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 17:32:01 (PST)
___ mebaser -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 23:56:38 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 11:47:28 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Scripture agrees, why can't we? -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 02:49:25 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- My Questions to Dispies! :-) -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 12:01:39 (PST)
_
dispie light -:- Re: And yet more flack!!!!!!!!! ;-) -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 17:05:46 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: And yet more flack!!!!!!!!! ;-) -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 19:18:11 (PST)
___ stan -:-
Re: ;-) -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 19:48:30 (PST)

LetsObeyChrist Lk.6:46 Mt -:- Only the Jews had God's permission -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:13:25 (PST)
_
Christopher -:- Re: Only the Jews had God's permission -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 10:06:26 (PST)
__ Christopher -:-
Pilgrim, little help? nt -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 17:18:30 (PST)
_ mebaser -:-
deuterocanonical books -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 00:42:09 (PST)

Tom -:- Sin -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 13:13:12 (PST)
_
Brother Bret -:- Re: Sin -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 19:11:54 (PST)

jh -:- Born Again is the only condition -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 13:01:41 (PST)
_
scott lewis -:- apology's -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 12:01:47 (PST)
__ jh -:-
Re: apology's -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 13:06:33 (PST)

Christopher -:- BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:57:32 (PST)
_
Five Sola -:- some articles -:- Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 20:32:58 (PST)
__ Christopher -:-
Re: some articles -:- Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 08:42:26 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:37:27 (PST)
__ Christopher -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 13:20:03 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:50:45 (PST)
____ Tom -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 00:54:55 (PST)
____ Christopher -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 20:10:04 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 11:44:44 (PST)
______ Christopher -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 12:28:44 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 19:21:13 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: BB/Pilgrim, on baptism -:- Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 11:54:38 (PST)

knowfear -:- forgiveness for the believer? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 09:23:28 (PST)
_
Anne -:- Re: forgiveness for the believer? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:06:01 (PST)
__ knowfear -:-
Re: forgiveness for the believer? -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:34:05 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Latest Post In 'Timing of Rapture ' -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 20:29:07 (PST)
_
knowfear -:- Re: Latest Post In 'Timing of Rapture ' -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 09:43:50 (PST)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Latest Post In 'Timing of Rapture ' -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 13:29:29 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Latest Post In 'Timing of Rapture ' -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 21:46:42 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Latest Post In 'Timing of Rapture ' -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 18:42:09 (PST)
__ Vic Eagle -:-
Let's avoid group think -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 15:59:21 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:-
Re: Let's avoid group think -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 21:57:27 (PST)
____ Vic Eagle -:-
If you miss the Ratpure -:- Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 15:53:42 (PST)
_____ lurkerjr -:-
Re: If you miss the Ratpure -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:44:40 (PST)
______ mebaser -:-
Re: If you miss the Ratpure -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 14:45:22 (PST)
_______ lj -:-
Re: If you miss the Ratpure -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 20:57:32 (PST)
________ mebaser -:-
Re: If you miss the Ratpure -:- Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 00:12:28 (PST)
______ Vic Eagle -:-
I'm not sure what you mean -:- Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 13:03:35 (PST)

CyberFish -:- Logic -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:25:54 (PST)
_
Joel H -:- Re:Logic -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 13:18:05 (PST)

Simone -:- Husband -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 09:07:50 (PST)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Husband -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:19:06 (PST)
_ E.V. -:-
Re: Husband -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:51:57 (PST)
_ george -:-
Re: Husband -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:26:45 (PST)
__ Simone -:-
Re: Husband -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 14:07:03 (PST)

Anne -:- News of Personal Portent! -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 08:24:08 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: News of Personal Portent! -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:38:53 (PST)
_ george -:-
Congratulation Anne and Daughter,NT -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:10:21 (PST)
_ Theo -:-
Re: News of Personal Portent! -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 11:46:24 (PST)

Vernon -:- Wife -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 07:01:05 (PST)
_
stan -:- Re: Amen! great to hear nt -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 08:53:34 (PST)
_ Anne -:-
Re: Wife -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 08:16:33 (PST)
_ clark -:-
Re: Wife -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 08:07:44 (PST)
__ Vern -:-
Re: Wife -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 17:17:47 (PST)
___ clark -:-
Re: Wife -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:45:25 (PST)
____ Vernon -:-
Re: Wife -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:50:05 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- Reformed Confessions Update -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 20:14:44 (PST)

john hampshire -:- Pre-trib rapture won't fly -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 19:28:42 (PST)
_
Vic Eagle -:- The Rapture will levitate cooler than David Blaine -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 15:34:58 (PST)
__ jh -:-
Re: The Rapture will levitate cooler than David Blaine -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 15:53:14 (PST)
___ Vic Eagle -:-
I said Revelation 7:9 ff. -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 16:10:01 (PST)
_ stan -:-
Re: Seems to fly well considering all the flack you send up :-) NT -:- Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 19:27:57 (PST)
__ jh -:-
It doesn't say on earth... -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 12:57:23 (PST)
___ scott lewis -:-
Re: It doesn't say on earth... -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:01:02 (PST)
____ jh -:-
Re: It doesn't say on earth... -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 12:29:29 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: It doesn't say on earth... -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:53:54 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:-
I agree again (it's uncanny!) [nt] -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 00:07:08 (PST)

laz -:- Sin Coming from Heart -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:15:40 (PST)
_
Gene -:- Re: Sin Coming from Heart -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:04:22 (PST)

Christopher -:- From SLewis' post -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 19:29:21 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: From SLewis' post -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 23:43:07 (PST)
__ Christopher -:-
Found it, thanks much. NT -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 07:47:35 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Timing of the Rapture -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 16:28:49 (PST)
_
Ian Achrist -:- Re: Timing of the Rapture -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:53:06 (PST)
__ scott lewis -:-
Re: Timing of the Rapture -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 23:19:37 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:-
Re: Timing of the Rapture -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 20:02:30 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Timing of the Rapture -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 22:32:28 (PST)
__ scott lewis -:-
Fires :) -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:26:18 (PST)
___ Prestor John -:-
Re: Fires :) -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 18:17:26 (PST)
____ scott lewis -:-
Here you go John -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 09:35:55 (PST)
_____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Here you go John -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 20:58:52 (PST)
______ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Here you go John -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 15:11:16 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:-
Cannot understand your reasoning -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 03:32:08 (PST)
_______ Vic Eagle -:-
Cake vs. Spaghetti -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 14:01:21 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Cannot understand your reasoning -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:36:38 (PST)
________ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Cannot understand your reasoning -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 20:26:18 (PST)
________ scott -:-
Re: Cannot understand your reasoning -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:49:35 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
My own questions to the Dispies! :~) -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 19:34:07 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Cannot understand your reasoning -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 12:17:47 (PST)
______ scott lewis -:-
Acts 10 -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:15:27 (PST)
_______ Prestor John -:-
Re: Acts 10 -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 14:06:04 (PST)
________ scott lewis -:-
Re: Acts 10 -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 20:56:47 (PST)
_________ mebaser -:-
Re: Acts 10 -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 22:41:30 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:-
Napalm in the morning folks -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 04:04:30 (PST)
____ scott lewis -:-
Re: Napalm in the morning folks -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 22:07:37 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Napalm in the morning folks -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 03:31:32 (PST)
______ Vic Eagle -:-
Let's have our Rapture cake and eat it, too -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 15:15:23 (PST)
_______ jh -:-
There is only one rapture -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 13:20:36 (PST)
________ Vic Eagle -:-
They were nevertheless _r_aptured -:- Thurs, Feb 10, 2000 at 13:13:13 (PST)
______ scott lewis -:-
Re: Napalm in the morning folks -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:21:13 (PST)
_______ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Napalm in the morning folks -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:32:11 (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)
___________________ laz -:-
Re: The Perfection of the Lord Jesus -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 10:54:24 (PST)
___________________ scott lewis -:-
Peccability/Impeccability -:- Tues, Feb 01, 2000 at 21:50:36 (PST)
____________________ Tom -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 00:33:50 (PST)
_____________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 07:44:09 (PST)
______________________ Gene -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 03:43:20 (PST)
_______________________ mebaser -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:44:24 (PST)
________________________ Gene -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 09:51:28 (PST)
_________________________ mebaser -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 15:19:15 (PST)
______________________ scott lewis -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 21:20:52 (PST)
_______________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 21:55:36 (PST)
________________________ scott lewis -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 22:14:36 (PST)
_________________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 00:03:58 (PST)
__________________________ facetious LurkerJR -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 09:06:15 (PST)
__________________________ scott lewis -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:27:57 (PST)
___________________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 13:37:26 (PST)
___________________________ laz -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 09:17:49 (PST)
____________________________ Gene -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 09:59:10 (PST)
_____________________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 13:45:19 (PST)
_____________________________ laz -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 13:43:42 (PST)
______________________________ Gene -:-
Re: Peccability/Impeccability -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 15:16:34 (PST)
_______________________________ laz -:-
Get Real, Gene -:- Thurs, Feb 03, 2000 at 21:06:32 (PST)
________________________________ Gene -:-
Just being honest -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:57:24 (PST)
_________________________________ laz -:-
Re: Just being honest -:- Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 08:19:04 (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)



Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



Subject: Everett Harrison
From: Linda
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I'm hoping someone might have access to articles by Everett Harrison. He wrote the Romans Commentary in the Expositor's Commentary, helped start Fuller Seminary, was a prolific writer and well known theologian of the 20th century. I have just never seen anything posted here about him. I am particularly interested finding something by him on salvation or election. He died last year in his nineties. Blessings, Linda Linda


Subject: Article of the Month for March
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 21:02:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

With the recent discussions involving 'ShowMe' and those who are want to acknowledge the biblical doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity, the 'Article of the Month' for March will be of great interest to most. In addition, the even more recent topic of the Holy Spirit makes it even more apropos. This month features a chapter from the beloved Iain Murray's latest book, Pentecost Today? by Banner of Truth Trust. You can surf over to the article by clicking here: Charles G. Finney: How Theology Affects Understanding of Revival May the Lord God bless this article to your hearts and enrich your minds; being filled with the knowledge of God.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Article of the Month for March
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 22:00:27 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Both an excellent article and most appropriate to our study.


Subject: Written Word and Doctrine
From: monitor
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 13:37:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This is a repeat...sorry. I feel that this debate over what is authoritative is getting too complicated. The scriptures clearly indicate that we are not to go beyond what is written.
1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. There is no biblical warrant to believe that tradition supercedes or is even at par with God's Word. That would be pure presumption. The written Word will infallibly reach the Elect and they WILL understand by His Spirit working in concert with that good Word thru God's ordained means...to include godly pastors, teachers, creeds, confessions, sacraments, etc... We need to consider the Word above men and the works or men, even godly men....to include any doctrines or traditions. The written word is how God has always established and maintained His preceptive will for us. Jesus Christ quoted and fullfilled scripture (written Word) to make His point. Traditions of men consistently took 'hits'. On the road to Emmaeus, the resurrected Christ opened up the SCRIPTURES. Do we have any indication in all of redemptive history where 'traditions' hold equal weight with God's very Words? Now that we have the written Word...what of doctrine? Here is an analogy which may easily break up. Clark might like this one. haha The written word is like pure science and doctrine is like engineering. One comes first...for you can't do real engineering without a firm grasp of the sciences...as engineering is merely the application of science. Engineering is the servant of science....doctrine is the servant of the Word. And we find the NT replete with the term 'doctrine' and it's indespensible place within the life and work of the Church. Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 1Ti 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 1Ti 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: So, we are to hold the written Word as the supreme and only infallible authority and to also defend the biblically-derived doctrines of the Church (as we have codified in our historic creeds and confessions) against all satanic assaults. Churches that hold the written Word as supreme and teach 'sound doctrine' (i.e., biblically derived), disciplining the membership in accordance with that Word, and properly administering the sacraments commanded in the Word, are the only TRUE Churches, having been given the 'keys to the Kingdom' - Christ assurredly being present and glorified. How can I say any of this? Because it's supported by the written Word FIRST AND FOREMOST, and also embraced by Christ's faithful Church where we can rest assured that the Spirit has been active through her by that written Word.! a monitor 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Subject: Preach On Monitor N/T :^ )
From: Brother Bret
To: monitor
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 19:47:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Rewarding search
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 11:48:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
All this talk about 'Can we know the truth' prompted me to take a look at the words 'true' and 'truth' in the concordance. I found/rediscovered some truly wonderful things, but too many to list them all. I'll just say that my spirit, though never doubting we could know the truth, was uplifted by being reminded how sure we are that we can know! 'Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth' (John 17:17; convenient reference, isn't it?).


Subject: why do some messages disappear?
From: kevin
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:29:50 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
I posted a response earlier and now it is gone. What is the reason for that? In Him, kevin sdg I have included my email address if there is an issue of error on my part and the monitor would like to contact me privately.


Subject: Re: why do some messages disappear?
From: monitor
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:39:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I posted a response earlier and now it is gone. What is the reason for that? In Him, kevin sdg I have included my email address if there is an issue of error on my part and the monitor would like to contact me privately.
---
Kevin - your earlier post was an aggregious affront to everything we hold dear on this website.... ...kidding! ;-) I responded to you on a post further down...but for others who may be having the same problem I will elect to repeat myself here. For some reason, you had a post earlier today that was blank...no message. So, I did the only logical thing...I zapped it. I recall having to delete another blank post within the last few days as well...not sure it was yours. Not sure what else to tell you other than let's see what happens next. a monitor


Subject: thank you
From: kevin
To: monitor
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 17:47:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
monitor, I reckon I'll have to chalk that one up to my soveriegn God. He must have known it was to wordy. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Concerning the Holy Spirit of God
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 12:23:59 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
There is a great deal of confusion about the Spirit of God. There are 'Charismatics;' there is the 'Oneness' heresy; and there are many others. Those whom I consider to be closest to the truth in Christianity have largely seemed not to have retained a solid 'doctrine of the Holy Spirit' and those who claim to have 'rediscovered' Him have gone off on tangents and in error of serious proportions.. It's time that we sought God's truth about Him, from the Word of God which He gave by inspiration. Fifteen years ago or more, I heard a taped sermon given by J. Vernon McGee at the Chruch of the Open Door in L.A.. I am going to post a summary of my notes on that sermon in the hope that they might be a springboard that we all might use to better understand the workings of God. 'Seven Ministries of the Holy Spirit for Today' The first two ministries are ecumenical, worldwide, applying to everyone. They are: 1) Restraining evil in the world. 2 Thes. 2:6-7 indicates that, though men are unspeakably evil, depraved, they aren't actaully as bad as they can be because God is holding back a portion of their evil, to be revealed in its depths at a time yet future. 2) Convicting men of sin. John 16:7-8; Eph. 5:9-13 speak to this. (The remaining five ministries are for believers only.) 3) Regeneration; the new birth. Two significant passages concerning this are John 3:5-8 and Titus 3:5. 4) Indwelling the believer. The continuing presence of the Holy Spirit for believers is assured. Rom. 5:5; 8:9; 1 Cor. 2: 12; 6:19. Compare Ps. 51:11, where David indicates that this continual presence was his desire. It's our assurance. 5) Baptism of. This is the action by which one becomes a part of the Church, is placed in Christ. 1 Cor. 12:13. 6) Sealing as assurance and proof of 'ownership.' Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Cor. 1:21:22. 7) Filling. 'And be not drunk with wine, in which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit...submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God' (Eph. 5:18, 21).


Subject: Re: Concerning the Holy Spirit of God
From: Brother Bret
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:45:36 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Hello Rod: You are so correct regarding the misunderstandings about the holy Spirit. To add another one, would be that some do not think of Him as the third Person of Tri-unity and also being God. John 16:13 is also a verse that I think is often missed: 'Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth: FOR HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come.' I like events and situations in the Old Testament that are either types and pictures for the New Testament. Or can be used as an illustration for a New Testament truth. One such situation is in the book of Genesis where Abraham sent out his servant to find a bride for Isaac. We are not given the name of Abraham's servant, and the servants mission was for his master and the master's son, not for himself. In this picture (which I personally believe in an intentional 'type' by the Lord), Abraham represents the God the Father, Isaac the Son of God, the servant the holy Spirit, and Rebecca the bride of Christ. Sometimes I think we as Christians, are shy about worshipping the Lord in spirit and truth maybe because of the Charismatics and Pentacostals. However, they do place too much of an emphasis (IMHO)in the holy Spirit. Who is God, yet has a specific role in the Godhead to point to almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ! Not Himself :^). May God's will and good pleasure be done.......Brother Bret


Subject: Re: Concerning the Holy Spirit of God
From: Rod
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:06:31 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Bro. Bret :>), I, too am a subscriber to the typology in the search for Isaac's bride. The emphasis on the Father's will and the unswerving, fervent desire of the servant to accomplish that will; the demonstration of the riches that would be hers when she became joined to Isaac; the leading of her away from her "natural" family, though they tried to hang on and to delay her committment; and many other factors of the account are too plain to be missed by the discerning reader. The inheritance of the son was there for the taking, but it was only to the bride. The inheritance was believed and accepted on faith because of the testimony of the servant and his 'earnest' (the jewels he presented to Rebecca) he provided. Though never seeing the son, the bride was excited about the revelation of him by this man, knowing by that testimony that he was the one for her! If one understands the process of salvation and the role of each of the Persons of the Triune God, it is unmistakeable. Thank you for bringing it up.


Subject: The substance of truth
From: john hampshire
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 05:05:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All, Can't believe I actually just read every post under the earlier thread. : 0 I understand there is an underlying debate concerning the authority for our beliefs, the role of church history, and who we can trust. Yet from my perspective, we all judge these things, if only in pretense, against Scripture and ourselves, yet imperfectly.. Even the most apostate theologian or religion-monger holds his beliefs as truth; based upon the validation with Scripture (even falsely understood) and their inner-being (good or evil). Does not this present a circle of reasoning. We know extra-Biblical sources are true because they agree with Scripture, and we know when have agreement with Scripture because we have the extra-Biblical sources. I agree we can learn much from extra-Biblical sources, and I agree we can learn much from self-study, both are viable ways to learn. But neither can tell us when we have arrived at truth. It cannot be just a matter of interpretation, for surely there is a right understanding that forces all else to be wrong. But how do we know when we are wrong? Again, I would say, and many would agree, we know we are right when our spirit agrees with our understanding of it, and we find comfort, calling this comfort 'truth'. But this cannot be the end of it, for surely a wrong spirit finds agreement in wrong doctrine. It was stated that our fruits will show the kind of spirit we possess, and if their fruits are good, the doctrine be good too. Still, this is not it. For good spirits are not without error in doctrine, are they? Yet those who hold errors, though they have a good (or bad) spirit, do they knowingly hold errors? I think not. But, what mechanism drew them or bound them to error, why did the spirit not become repulsed, can there be comfort in error for a perfect spirit? To this I concede the sin of Adam. Error can indeed bring comfort, a false hope may still relieve suffering and pain. We are all prone to seek relief. Doctrine is often framed around what we refuse to accept or needfully must accept as true. Blame Adam, blame ourselves. Is it then impossible to be completely certain of truth? I say it depends upon how honestly and diligently we search for it. As Sherlock Holmes would say, if we remove all those things that cannot be, what remains is the truth of the matter. How honest we are in our removal of distortions depends on how distorted we are ourselves (assuming a perfect spirit), how diligently did we crucify the flesh to fulfill the desire of our spirit. And is this not just God working in us to do His good pleasure, does not He move and motivate us to do good? For me, the answer is: we have no complete assurance that we hold unassailable truth. All our reference points are marred, sin-bent, and distorted so that we cannot judge correctly. We are not God, we are not Jesus, we do not see things as they really are. Yet, as intimated above, if we have harmony between our spirit and Scripture, and have diligently considered all possible resolutions, and honestly removed those that fail, then we are as close to truth as we can be in this life. Our assurance can be a false one. It remains Godís business to reveal error in ourselves (pride no doubt) which in-turn frees us to search deeper into truth (and does not God reveal truth in Scripture which reveals error in ourselvesóhere the reverse being true). How can we blindly entrust truth to other men-- theologians, scholars, written creeds, or books galore-- when we ourselves cannot be trusted. It is one thing to say these things are valuable as they may, here and there, express truth, it is another to say they are true categorically. Is not history a history of mere men who, like you, sought out truth, but did not perfectly attain it in totality (or at all). Did not God makes us judge over these things, do we not have to test every thing, for this is how we test ourselves too, is it not? If we find comfort in the thoughts of others, havenít we settled for less. Can our spirit actually rest peacefully until every shred of revealed error is stripped away laying truth bare. How can we trust a thing that is not fully tested, and where is the error if we cannot locate error but swallow whole all manner of teachings? john


Subject: Re: The substance of truth
From: Rod
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 09:53:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
john, It is true that it's imperative that a Christian be certain that he possesses the truth. Of course, not any of us will be right in every point, due to rebellion and sin, our flawed nature, but the emphasis is placed in this regard, not on us who are seeking the truth, but on the Source and Embodiment of Truth. It seems to me to be an outgrowth of our faith that, if we didn't 'get ourselves saved,' we can know that we don't arrive at the knowledge fo God's truth in a vacuum either. In all things related to faith and salvation, God is the initiator and cause, man is the reactor and beneficiary. God gave us the regeneration of the Holy Spirit and His indwelling presence prior to our coming to faith. That was the actual cause of our faith, as the Spirit of God within in replaces our old will with a new will to come to God in Christ. That new will remains the same, not only desiring saving faith, but also desiring the truth of God because it honors the Son. I won't cite the Scripture references yet again, but the Bible makes it evident that the Spirit is both God's Spirit and Christ's Spirit, proceeding from both the Father and the Son. See Rom. 8:9 for one example. God, being one God, has a unity of purpose. Manifesting Himself in His three personalities, He has established a marvelous means of bringing his own to His truth. The Father gets glory because the Son's purpose is to reveal and to glorify Him. The Son gets glory by the Father's glorifying Him (John 17:1), and by the Spirt's mission of bringing men to conviction of His truth and power. The Spirit of God doesn't, in a very real sense, 'put Himself forward,' being content to honor the Father through the Son, but He is God and He gets honor by our recognition of His role in our salvation and in the writing of the Scripture, as well as in the making its truths real to the believer. One of His ministries to us is that of Teacher and Guide. So then, we can rest in the fact that, if we belong to Christ Jesus in salvation and are children of God, as the Bible repeatedly emphasizes, God's Spirit is committed to guiding us as individuals and as a corporate body of believers, the 'body of Christ,' His Chruch, into 'all truth' (John 16:13). That is a promise made to the Apostles individually and as a body. It is through their witness and leadership, guided by the Holy Spirit in the will of Jesus Christ, that all the Church of Jesus Christ came into being: 'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one' (John 17:20-22). Of one thing we cn be certain: The truth of God always gives the utmost honor and glory to His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The Spirit of God desires to honor and glorify Jesus Christ. Therefore, if we are saved and indwelt by His Spirit, God will get us the truth to honor His Son. And we know that one of the manners in which He makes His truth shine forth to us is by the appearance of various heresies which force His people to seek out His mind and those of like mind with Him. 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ ' (1 Cor. 2:16; cp. 2:9-15 and 11:19). The Spirit of the Holy God and the 'mind of Christ' are ours in grace, through the indwelling Presence and our submissive will in seeking the Scriptures in obedience to God. I am assured that we may trust Him to be our Teacher, verifiying the truth of God when it is presented, resulting from His inner witness and our diligence in knowing the Scriptures. May God give us a will to both know His ways and to praise Him as we come to the knowledge.


Subject: GREAT post! n/t
From: E.V.
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 09:04:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You bring up some excellent points. Well .


Subject: Re: The substance of truth
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 08:40:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John and all,

Although you have said many good things above and have pointed out the fallacies of trusting other men, it is my personal opinion that you go too far. As I have said elsewhere, there is this infectious 'individualistic' mentality taking over many who profess to be followers of Christ. It has not restricted itself to any particular denomination it seems but is widespread throughout Christendom. Further, it is made even worse by those who rightly would speak out against the RCC and Orthodox for their doctrines, particularly where they have appointed themselves to be the source and bastion of all truth. However, the end result is an error that is no less odious and harmful than that which is on the 'other side'. The problem is a failure to recognize the biblical doctrine of the Church in its fullness. Yes, the Church is made of individuals whom God has predestinated to be joined together with Christ. But this joining is not just with God, but with the Saints of old as well as those who live with us and those to come. (1Cor 12:27; Heb 12:22, 23) It's a 'body' which means it is a corporate and living organism where different parts contribute to the life of the whole (1Cor 12:12ff; Eph 4:16). Thus it is the Church as a whole that holds the keys to the kingdom through its officers who come from the 'rank and file'. Truth is found in God's Word alone, to which we all should affirm together. And it is also true that the Holy Spirit indwells each and every true believer and works within each individual to bring to their understanding the truths of God's Word; AS HE WILLS. And this is an important point to notice; that not each person has been given the same measure of ability which others have. The body of Christ is not some communist utopian community where everyone shares everything in common, including talents, material goods and intelligence. That there are many things which all do have in common is not to be disputed or questioned, but one of the things they do not have in common is autonomy to DETERMINE truth for others. Rome of course misconstrues the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura to be sure. However, the horrors of rash individualism which they deduce from their own 'strawman' figure of Sola Scriptura is a reality. And this has come about because those who would claim to be within the 'tradition' of Sola Scriptura are actually denying the reality of that biblical and Reformed doctrine and living out the 'strawman' which Rome fabricated as a distortion of the real doctrine. The balance and harmony of Sola Scriptura has been lost for the most part in our day and a counterfeit lie has been embraced which casts off the proper place and authority of the Church as an organization under the headship of Christ for Satan's; 'and you will be as god, knowing good and evil'. The authority of the Church is well established by Paul in many places and others. And we need to return to this understanding today if we hope to have some stability and uniformity in life and doctrine. This is why the Confessions were written in part; to provide a check and balance document whereby, positively, the truth would be guaranteed throughout generations, and negatively as a safeguard against heretical preachers/teachers within the church and to expose the errors and attacks from the world without. When one joins a Confessional Church (ideally to be sure), he or she has already considered the doctrinal foundation of that congregation which is contained in the Confession; whether it be the Westminster, Belgic, Savoy, London, Augsberg, etc. And if there is anything within those Confessions or in an official statement of the church which would lead one away from Christ, THEN..... THEN, the individual being bound to CHRIST, first and foremost, is bound to reject the false teaching of that church. But unless one can show from Scripture that the teaching is false, then the Church and its officers are an authority and are to be trusted and believed as they too are under the headship of the HEAD of the Church, Who appointed them by His Spirit to the office they hold. As I pointed out to Christopher in a response to him below. ALL the Confessions affirm that the Holy Scriptures are the one and ONLY source of truth and authority by which men are to judge all matters of faith (doctrine) and practice (living). Even the confession itself where this affirmation is to be found, is subject to it, and thus the various writers of these documents realized that their Statement of Faith in the confession was subject to scrutiny by the Spirit and His Word by the Church. It is not enough to 'feel that you know' or to make a confession that 'the Spirit is one with my spirit, and thus I know for sure that 'such and such' is a true doctrine.' Truth is not subjective, it is objective and it is not to be discerned subjectively, but objectively. One may come to an assurance about a particular doctrine which is said to be true, but that doesn't make it true. Paul indeed was aware of this fact when he spoke about the zeal of his fellow Jews (Rom 10:2. 3). We are told to be subject 'one to another' (Rom 12:5f; Eph 5:21; Col 3:16; 1Pet 4:10, 11; 5:5, 6) in all things, including teaching of truth. No blind obedience to man or document will serve to replace an individual's responsibility to 'search the Scriptures to see if these things are true.' But the Spirit of God does not alienate nor individualize 'truth' to individuals apart from the rest of the body. (1Cor 14:31, 32) Thus we can look down through history and read of the many various differences of doctrine that are held by various groups, but we can also look and see an great unity in doctrine among these groups as well. And this is a firm testimony that the Spirit has indeed worked among men and revealed the truth of God to others besides 'ME'. Therefore we have the 'essentials' and 'non-essentials' over which decisions of fellowship can be made or broken. A strong view of the Church will surely curb one from 'thinking to highly of oneself' (Rom 12:5) as one rejoices in the fact that they are a MEMBER of a glorious BODY wherein the Spirit of Christ guides, gifts and governs all who dwell therein. There is a place for individual study, thinking and disagreement. But it should not override the reality of the organism which is organized by Christ Himself as having delegated authority over individuals and responsible for them by preaching/teaching the truth according as the Spirit opens the Word to those appointed to serve the Lord Christ the Head. It's a 'both/and' and not an 'either/or' answer here to the question of 'how and can we know truth'!!

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The substance of truth
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:00:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I will respond to your post below tonight, as work prevents me from writing a lengthy post today (work, how annoying!). It seems the only difference is that you do not allow for the Holy Spirit's guidance, 'stamp of approval,' so to speak on anything other than Holy Scripture. Leaving aside the question of how we actually got Holy Scripture, you are left to argue that something is the 'clear teaching of Scripture' when what is clear is that Scripture can very easily be understood in different ways by different people at different times. Thus, we are left with the three alternatives which I've mentioned: The pope, the individual or the whole Church as the criterion for Truth. While you seem to maintain that the Holy Spirit does guide the Church as a whole, you don't seem to find it reasonable that that guidance should be able to be demonstrated at all times and at all places. Talk to you later, Christopher


Subject: Even BETTER post...(n/t)
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 09:35:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Got truth?
From: john hampshire
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 04:50:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Here is a question where the obvious answer is not the answer What is the final determinate that what you believe as truth, is indeed true? Sure your belief has been tested, it harmonizes with all Scripture, it sound right, it is approved by most theologians, but again, what give YOU confidence that you are correct. The obvious answer is that it is correct because it is not incorrect by the standards listed above. As many who are honestly wrong are as many as those who are honestly right, using the same criteria. We need not be reminded of people, great and small, having held to apparent truth that as it turned out, were incorrect upon closer examination (or were they). Intellect and public acclaim are dubious measures of truth. There are many an argument here over Scripture, each side sure it has validated truth. Each sure the other side is a heretic and a deceiver and boldly saying as much, each basing their belief on a harmony of Scripture or the writings of theologians dead or alive, or some other measure. My conclusion of debating is that truth, or non-truth, cannot be conveyed, except to those who are receptive to it, and in this we gain little measure of knowing what is said is correct, only that some buy what is sold and some donít. (The hidden question is: what makes one idea attractive and another detestable) In the final analysis, truth is accepted or denied based not on externalized influences, but rather on meeting a prescribed level of internal comfort, a self-attestation that arises from within, an agreement that you have indeed gotten it right. We know it is right, somewhat as John realized Jesus in Mariam, and leapt in the womb at the comfort of Truth. But then, what is this thing that does the leaping? Since I have found truth to be this subtle inner agreement, a spiritual agreement, a light that guides cognition. We cannot successfully argue others into truth or out of non-truth (this does not preclude honest discussion). What is it that makes us forget this, why do we press so hard to conform others? Knowing this then, we can avoid the angry rehetoric that comes with our failure to make others conform to our will (pride). We can present our beliefs and debate Scriptures, but know that truth is not bought or sold. As such, those things we believe to be true are only the external manifestations of our inner spiritís inclinations. If our spirit is crooked, our truth is crooked, though we find agreement in Scripture and history for it. Our agreement with external influences can be as much a means to excuse our twisted inner-self as it is to validate it. The state of our spirit being the source for all that flows forth from it, and all that is sought by it, or rejected. So where is this idle babbler going with this. Probably not far. Oh yeah, lest I forget, the question was: what is your basis for knowing you are right in regard to Scriptural truth. john


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: clark
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 07:21:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John-- Interesting question. How do I test what I believe? (And I know that I will get blasted for this one). I test it against something else I know to be true and I, and no man, have any power over. It was created by God and used by God/Jesus in explaining His word. This little test is science. The whole premise is God created the spiritual world and He created the physical world. He wrote the spiritual laws and He wrote the physical laws (scientific principles), then He used the physical images to explain the spiritual images. So if God is using a 'tree' image or a 'fruit' image in the story, I, personally feel, that we should also study about the physical tree/fruit so that we can understand the spiritual tree/fruit. Does what we hold true also hold true through the physical laws. It is the 'second opinion'. The thing we can hold up and see whether we are right according to God. Example: Dirt. Man was made from dust. We have the parable of the sower and the seed, where there is good soil, rocky soil, and soil that is to hard to break through, and we have soil that is covered in thorns and thistles. If we look at the different types of soil we can understand the message better than if we just look at the words and agrue where we are in the 'soil game'. (Soil is used in the story as our 'foundation' and the 'seed' is the Word of God--as explained later in the parable) Anyway that is one of the way I test what I believe to be true, or to understand scripture. clark


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: laz
To: clark
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 14:05:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
HAHAHA! You might get blasted for that, but before you do, let me say that surely what you said does have some merit in my opinion (for I find myself occasionally thinking along those lines). I believe the physical world is designed to provide general revelation about God (Ps 19, Rom 1)...but I would not get too carried away for we need to read and interpret the Bible in the manner intended and not get too esoteric where no such hermeneutic is warranted. The Bible is about Christ's life and finished work from first to last. Anything that tends to lead us away from that central theme is suspect in my book. As they say, you can make the Bible say just about anything you want...and people do just that! blessings, laz What is the spiritual lesson in the design of the platypus? hehe


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:48:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz and Clark,

No blasting, but only awe in that you have blatantly disregarded what the Special Revelation of God says about the Natural Revelation of God. First, while 'the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament His handiwork' (Ps 19), it is critically limited in its testimony (Rom 19, 20) to reveal only the Godhead of the Creator and His wrath against all mankind. Second, the creation itself was subjected to corruption due to Adam's transgression and thus it is 'distorted' in its witness of that which it was revealed before the Fall. Third, the depravity of soul with which all men do inherit 'distorts' their vision; so much so that they 'cannot see the kingdom of God, etc.' (Joh 3:3; Rom 8:7, 8; 1Cor 2:14; Eph 4:17-19, et al). Therefore, God condescended in pity upon man in giving him His Special Revelation; His infallible and inerrant Word with which men are able to discern the truth OF creation. But it is certainly not the case that the Natural Creation is the 'witness/light' by which we are to know TRUTH. The Spiritual (Scripture) ALWAYS interprets the Natural. To reverse this is to fall into vain philosophy, such as that embraced by Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, et al. Lastly, the Scriptures albeit infallible and inerrant are indiscernible to the 'Natural Man' due to his corruption of mind, body and soul. Thus the possession of the Holy Spirit, Who ALWAYS works in conjunction with His Word, is a fundamental necessity.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim Joh 17:17 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: clark
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 05:23:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim-- Please reread your reply to laz and me and then compare it with your reply to John (The substance of Truth). You yourself have used the 'physical' to illustrate the spiritual. Please explain the difference between when you use the images to explain and determine the truth in scripture and my statement that I use the images to understand the truth in scripture. ďIt's a 'body' which means it is a corporate and living organism where different parts contribute to the life of the whole (1Cor 12:12ff; Eph 4:16). Thus it is the Church as a whole that holds the keys to the kingdom through its officers who come from the 'rank and file'. Truth is found in God's Word alone, to which we all should affirm together.Ē


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: Pilgrim
To: clark
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:44:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Clark,

I have tried on many occasions to try and explain this to you and without much success. But I shall try once again. The difference between what I wrote, as you quoted from me above, and what you are subscribing too is like night and day. My 'illustration' of the 'body' was nothing more than what Paul wrote by inspiration. What I wrote was nothing more than an exposition upon what was already written. Expounding upon a text and then applying it is certainly a biblically valid use of the Scriptures as can be clearly shown from various passages found in the Scriptures themselves, (cf. 2Chron 30:22; 35:3; Neh 8:5-8; Lk 24:27; Matt 5-7; Acts 18:25, 26; 1Cor 1:21; 2:6-16; 2Cor 1:12, 13; et al). Another good example of what I am trying to convey is Daniel's interpretation of dreams. What was seen in the 'dreams/visions' was earthly, and the meaning was sought not in the objects seen, but from God. The interpretation of the dreams was spiritual, the content of the dreams was earthly. Thus we are to learn that we cannot nor should we seek 'truth' in the earthly, but only from God; his Written Word. We must ALWAYS interpret the material world FROM the Scriptures and NEVER imagine to find 'truth' in the material world and thus interpret the Scriptures from it. And this is the crux of the matter which divides our two views. You would propose that we are able and should seek to find 'spiritual truths' in the material world. Whereas I believe that the material world is insufficient to reveal ANY truth in and of itself, but rather we come to understand the material world only in God's written Word. As laz succinctly put it, to try and project some 'truth' from observing the material world is nothing more than speculation. And as I tried to point out in my first response, to go from the physical world to the spiritual is Philosophy. To go from the Scriptures, which are spiritual, to the material creation is Theology. The earth has been subjected to corruption (Gen 3:17, 18; 5:29; Isa 24:5, 6; Rom 8:20-22), thus even if man were 'pure in heart' and possessed 'all wisdom' he would not be able to discern anything other than a distorted image of reality. Further, man himself lost true wisdom and knowledge (Col 3:10; Eph 4:17-19; Rom 1:19ff). Therefore it is foolish to seek 'truth' in the things which are made, for God's Word alone is the source of all truth, wisdom and knowledge. (Joh 17:17; 2Tim 3:16, 17). Science may indeed discover the composition of physical things and devise ways of using them, but it is powerless and unable to discern anything further. That which is spiritual is spiritual. And that which is earthly is earthly. God did not create the earth as a 'book' from which man is to 'discover' truth. (Job 28:28; Ps 19:9-12; 111:10; Prov 1:7; 2:1-7; etc.). The creation is to be subservient and understood by the wisdom of God which He has been pleased to put into writing in His inspired, infallible and inerrant Word, being opened by the working of the Spirit within those whom He has been pleased to resurrect from the dead.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Amen. n/t
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:03:03 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: laz
To: clark
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 06:17:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Clark - I think the short of it will be the fact that '
body of Christ' is an entirely biblical term. Hope I've understood you correctly. From my perspective...if I do see physical parallels btwn the physical and the spiritual...unless I can make a firm 'biblical' case for it, I keep such observations to myself for I too believe that only the Bible gives us objective revelation as to the nature of God thru the person and work of Jesus Christ. Anything else would be mere speculation. Besides, I would not want to find myself engaging in a subtle form of idolatry thinking upon God or the things of God in a manner not supportable by Scripture (and thus clouding 'the truth') ... but more the product of my vivid imagination. ;-) Sola Scriptura, laz


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: E.V.
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:38:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I once heard somebody say that the reason God gave us the ability to sense thirst, is so that when Christ said: ...but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.' We would know what he was talking about. In Christ, E.V.


Subject: a little simple
From: kevin
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:31:01 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
John, Romans 8:16 & 17. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: :)
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:12:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
john, I told Rod that was another thread, but I didn't think you would be the one to start it...and so quickly! :) Christopher


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: Mike
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 10:26:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear John, As a newcomer, both to this discussion and to my understanding of my standing before a Sovereign GOD,I would offer this, the proof is in the pudding (fruit). While this may seem a bit pat, I can think of no surer proof. As far as the disagreement over scripture I am no authority Yet will maintain that to our knowledge we are to add self control, to that perserverance, to that godliness, to that brotherly kindness, and to that love. If after that the love for the Christ of the Bible and His commands does not have priority, that man can know he does not possess the truth. In closing, Iwill agree with your conclusion about debating the truth, it will not be recieved, except that regeneration has taken place. But that is not for us to concern ourself with, our lot is to go out and make desciples of all nations, and trust GOD for the increase. Yeah there is no doubt that our pride will get tangled up in our confession but we can rest assured that GOD will bring good out of evil. It is that assurance that sends one aleaping. In Christ, Mike


Subject: Re: Got truth?
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 06:23:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear John the Babbler - My standard for personally knowing what is true truth out of the pages of holy writ can only be what 'works for me' as I humbly stand before the mirror of truth (the bible) and look it straight in the eye, prayerfully examining my thoughts, motives, and inclinations, considering even the opposing views in light of the very same scriptures (and my own inner testimony of thoughts, motives and inclinations). Yes, I do consider the views of those older and wiser from the present and past (The Church!) .... and simply TRUST that God is working thru His Word (and Sacrament) by His Spirit in His Church to bring me into conformity with it. I must avail myself to His means of grace being and resting in the fact that... Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. So, I can't prove what is true truth (or convince others)in the absolute sense anymore than I can prove God exists for the things of God are infinitely more complex than my puny mind and are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED by whomever God grants eyes and hears. (Right,GENE!! hehe) It is God's domain to convince...to regenerate, to bring about sanctification - to give us an inner testimony by His Spirit that we are indeed of the true faith even while we labor all life long honing in on the particulars of the true truths revealed in scripture, growing in grace and KNOWLEDGE. At the end of the day, I must simply go by the faith graciously granted to me by the author and finisher of true saving faith. There you have it. blessings, lazarus


Subject: 'For it is God...'
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:24:33 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
'...even the mystery which hath been hidden from ages and genertions, but now
is made manifest to the saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory' (Col.1:26-27). 'But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God' (1 Cor. 2:10). 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ' (1 Cor.2:16). All of which is to say that you are correct, laz, God is our witness and assurance. It's my fervent belief that God is guiding us with His Spirit, and that He wants us to discover, by studying His Word with that inner leading and teaching, and the help of teachers specifically gifted for that purpose, the truths He's made available to us. Studying His Word 'on our knees' in submision to His leadership in Lordship is the approved method to finding God's heart and mind. God gave us His Spirit within in regeneration which leads to saving faith. That gives us the ability to 'have' the mind of Christ. We have that mind revealed in the written Word concerning the Incarnate Word, and we have it by His indwelling Spirit: 'Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9), the exact reason 'the carnal mind is enmity against God' (verse 7). The same Apostle said, 'but Christ liveth in me' (Gal. 2:20). The Father and the Son are glorified by the Spirit of God within the believer, because the Spirit desires, above all, to reveal and honor the Son. The Son's very 'food [was] to do the will of him that sent me' (John 4:34). There is one purpose with God, to reveal Himself to His own for His own glory and honor. Mercifully, He has intended to share that glory with His children, His 'sons' made so in Christ Jesus. That 'sealing' to sonship Eph. 1:13-14) is the same thing which made us alive to Him in the first instance, His indwelling Spirit. And that produces a leading of the believer into His truth, when he is submitted to God's will, assuring him, giving him insight into what preacher/teacher is actually giving out the truth of God. Submission to God in prayer before opening the Bible and an expectant reading, waiting for Him to do what He delights to do, to reveal Himself, won't go unrewarded. Even when we don't understand a concept/verse/passage right then, if we ask Him, He will reveal His meaning to us, often in an unexpected way, something seemingly 'coincidental.' I've often made a request for insight and revelation and a few days later, after I'd forgotten the matter, been rewarded with an answer from a tape, a book, a post on the net...you get the idea. None of us has all the truth, but if we don't have the assurance that we have the basic truth, we're pitiful indeed.


Subject: Re: 'For it is God...'
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 12:21:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>>It's my fervent belief that God is guiding us with His Spirit, and that He wants us to discover, by studying His Word with that inner leading and teaching, and the help of teachers specifically gifted for that purpose, the truths He's made available to us.<<<<< >>>>>I've often made a request for insight and revelation and a few days later, after I'd forgotten the matter, been rewarded with an answer from a tape, a book, a post on the net...you get the idea. <<<<< From a previous post: >>>>>Christopher, to give as much authority to the pronouncements of extra-Biblical sources as to the Scripture, is not acceptable for a Christian.<<<<< Rod, What you term 'extra-biblical' sources in that post are actually the teachers given to the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that are necessary for one to arrive at the answer to John's question. If we admit that we learn from others--and it's not just me, God and my Bible--then we're really back at how to arrived at who is approved among us, no? We agreed on that in a previous thread. So, with the exception of the Apostle Paul, I can't think of anyone who can legitimately claim to have been taught directly by God. The rest of us have to believe someone's teaching, someone's interpretation of the Scriptures. Otherwise, if we trust only ourselves, we will invitably err due to the reasons John mentioned. The bottom line is that I am in complete agreement with you regarding your first statement quoted. The question then becomes how to determine who is approved? Christopher


Subject: Are we in agreement?
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:52:23 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, Thanks for the reply. And it's my desire that we come to agreement on this. We're, as you've pointed out, saying somewhat the same thing, but with different meanings. At least, that's my perception. Here's what I mean by that. Your primary emphasis is on the teaching of men, as you quoted a 'father' to me the other night, claiming that they have the insight needed. The problem is that the 'fathers' weren't all in agreement on key issues. Though the RCC claims the authority for the belief that Peter and his successor 'vicars of Christ' (meaning His substitute on the earth) is that the 'fathers' all taught that was the correct interpretation of Matt. 16:17-19 and its intent. The truth is that the vast majority of the "early fathers" didn't hold that view, but a minority did. Were all these 'fathers' led by the Spirit in that matter? You, similarly, while your church opposes the RCC in this, do the same thing, appealing to 'tradition' overmuch. Also, the Bible teaches that we aren't to run to the 'fathers' and other teachers first to seek what we should believe, but to rely on the teaching of the Holy Spirit in His Word, which is revealed and given for our 'profit' (2 Tim. 3:16). That principle is underscored forcefully in 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.' They received the true 'word,' because they were true believers and enabled by the Spirit to do so. These Bereans weren't super-gullible, accepting without question everything which Paul taught, but
verified that it was so, that he was trustworthy, by looking at the Holy Word for themselves. They were personally led by the Spirit to see what the Spirit of God was doing and if Paul was actually of that Spirit in everything he said. They applied the Bible to his teaching to determine Paul's truth; they didn't apply his teaching to the known Scriptures to determine their meaning, though that can be done now that the NT is available. That activity these Bereans performed is the 'testing of every spirit' which the Apostle John wrote about so extensively in 1 John 4 (actually the entire epistle). In verse 13, he writes, 'By this know we that we dwell in him, and HE IN US, because he hath given us of his Spirit' (cp. John 14:15-18; 26; 16:7:13-15). The emphasis is on how God leads His child, not just 'exalted leaders,' but every one who is His own, to know whether any teacher is actually of God or not. 'Let that, therefore, abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning...But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him' (1 John 2:24; 27). What can that mean? 'Ye need not that any man teach you.' But John was a man and he was teaching as he said it. John, writing by inspiration, revealed that God's indwelling Spirit is our first and primary Teacher. He will confirm to His own what is His truth by the standard of its agreement with the Bible. If any man tells you he has a corner on the truth and that God can only be known through his interpretation, he is to be shunned and avoided. Men don't determine God's message. God's message in His written Word is to be applied to every non-inspired teacher, including 'fathers,' and that is the final determination of truth, not the other way around. Our first resource, if we are believers in the Christ of the Bible, is to the Bible, relying utterly on the leadership of the Spirit within, and then, being frimly grounded in that truth, we will be able to verify if a preacher/teacher is, first, 'gifted' by God with the ability to help understand His Word; and, second, if he is correct in this particular instance. I once was speaking to a woman and giving her Bible verses (she was a professed believer) about her error on a particular matter ('soul sleep'). She haughtily interrupted me and said, 'I'll have to read some books to see what I think!' Now, she was correct to 'test' my teaching, but she was incorrect in her manner of doing it. She was going, not to the Bible and God in prayer first, but to men, to determine her way of thinking for her! We must avoid that at all costs! It's an insult to God not to trust His Spirit to lead us, if we are His and have that Spirit.


Subject: Re: Are we in agreement?
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:05:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, And thank you for your reply. I think I have it figured out. You and I should limit our responses to each other to 5 within each thread. More than that and we get testy with one another. :) Your raise good questions and I will do my best to respond as thoroughly as possible. Unfortunately, I can't deal with everything all at once this afternoon. I'm looking forward to this discussion, as it seems we are actually getting to the heart of the matter. Christopher >>Your primary emphasis is on the teaching of men,<< Always negative? The 'teaching of men' must be distinguished from the proper interpretations of Scripture provided by God to the Church through the Holy Spirit, no? I have come to the conclusion that we must be careful about what we label the teaching of men, for God did indeed appoint some teachers. We have that from Scripture (since that's where we're starting). Since God's truth does not change (there is no 'apostolic seed' or 'development of doctrine' theory in the Orthodox Church), there must be those we can trust, whether they were teaching in the first century or today--or at any time inbetween. Otherwise, we are orphans. It makes no sense to me that God would go to such great lengths to preserve a text and then leave us to bumble around arguing about what they mean. All true Christians seek to believe, as Pilgrim has pointed out, the one faith handed down for all. And, as Pilgrim has stated, that faith has been confirmed and heresy refuted through a variety of confessions and creeds. Most importantly, it has been preserved in 7 Ecumenical Councils. >>>>>These Bereans weren;'t super-gullible, accepting without question everything which Paul taught, but verified that it was so, that he was trustworthy, by looking at the Holy Word for themselves.<<<< I agree with you completely. This point you make is one of the basic Reformation problems with the Roman insistance on keeping the people away from Scripture. Orthodoxy does not know any such tradition. In fact, do you know why the Russian alphabet is called the Cyrillic alphabet? The Russians were given their written language by missionaries (named Cyril and Methodius) in order to translate the Scriptures and the liturgy. And that was in the first milleneum. When Innocent went to Alaska in the 1800's, one of his first projects was to get the Aleuts the NT in their own language. There never has been any sort of 'keep it all away from the people, who are inherently stupid' mentality. Anyway, the point is that there is a difference between being gullible and accepting that something is true. Those Bereans were evaluating
teaching, correct? And that is exactly what we all do. Some to different lengths than others. >>>>>Though the RCC claims the authority for the belief that Peter and his successor 'vicars of Christ' (meaning His substitute on the earth) is that the 'fathers' all taught that was the correct interpretation of Matt. 16:17-19 and its intent. The truth is that the vast majority of the 'early fathers' didn't hold that view, but a minority did. Were all these 'fathers' led by the Spirit in that matter? You, similarly, while your church opposes the RCC in this, do the same thing, appealing to 'tradition' overmuch.<<<<< And we can go right on down the line: purgatory, indulgences, etc. All second millenium Roman innovations. The papacy didn't start getting such grand ideas about itself until late in the first milleneum. Things started to get really bad when Charlemagne became emporer (filioque, etc) and everything came to a head in 1054. The Church split over the very idea that one man is supreme over all the Church. For 1,000 years, there was one Church, which made final decisions in council, just like in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. All of that to say this: you are right. Not everything written by even those who are Fathers of the Church is correct. The Fathers are not to be read that way. Believe it or not, not every father believed in total depravity. Only Augustine. Gregory of Nyssa says something quite different, as do John Chrysostom and a variety of others. But because they were not all right (see Origen, who started out very right and ended up very wrong) does not mean that we should toss them all out the window. Discernment is something that God has given his Church. The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit guides the individual within the Church, which is the Body of Christ. The clergy are not set apart and above from the people, because, while the bishop is the icon of Christ, isn't every member of the Church called to be an icon (image) of Christ? Just because Rome claims to be the top (only) dog and they happen to be wrong, doesn't mean that every Christian writing prior to the Reformation needs to be ignored or thrown out. If that's the case, you may as well throw out the NT itself. But I digress. It goes back to John's question. How do we know something is true? There are three options: 1) Rome rests it's authority on the pope, 2) the Protestants rest authority on the individual being guided by the Holy Spirit, or 3) the Orthodox rest authority on the Church as a whole. My contention is this: the Reformers diagnosed the problem correctly, but they did not get the cure right. That's why I'm converting. If God preserved only the text and not the interpretation, then it comes down to you and I or you and EV or Pilgrim and someone else debating what truth is. Someone has to show consistency for 20 centuries in order to be trusted, and the Orthodox are the only ones I've seen do that. As I mentioned in a previous post, if you and I agree on something, does that mean we have arrived at Truth, or does it just mean that we agree with each other? We may certainly have arrived at Truth, but all we really know between the two of us is that we have the same opinion. Talk to you soon, Christopher


Subject: As you can see, we're not in agreement.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:53:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, I see you (and laz) have been quite busy while I've been eating and composing a post below to another. I do ask this: Please try to keep the focus narrowed to one question at a time. That will avoid 'runaway' threads and chasing rabbits, what I call a 'shotgun approach' where every point is hit at once. I can't deal with too many things at once, being limited in intellect and ability. As I've emphasized, these posts are a labor for me, though I don't mind it if we can achieve something. ________________________________________________________ I do believe that we've reached the heart of the matter, best expressed in two of your statements. First: 'But because they were not all right (see Origen, who started out very right and ended up very wrong) does not mean that we should toss them all out the window. Discernment is something that God has given his Church' Discernment is an
individual's gift not something given to a chruch ORGANIZATION. The church is the people within it, made up of various and varying gifts. And that is a major (possibly the major) point of departure between us. That statement ties in very directly with another you made earlier: 'The 'teaching of men' must be distinguished from the proper interpretations of Scripture provided by God to the Church through the Holy Spirit, no?' Now, I want to be very clear and explicit about this. I don't want anyone flying off the handle at what I'm about to say because they think I've said something I didn't. I recognize the value of the various Councils. And I affirm that creeds and catechisms, and commentaries may contain wonderful truths of God. But, none are inspired, even if the men were guided by God's Spirit in determining them. They aren't infallible. Only the Bible as originally given has that distinction. The decisions, interpretations, and writings of uninspired men may and do err (as your post says) and there is nothing man has done which comes close to equaling the lofty authority of that book. There is nothing that uninspired men can do which is totally free from error and totally complete. God can, has, and is preserving His truth in a body through the centuries, but it is not in an organization of men; it is in and through a living body, the one made up of an ever-changing group of members performing the various functions of the 'body of Christ' in obedience to the Head. It isn't the various 'one true church' organizations of men, but of the real one and only Church, the universal body of all believers in Christ. Thank God for the good work of uninspired men, but thank God we don't have to rely on those, but have His Spirit and His Word! Marvelous provision.


Subject: Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement.
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:21:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Yes, I'm actually enjoying this, too, since we're really talking about something. We may not be in agreement, but I think we're on parallel tracks waving at one another. >>>>>God can, has, and is preserving His truth in a body through the centuries, but it is not in an organization of men; it is in and through a living body, the one made up of an ever-changing group of members performing the various functions of the 'body of Christ' in obedience to the Head.<<<<< You are becoming more Orthodox by the moment...I agree with every word. Where Protestantism departs from Orthodoxy is that, in Orthodoxy, those Councils
were the Holy Spirit speaking. Again, see Acts and the council of Jerusalem. It the whole basis for dogma in Orthodoxy and the opposition to the papal claims. However, you can't say that the Church is a living body, without saying that it is an organization of men (and women, for that matter). That is an impossible division. Again, if you throw out everything after the NT was written, you may as well throw out the NT itself, based on the definition of Church. God became Man to save man, and the Church, the Body of Christ, is made up of men. The extreme of your logic is that I could throw out everything you say, since you are a man and therefore your words must be the words of a man, and not of God. But let's get back to the original question: how do you know something is true? If you say sola scriptura, that's fine, in as much as it excludes the Koran. However, it doesn't tell me anything about how to resolves the differences that were resolved in Council. You tell me that God has preserved His Truth, but you don't tell me how. You say it's all in the Bible. I've made a distinction between what the text says and what it means. None of our disagreement has to do with what the text says. Protestants (most of them, anyway, and some to varying degrees), Roman Catholics and Orthodox all accept the 27 books of the NT as Holy Scripture. They all agree about what it says. Where they differ is about what it means and that, ultimately, is what we're discussing, no? Christopher


Subject: Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement.
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 02:41:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher,

If I may interject here by way of your invitation from below. Although you loudly protest against the Roman state church, and to this I can certainly agree, with it's preposterous claims of being 'the authority' of truth, etc., there is much similarity between the Orthodox and Rome to which the Reformers and myself perceive. The manner of expressing where you find 'truth' in the Orthodox is certainly unlike what Rome says, but in essence the end is the same; i.e., extra-biblical authority. Now, since you have been so gracious to acknowledge that some of us are truly busy with other things and don't have the available time to participate here and/or in the manner we would really desire to (I am particularly referring to myself here among others), I sometimes must resort to the writings of others who, having had to deal with like topics/subjects have written some things which I feel are exemplary and useful to share with others. And so I will do so at this time. Consult the following if you would please as relevant words of which I would have written; given the time and talent! :-) Creeds and Confessions Sola Scriptura by Dr. Godfrey Protestant Tradition? YES You may have already read one of more of the articles referenced above. And you may protest that some of them are more directly applicable to Romish issues of authority, etc. But again, knowing that this will doubtless cause you some consternation, there exists a commonality between Rome and Orthodox versus Protestantism in the matter of authority and Scripture and the relationship between these and the 'Church' the 'faith once given to the saints'. Lastly, you simply and quickly dismissed the reality of historical progressive dogma, resting comfortably upon a presupposition that the Orthodox have in their possession the finality of all truth which was allegedly codified evidently before the end of the first century? And thus no development of dogma has taken place over the history of the New Testament Church. Well, I certainly protest and think that such a statement flies in the face of common knowledge and even common sense. Pray tell, can you give me a date whether relative or exact when all dogma was finalized; per the Orthodox of course! :-) Thanks.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement.
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:16:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, >>>Well, I certainly protest and think that such a statement flies in the face of common knowledge and even common sense. Pray tell, can you give me a date whether relative or exact when all dogma was finalized; per the Orthodox of course! :-) Thanks.<<< How about Pentecost? The only alternative that I can see is that we have to accept the Roman idea. If dogma does change, then there is no point in searching the Scriptures for what they plainly say, since something might have changed. Are you seriously maintaining that there is something different about the Faith now than in the first century? I would have strongly objected to this even before I was Orthodox. Either the true Faith was 'rediscovered,' as you say on the entrance to this forum and as so many other Protestant writers have maintained, or dogma develops, just like the Roman Catholic Church says it does. You know as well as I do, and you've said the same thing, that the Councils were defending what was already true against heresy. As far as flying in the face of common knowledge and sense, I might ask, then, to know exactly what dogmas of the Christian faith have changed since the first century. Either that, or you are making exactly the same distinction between development and change as the Roman Catholics do. But what's worse, from my perspective is that you seem to be claiming both a rediscovery of the faith of the Apostles, and that makes it look like you are trying to maintain two doctrines that are opposed to one another. Either one faith was handed down, or it wasn't. Either it has been maintained ever since, or it was lost at some point and had to be rediscovered. Christopher


Subject: Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement.
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:32:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher,

I am maintaining that the 'faith once delivered unto the saints' has not changed one iota! And I am also maintaining that the formulation of those doctrines in their details came about progressively in history. Thus the 'Councils' are to be either accepted or rejected on the basis of the Scriptures. Councils do err, since they are the product of fallible men. However, once their accuracy is determined, then they become a secondary authority in the church(es). This may leave you with an uneasiness to be sure, since that would mean that some of the 'sacred' doctrines and practices of your new found religion could be erroneous. Therefore, I am indeed maintaining BOTH, that there is ONE TRUE TRUTH, and that it was 'rediscovered, refined and restated' at various times in history. :-) I have virtually NOTHING in common with the assertions of authority and infallibility of the Roman state church. :-) Again, the three articles I referred you to set forth briefly some of the aspects of that which I hold to be true.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: As you can see, we're not in agreement.
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:54:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Like this thread, the articles prove convincingly that Rome is wrong, but do not prove that their interpretations of Scripture are correct. As you are short on time, I won't press you further on the matter. I feel no uneasiness whatsoever, but thanks again for responding. Your posts are always appreciated. Hope to talk to you soon, Christopher


Subject: I'm not a 'Protestant.'
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 20:07:48 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
All catholics refer to the rest of Christendom as 'protestants,' but that isn't so. Here is exactly where we depart: 'Where Protestantism departs from Orthodoxy is that, in Orthodoxy, those Councils
were the Holy Sprit speaking.' That is a grave error. The Holy Spirit guides and teaches, but the 'speaking,' is by the inspirtation in the Holy Scriptures which are what He uses to speak to men today. God directs men and His body, the Church, to speak about the truth of God which His Spirit has already 'spoken' in every page of that Word, but to say the Councils were the actual 'speaking' of the Spirit ascribes later writings the exact status of authority as the Bible. That's what I've objected to in your stance all along, from the beginning. And, as I say, we are not saying the same thing. We're in direct and total opposition in that doctrine. To believe that point of view, we have to rip the back cover off the Bible and start adding books. ___________________________________ Your statement: 'But let's get back to the original question: how do you know something is true? If you say sola scriptura, that's fine...' But that's not precisely what I said. I said, repeatedly and with Scriptural references, that it is by the witness of the Spirit of life within the believer taking the Word of God in the Bible and making the realization of its truth real and alive. 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God' (Rom. 10:17). That isn't restricted to the original saving faith, though that's true, but it includes and embraces the sustaining faith by which God keeps us saved. Faith in Christ is an on-going and growth experience, else there would be no purpose in God's leaving us here on earth after salvation. As laz quoted recently, 'For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' And that was said immediately after we are told to 'work out our own salvation...' See Phil. 2:12-13. We believers, by the leading and empowerment of the Holy Spirit of God, are to 'work' and to perform His purposes by His leading. That is because, 'We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2;10). The walk of Christian faith is to bring one deeper into His grace by the gifted faith and witness within. Again, you're giving other works the same status as the Bible. ________________________________________ I have to demand that you stop attributing things to me I never said. It's really unfair and shows that you're either imposing others' thoughts onto me or deliberately using it as a 'debating technique.' Here is what I mean, though this is but one example: 'Again, if you throw out everything after the NT was written....' This is a bald falsehood. I have affirmed that God has gifted us with teachers and preachers and evangelists who have gifts from the Spirit of God. But nothing they say or write is inspired. I benefit from many of the departed saints who have loved the Lord and written about their faith and insights. God has appointed these gifted individuals to open the Bible and by allowing the Spirit of God to illuminate them in faith, be able to share the insights and thoughts they have, of which some will inevitably be wrong or partially wrong because they aren't themselves inspired. They won't be wrong all the time, and some won't be wrong very often. But none is infallible. We'll all have our doctrine 'purified' when we arrive in glory. In the meantime, if the preachers/teachers don't take themselves too seriously, but do take God and His Word seriously, and the people receiving the teaching don't place them on pedestals, the Church is edified by their work (Eph. 4:11-16). __________________________________ Your words: 'The extreme of your logic is that I could throw out everything you say, since you are a man and therefore your words must be the words of a man, and not of God.' I urge you not to go to ridiculous extremes, nor to ascribe them to me. The truth is, you shouldn't accept anything I, or any other Bible teacher says, without applying the principle of Acts 17:11 to it--search the Scriptures to see if their truths are being faithfully upheld. I ask nothing more. After all, as we say here who believe in God's sovereignty, 'We don't do the convincing.' And that's really the whole point of this thread, to determine Who does. __________________________________________ Your statement: 'You tell me that God has preserved His Truth, but you don't tell me how. You say it's all in the Bible. I've made a distinction between what the text says and what it means.' No comment, except that it means what it says, and that the Spirit within the believer must illuminate it for him. _______________________________________ Your statement: 'None of our disagreement has to do with what the text says. Protestants (most of them, anyway, and some to varying degrees), Roman Catholics and Orthodox all accept the 27 books of the NT as Holy Scripture. They all agree about what it says. Where they differ is about what it means and that, ultimately, is what we're discussing, no?' No. What our present disagreement centers on is from whence is the power, ability, and enablement to interpret what it says correctly under the leadership of God. We ascribe that to vastly different sources.


Subject: Re: I'm not a 'Protestant.'
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:59:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I apologize for anything I said that caused offense. I did not mean to attack you, we are just discussing the outcomes of certain methods of thinking. You will no more throw the NT than I will rip off the back cover and start adding books. Christopher


Subject: Now this is meaningful.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:18:00 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, We're now back to the heart of the issue. :>) It seems extreme to you that I would say that about 'ripping off the cover and adding books.' But, consider this. It isn't extreme, but enitrely accurate,
if we actually believe the Holy spirit has 'spoken' directly anywhere other than the Bible. That 'speaking' immediately, by the fact of its utterance directly by the Spirit of God, becomes Scripture. It's a description of what the essence of 'Scripture' is. It would then attain exact equal status with the Holy Word. That is the whole point of my disagreement with your statements and conclusions, not just the one above, but in general. You will notice that laz has somewhere indicated that you appear to do this, just as the RCC people do. I entirely agree that it seems to be the case, though you disagree with the RCC on several issues. My distinct impression is that you rely more on what uninspired men have written than on the inspired Word of God. This is no attack, but an attempt to clearly delineate the differences we have, hopefully in an attempt to resolve them.


Subject: Re: Now this is meaningful.
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:38:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, No, I'm afraid we're back to rhetoric. Please see my response to Pilgrim regarding the development of dogma. >>>>>You will notice that laz has somewhere indicated that you appear to do this, just as the RCC people do<<<< But we aren't to judge according to appearances, are we? You disagreed with what I posted from St John Chrysostom. He was making an interpretation of Scripture. Why should I believe your interpretation over his interpretation? How do we determine who is 'rightly dividing?' To toss something out because it is 'extra-biblical' makes no sense. None of us invented our interpretations, we learned from someone. What we are discussing is who's interpretations of Scripture are correct and on what basis they should be accepted. Yes? Christopher


Subject: A Clarifacation please
From: Tom
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:50:48 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Christopher Are you saying that the Orthodox do not place men's writing on par with scripture? If so, are you also saying that, although the Orthodox do not place men's writings on par with scripture, they have the correct understanding of scripture? Tom.H


Subject: Re: A Clarifacation please
From: Christopher
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 14:27:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Tom, Rod wore me out, so this will be short. :) Christopher Are you saying that the Orthodox do not place men's writing on par with scripture? --yes If so, are you also saying that, although the Orthodox do not place men's writings on par with scripture, they have the correct understanding of scripture? --yes Tom.H


Subject: Re: A Clarification please
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 16:00:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher,

Tom wrote and you replied: Are you saying that the Orthodox do not place men's writing on par with scripture? --yes If so, are you also saying that, although the Orthodox do not place men's writings on par with scripture, they have the correct understanding of scripture? --yes Then this begs the question which YOU must answer: 'How do YOU KNOW that the Orthodox has the correct interpretation of Scripture? On what BASIS have you determined this? If it is not the infallible and inerrant Word of God, then you are trusting in fallible men!' :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: A Clarification please
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 16:43:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I keep asking the same question: How do you know which councils got the Scriptures right and which did not? What is your criteria for determining which interpretations of Scripture are right and which are not, ie--what makes your interpretation of Scripture correct and someone else's wrong? All men are indeed fallible. That is why we do not accept the decision of one man--whether it's you, me or the pope. But, as I've said before (me & Rod like to post in flurries, so you may have missed it), the standard of truth in the Christian Church is the council, established in the book of Acts, with which you are doubtless familiar. That is the Scriptural basis for decision making and that is why I can trust the decisions of the seven ecumenical councils. Christopher


Subject: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 20:53:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher,

Now that is truly a novel approach! :-) I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all, but to base your trust in the 'seven ecumenical councils' upon the gathering of Apostles, prophets and disciples at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is intriguing indeed. For you see, that my 'trust' in the great Evangelical Confessions and Creeds as SECONDARY sources is far less that your 'trust' in the 'seven ecumenical councils'. Secondly, my 'reliance' in the historic Creeds and Confessions is tempered by the fact that they are 'sub-authoritative' to the Scriptures, which ALONE are to be 'the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice.' And to this truth all the Confessions of the Evangelical Church affirm; e.g.,

The Westminster Confession of Faith: CHAPTER I: Section IV. 'The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.' (II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2.) Section IX. 'The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (Acts 15:15; John 5:46; II Peter 1:20-21). Section X. 'The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Matt. 22:29,31; Acts 28:25; I John 4:1-6). CHAPTER XX: Section II. 'God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13] 10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29 11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24 12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1 13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15 The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article VII The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Be the Only Rule of Faith: 'We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.' The French Confession: Article V: 'We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded from God,[1] and receives its authority[2] from him alone, and not from men. And inasmuch as it is the rule of all truth,[3] containing all, that is necessary for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it.[4] Whence it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers, or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees, or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures,[5] but, on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated, and reformed according to them.[6] And therefore we confess the three creeds, to wit: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, because they are in accordance with the Word of God.' 1. II Tim. 3:15-16; II Peter 1:21 2. John 3:31, 34; I Tim. 1:15 3. John 15:11; Acts 20:27 4. Deut. 4:1, 12:32; Gal. 1:8; Rev. 22:18-19 5. Matt. 15:9; Acts 5:28-29 6. I Cor. 11:1-2, 23

As you can easily see from these Confessions, to which I could add many more from various time periods, countries and of different denominations, they are unanimous in their affirmation that it is not the Confession itself that is to be trusted, but the Holy Scriptures ALONE; which are to be known by the inner working of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Confession is of secondary authority and its verity is to be judged by the very foundation on which it too rests: the teaching of the Holy Scriptures ALONE. And perchance you have read to this point, I would like to ask you to exegete for me that portion of Acts 15 which you feel lays the universal precedent for all following councils to be entrusted with divine authority and ability to determine and declare what is truth for the entire church of God? And more specifically, where in Acts 15 is the teaching that declares that the Eastern Orthodox church and its 'seven councils' are the bulwark of the truth for all believers? I will thank you now in anticipation of your reply. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 19:41:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, This post is pretty long, but it seemed warranted, given the nature of the discussion. >>>>>Now that is truly a novel approach! :-) I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all, but to base your trust in the 'seven ecumenical councils' upon the gathering of Apostles, prophets and disciples at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is intriguing indeed.<<<<< It should strike you as neither novel nor intriguing. This is the way it was done. Given your familiarity with the councils and other writings of the first milleneum, I assumed you were aware of that. Either I have overestimated the extent to which you are familiar with these documents and the people behind them, or your statements are some sort of test to gauge exactly what I know and what I don't. Now it is I who don't mean to appear sarcastic. :) Holy Scripture is indeed at the top of the list and councils second. There are also numbers three, four and five, should you be interested to know--but maybe you did. Claiming to believe in the authority of the Scriptures 'ALONE' and yet believing that there are secondary sources of authority is clearly contradictory. Either these creeds and confessions carry some weight for you or they don't. There was no ALONE until the 16th century, if you don't count heretics. >>>>>As you can easily see from these Confessions, to which I could add many more from various time periods...they are unanimous in their affirmation that it is not the Confession itself that is to be trusted, but the Holy Scriptures ALONE;<<<<< Given my statments above, I would indeed be interested in seeing a confession or two from a time period after the first century and prior to the 16th which substantiates your claim. I had always been taught that it was the 'alone' part that was 'rediscovered,' but you are always full of surprises, so I now await you. >>>>>And perchance you have read to this point, I would like to ask you to exegete for me that portion of Acts 15 which you feel lays the universal precedent for all following councils to be entrusted with divine authority and ability to determine and declare what is truth for the entire church of God?<<<<< I am no exegete. Again, this is simply the way it was done and the decisions were (and are) considered final and trustworthy. We are not told of any other councils, that I can recall, in the NT. However, this has always been the standard. I am not making it up and this claim can be substantiated in a variety of places. I would be glad to post such documentation, should you desire. >>>>>And more specifically, where in Acts 15 is the teaching that declares that the Eastern Orthodox church and its 'seven councils' are the bulwark of the truth for all believers? I will thank you now in anticipation of your reply. :-)<<<<< Well, since I don't go by Scripture ALONE, that would be difficult to do. And knowing that you don't really go by Scripture ALONE either, it would be pointless. I assume that the nature of your question, once the sarcasm has been squeezed out, relates to proof of the claim to be the true Church. It can be shown, quite easily, given the understanding of 'Church' that was assumed until a different one was invented in the 16th century. However, since you believe that the Church is absolutely invisible, or at least that we can only define it in terms of the 'invisible assembly of the elect' or some other appropriate terminology, to the exclusion of anything else, the answer would carry no credibility with you. But I will answer briefly and incompletely anyway. (It's quite possible that I'm repeating myself here. If so, I apologize.) For 1,000 years, the Church was one. Then, in 1054, it was no longer one. Then, 500 years after that, someone decided that 'Church' didn't mean what it had for the previous 1,500 years--and, I believe, you are among those who hold this latter view. If you are right, then Apostolic Christianity was indeed 'rediscovered.' But, by that definition, you cannot have it the other way, too, since everyone for those first 1,500 years thought otherwise. Well, except heretics. Anyway, if we accept the fact that the Church is one, then the reasons for that split in 1054 are significant. Interestingly enough, they have their source in the same problem that the Reformers objected to--papal supremacy. This, of course, is the theme of Luther's 95 Theses, highlighted in the false doctrine of purgatory and the odious notion of indulgences. The Orthodox Church had been maintaing for several hundred years before Luther came along that the pope was not a sovereign. It had also been maintaining in each attempt at reunion that the doctrines of purgatory and indulgeneces were false. Now, the reason why the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church, is in fact the Church which can claim to be the true Church, is that it is the Church which maintains the dogma and defnitions of these first seven councils, 'following the holy Fathers,' which continued to express the truth of Apostolic Christianity. It can show that it holds the one faith handed down for all in a concrete way, not an invisible, difficult to substantiate, we might be wrong about 20% but we're really sure about this 80%, way. The net is quite a big place and there is plenty of informtation for anyone who wants to look for it. However, if you would like the names of some 20th century Orthodox theologians whom you can read and make your own analysis of whether the Church is as it was, here are a few--Florovsky, Romanides, Schmemann, Hopko, Lossky, Meyendorff. The bottom line is that the Councils had a pretty good 'batting average.' Unless we are going to become Arians or Nestorians or non-Chalcedonians (OK, they maintain they were misunderstood and may be in communion soon) or what have you, we must admit that they 'got it right.' If there was error, this error must be clearly pointed out. However, none has been pointed out. It has only been claimed that they erred, and left at that. Therefore, it remains only a claim and, until some error is pointed out
and substantiated, it is not a valid argument. So, what I initially viewed as a 'pretty good batting' average turns out to be believed to be the infalliable guidance of the Holy Spirit. To be sure, there are local councils and other documents of the second milleneum, the contents of which are considered normative, though not of ecumenical authority. The three responses of Patriarch Jerimiah to the Lutheran theologians is an example, and is quite interesting reading. I realize this all sounds way too simplistic, given the mindbending complexities brought about by the Reformation which have led sincere, honest and dilligent people to question whether they really can know truth and how they would go about acquiring it, but it happens to be the case. Lacking knowledge of any specific error that a Council made, and understanding that those who claim the 7 Councils claim them to be guided by the Holy Spirit just as the Council in Acts 15 was, I am left to ask, why should I not accept them? What is tied to this question is an earlier question: assuming that we are accepting certain interpretations of Scripture that you and I did not personally come up with, and which happen to be articulated by men, why should I accept Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Whitefield, Owen and Edwards instead of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrystostom, Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas? Assuming that your occasionally condescending tone and sarcasm are of the good natured variety, I continue to enjoy our discussion. And please do let me know if I failed to address any of your points fully or at all. I didn't want this post to turn into a book. Talk to you soon, Christopher


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 21:35:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher, You wrote:
'I am no exegete. Again, this is simply the way it was done and the decisions were (and are) considered final and trustworthy. We are not told of any other councils, that I can recall, in the NT. However, this has always been the standard. I am not making it up and this claim can be substantiated in a variety of places. I would be glad to post such documentation, should you desire.' You faithfully keep making my points valid for me. :-) I realize that this is certainly not your intention, but I thank you just the same. You admit to being 'no exegete' and thus it would appear that you are either unable to extract your presuppositional position on the councils, or you are unwilling to accept what does not appear in the text. A further justification for my conclusion is the fact that you also admit that there is not one other reference to any other councils being recorded in Holy Writ. Secondly, it is clearly NOT the Scriptures upon which you base your trust in regards to discerning the truth, for you wrote: 'However, this has always been the standard. I am not making it up and this claim can be substantiated in a variety of places.' Would I be incorrect in assuming that these 'places' which you are willing to post are not various passages of Scripture, but rather the testimony of the Orthodox church? If so, this is surely no valid 'substantiation' for it is the validity of that organization which is in question. Quoting from them as saying that they have the authority is no different, as has been pointed out to you by me and others here, than what Rome does in their own claim to having the authority to determine what is 'truth'. It's self-serving and irrelevant to the issue in question. Further, since you have professed to believe 'Holy Scripture is indeed at the top of the list and councils second', then to use the secondary sources to 'prove' their own validity is hypocritical and contradictory on your part. Would not the proper argument be therefore to present the biblical evidence that would substantiate the Orthodox's claim that it and it's councils have been ordained by God to be the 'bearers of truth'? This certainly is what all the Reformers did when they put forth the fundamental 5 'Solas', one of which is 'Sola Scriptura'; quoting the Scriptures teaching and its own self-attestation for Divine authorship and supreme and sole authority. You ask: 'Claiming to believe in the authority of the Scriptures 'ALONE' and yet believing that there are secondary sources of authority is clearly contradictory. Either these creeds and confessions carry some weight for you or they don't. There was no ALONE until the 16th century, if you don't count heretics.' ANS: There is clearly no contradiction in holding to the supreme and sole authority of God's written Word and giving credence to documents which echo the truths found in it. I am guessing that this is just one of the weak arguments set forth by the Orthodox to try and dash Sola Scriptura and to exalt their own self-appointed position once again as being the purveyors of 'truth'? To acknowledge the Scriptures as divinely inspired to which nothing can be added or subtracted is hardly denied by acknowledging that there are summaries of its teaching in existence which are faithful in expression of those teachings. This is hardly contradictory for we do this repetitively in other myriad ways throughout our entire lives. If you are employed by a company, and your immediate supervisor tells you that the owner desires you to do such and such a thing, I doubt seriously that you refuse to acknowledge your supervisors request on the grounds that only the owner has the authority to ask anything of you! And further, you would hardly tell your supervisor that you don't acknowledge his delegated authority and you doubt that what he is telling you to do is not true; that the owner alone is capable of speaking the truth of what he wants of you, or that your supervisors requests are only paraphrases and therefore not true.!! You then erroneously wrote: 'Well, since I don't go by Scripture ALONE, that would be difficult to do. And knowing that you don't really go by Scripture ALONE either, it would be pointless.' ANS: I will assume that this was a typographical error on your part? But even if were, it is non-sensical and a blatant denial of what I have affirmed all along: SOLA SCRIPTURA, ie., The Word of God inscripturated is the FINAL and SOLE authority in ALL MATTERS of faith and practice! What is pointless is for you to try and prove by the determinations of men that they themselves are an authority unto themselves, appointed by themselves with the FINAL and SOLE authority to divest in themselves that authority to which they claim. This type of argumentation, if one can even esteem it as such, is pointless and insulting to any form of intelligent creature. It would be no different than if I said, 'I am God Almighty, because I say I am God Almighty, and being God Almighty I have the divine right to do so; and being God Almighty, I cannot lie and thus what I have just claimed is therefore indisputably true!' Again!!! This is no different that what Rome declares of itself. You then progress in your failure to grasp what I have CLEARLY written in this thread and many other places by saying: 'However, since you believe that the Church is absolutely invisible, or at least that we can only define it in terms of the 'invisible assembly of the elect' or some other appropriate terminology, to the exclusion of anything else, the answer would carry no credibility with you.' ANS: I'm sorry Christopher, but you have either not read anything I have written about the nature of the Church in the myriad messages I have written on this forum, some even to you, or you are so blinded by your own presuppositions that you have to fabricate strawman arguments out of desperation to defend an organization which is not what it claims to be. Again, this is nothing less than what Rome did and still does when confronted with the truth of God's Word. It would be more than foolish for anyone to confess that the Church of the Lord Christ is strictly and only invisible. For to do so would immediately mean that the person making that claim was not a member of the Church... unless of course that person would like to claim that they themselves were invisible! :-) After offering nothing BIBLICAL to support the claim that the Orthodox church was handed the 'keys of the kingdom' with all it's benefits and responsibilities, but only it's own self-exalting rhetoric, you had to go and write this: 'Assuming that your occasionally condescending tone and sarcasm are of the good natured variety, I continue to enjoy our discussion.' ANS: You began with erroneous statements and you end in erroneous statements which are misrepresentative of the Reformers, the doctrines of the Reformation, facts not entered into, and finally myself. I remember when you first entered into the discussions on this forum. You made the claim that you were 'considering the claims of the Orthodox church' but you had not yet joined with them; you were only reading their literature, etc. To be honest, I doubted that this was in fact your actual situation, and I have continually been assured that my initiate estimation was correct. For you are far too fervent in your defense of something which you allegedly know little about, never mind being a 'non-member'of the specific organization. Further, unless you are exceptionally gifted, it would be highly improbable that you could attain to the level of knowledge of the Orthodox dogma that you seem to have. And another interesting observation is the fact that one can hardly make a valid and intelligent decision between two things which are purportedly being considered if one only has knowledge of one side. Your lack of knowledge of the Protestant Reformation and sadly of Holy Scripture forces me to believe that this just may be a ruse on your part, OR that Orthodox believers are again much like those members of the Roman state church, who by and large have very little acquaintance with God's written Word or that part of history which exposed the Roman state church for what it really was. If, as was surely the case, that the Lord Christ was totally obedient to His Father's words; that His confession that 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from God', how can I as a professed disciple of HIM, rest in anything less? I value those men and women who God, by His Spirit has gifted in comprehending and expounding God's Word, but only in so far as they faithfully expound it. And thus I rely on God's Spirit to give me discernment as I 'test the spirits' of men against the FINAL and SOLE authority in all matters of faith and practice; the Holy Scriptures!

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:02:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Thank you again for your reply. Given the anonymous nature of the internet, assurances do not mean much, but I assure you that was raised a Baptist, and only began to read about the Orthodox Church last summer. It was the claims I was reading about that prompted me to participate in a Reformed discussion. I sincerely apologize if what I did then seemed an attempt to 'defend' Orthodoxy. My intent was merely to shake the trees and see whose claims were true. I apologize again for anything I misrepresented regarding your doctrine of 'Church.' Maybe misunderstood would be a better word. I assure you I had no intent on twisting any of your words and have been completley honest on this board. It remains that if the confessions that you claim are normative, if not authorative, for the Christian Church, then I should be able to find some substantiation for that claim. Additionally, we don't seem to be able to get to the bottom of why I should accept the interpretation of some people and not others. But I think we're probably each tired of trying to 'get' the other to see our points, so we do not need to continue. Again, assurances may or may not mean much, but I assure you that my interest here has always been educational. If I have gone about that in a way which has caused offense, I do ask your forgiveness--especially for some of my tongue-in-cheek comments. They have obviously been quite a failure. I do also want to thank you for all the times where you have been so kind to provide lengthy and very informative posts on issues such as infant baptism, etc. Thanks again, Christopher


Subject: Pilgrim, PS
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 12:16:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I don't know what it will be worth, but I will throw it out there anyway, by way of explanation. You had a suspicion that I either knew more than I let on or was particularly gifted. It was actually neither. It was simply that I did not have to work at the time last summer when I discovered Orthodoxy. I had much more time than the average working person to read and I used that time. Then, in the fall, I went back to school full time, taking some GE classes which were not very demanding. This provided further time to read. As you may recall, one of my classes was an independent study course on a related topic which required me to do even more research. I would just not want anyone here--you and Rod in particular, who have kindly taken so much time care in responding to my posts--to think that there has been any sort of deceit, whatsoever, involved with my participation on this board. Christopher


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 00:55:56 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim I am in 100% agreance with you on this. What I can't understand though is why Christopher can not exegete Acts 15. Or at least give his oppinion of what it is saying. To me, it would seem (although he said otherwise) that indeed he must place Orthodox dogma on par with scripture. I once heard a Jehovah Wittness claim that if one was stranded on a desert island. They would be better off with Watch Tower literature than the Bible, because they wouldn't be able to understand the Bible. What Christopher has said, kind of reminds me of the JW claim. Would you agree? Tom


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Christopher
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:03:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Tom, >>>>>What I can't understand though is why Christopher can not exegete Acts 15. Or at least give his oppinion of what it is saying.<<<<< Did I not say what I thought it meant? However, my reticence is to express my personal opinion as if it were absolute truth. You and I could exegete all day. If we agree, we have only established that we agree. We may certainly be correct, but all we know is that we agree with one another. >>>>>To me, it would seem (although he said otherwise) that indeed he must place Orthodox dogma on par with scripture.<<<<< If the dogma of the Orthodox Church is true, then it is Scriptural truth. If the contents of the various confessions that Pilgrim has posted are true, then they are Scriptural truth. If it is not, then it is not truth, and cannot be on par with Scripture. We are only trying to determine what is true and what is not, based on the assumption that the Scriptures are true. Where we seem to be going around in circles is how we are to know whose dogmas are actually Scriptural truth, whose interpretations are correct. I have said before that I find it unreasonable that God should preserve a text, but not the proper understanding of it. I disagreed, very early on, with the contention that the Scriptures are clear enough so that anyone can have a basic understanding of salvation. If 'all' does not mean what I would naturally think it does, and 'is' does not mean what I would naturally think it does, then I didn't see how a basic understanding of 'salvation' could logically follow. All this, in turn, brings us back to John's original question. How are we certain that we know truth? If, as Christians, we can have certainty that we know truth, then we should not have a hard time saying that something is true, and saying that we know it's true, and that we are certain that we have the faith of the Apostles and Prophets, those who wrote the Scriptures.. I offer Gene's continual objections to the Trinity as an example. Christopher PS--For the record, I think I would be fine on a desert island with only the Bible. While I would certainly wish to have works of the Fathers to read also, being alone on a desert island with the Scriptures would certainly provide one with the opportunity to struggle in prayer. While I have come to love the liturgy and hymnography of the Church that has been written over the years and which I get to experience, much of what comprises that liturgy is simply the Psalms, so I don't see what I would be lacking. When a monk goes to live in solitude, the Scriptures are often the only thing he takes with him.


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:53:21 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, You wrote something very revealing of the nature of our dispute with you in the post above. here it is : 'If the dogma of the Orthodox Church is true, then it is Scriptural truth. If the contents of the various confessions that Pilgrim has posted are true, then they are Scriptural truth. If it is not, then it is not truth, and cannot be on par with Scripture. We are only trying to determine what is true and what is not, based on the assumption that the Scriptures are true.' This is emphatically not true! 'Scritural truth' is the whole of Scripture, for it and it alone is truth. Any other writing is, if it is true, agreement with that truth, not the actual truth of Scripture itself. There is a vast, irreconcilable difference and, consequently, it is not "on a par with Scripture." If something is 'Scriptural truth,' it is, as I've been saying constistently, stated in the Bible,
THE holy Word of God. The things men write verifying their belief in and agreement with that truth are 'confessions' of their faith in that truth and testimony to their faith, not the reason for or the source of faith, as is the Bible and its truth. ________________________ You also wrote: 'How are we certain that we know truth? If, as Christians, we can have certainty that we know truth, then we should not have a hard time saying that something is true, and saying that we know it's true, and that we are certain that we have the faith of the Apostles and Prophets, those who wrote the Scriptures.. I offer Gene's continual objections to the Trinity as an example.' Your example of Gene's objections is a very faulty. Gene is, by his own testimony of rejecting the diety of Christ, self-condemned. He is not a Christian and doesn't have the necessary Spirit of God and Christ. He is lost and the enemy of God, as Rom. 8:7-9 declare. __________________________ Your statement: 'When a monk goes to live in solitude, the Scriptures are often the only thing he takes with him.' We are called, not to go into solitude and a 'monkery,' but to take the gospel into all the world. To completely isolate oneself is, in itself, a serious error.


Subject: monkery
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 14:41:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
monkery--1 b) [pl.] monastic practices or beliefs. Generally a hostile term. --Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition Wow, Rod, I thought for sure you were making that word up. Guess you really do learn something new every day! Christopher


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:47:20 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, I don't know about Pilgrim, but I'm in agreement! (Pretty sure Pilgim is too.) Christopher was mightily disturbed some months ago when I called his salvation into question. That was not a thing I do lightly for two reasons: First, only God and the individual can ultimately know about a person's status in this life; and, second, I have had the same thing said to me many times and it is offensive. But the fact remains that Christopher has no understanding of the working of the Spirit of God and denies the final authority of the Bible, placing other uninspired documents in the same league (effectively adding books to the Bible). These are clear enough signs to warrant a severe questioning and asking him to examine himself to see if he is in the faith, as Paul tells us to do in 2 Cor.13:5. Those led by the Spirit of God know that the Bible is our sole source of truth, know it undeniably. Christopher recently wrote that the councils were the '
Holy Spirit speaking (and he placed it in italics for emphasis), placing their rulings on the exact same footing as the Bible (as I advised him), in effect adding those pronouncements to the books of the Bible. That is nothing more or less than what others do who are in grave error. You pointed out that the JW's do the exact same thing. I would add the RCC, and apparently, the Orthodox. All these make the Bible dependent on outside interpretation and revelation, denying its absolute and final authority. The fact that Christopher can't see what Pilgrim means by the word 'secondary' is an extreme indication of that.


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: kevin
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 07:26:42 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
Let's try this one more time. I had posted this and then it disappeared. Regarding Christophers position on the councils it would seem that Tom is correct in his assertion of them being similar to Jehova's Witnesses' beliefs. I personally found them to be along the lines of Roman Catholic. Tradition and creeds are important but they always must answer to scripture. If councils are not in line with scripture then they are wrong. If they are in line then you can look at them as the way men hash out their beliefs of the scripture. The scriptures are always the final authority. The same can be said of the lives and individual writings of the lives of the saints. They can show us how other believers dealt with issues that could very well concern us today. But once again the bottom line is scripture. Jesus is the cornerstone and the teachings of the apostles is the foundation. We must build from there. By relying on councils equally or more so than scripture we are truly building without a foundation. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: a monitor
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 29, 2000 at 10:16:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey Kevin - I deleted your post...it was blank when I saw it...thought maybe you committed a booboo. ;-) The scriptures indicate that we are not to go beyond what is written...Paul said this....verse escapes me.
1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. And we find the NT replete with the term 'doctrine' and it's indespensible place within the life and work of the Church. Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 1Ti 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 1Ti 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: So, we are to hold the Bible as the supreme and only infallible authority and to also defend the biblically-derived doctrines of the Church (as we have codified in our historic creeds and confessions) against all satanic assaults. A Church that holds the written Word as supreme and teaches 'sound doctrine' (i.e., biblically derived), disciplines the membership in accordance with that Word, and properly administers the sacraments commanded in the Word is a TRUE Church - Christ being present and glorified. It's THAT simple...to me anyway. a monitor 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Subject: Re: The 'nitty gritty' of the matter!
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 21:19:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Without being derogatory to our friend, Christopher, I'm afraid this is the point which he just can't see, though it's been stressed several times: ',,,they [creeds and confessions, etc.] are unanimous in their affirmation that it is not the Confession itself that is to be trusted, but the Holy Scriptures ALONE; which are to be known by the inner working of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Confession is of secondary authority and its verity is to be judged by the very foundation on which it too rests: the teaching of the Holy Scriptures ALONE.' The Spirit of God making alive and real the truth and testimony of the Word of God for the believer: the cause of our knowledge, conviction, and assurance.


Subject: Not empty rhetoric.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 11:58:34 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, You've consistently and continually gone to 'Orthodox fathers' in every dispute and bought the 'party line,' from all appearances in your posts. I have no desire to read into what you say, but it seems to be the clear direction, given the body of your posts since I've been here. That is my honest assessment. You asked a legitimate question. Here it is: 'Why should I believe your interpretation over his interpretation? ' Answer: You shouldn't accept either one unless the Scriptures bear it out. That has been my point from the start. I mentioned in a recent post that I ask nothing more than that you judge what I say by the Bible. Many, many people disagree with me. That's perfectly acceptable, as long as they are doing it to agree with the Bible. BTW, you've not addressed the issue of the Holy Spirit of God 'speaking' as you represented it above. It really is
THE QUESTION in all this.


Subject: Re: Not empty rhetoric.
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 12:34:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I guess we're going in circles, since you're convinced I haven't addressed your question and I'm convinced you haven't addressed mine. Given that, we should probably stop here. I leave the last word to you. Hope to talk to you soon, Christopher


Subject: Re: Are we in agreement?
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:37:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher - The Protestants don't hold that the individual holds the final authority as he/she is guided by the Spirit. I hold no authority whatsoever. Yes, I alone am the one who has to answer to God for my life and walk, but that is not to say that I have final authority. No, the Bible is the ONLY absolute authority...and so the true believer(the Elect) WILL infallibly find a loving and drawing God within the pages of Holy Writ...a merciful God who reveals Himself to His children as He has determined to do before time. The Church (and her biblically derived teachings/doctrines) has also been granted authority and must serve and protect the flock in accordance with the infallible and inerrant Scriptures. To hold to a Church tradition primarily because it has the longest pedigree is .... foolish and decidedly unbiblical. You must be a Berean...EVEN TODAY! These nobel people did not take Paul's word for it...you shouldn't blindly take Constantinople's word for it either. God speaks thru His Word and so it is there where you must place your ultimate trust for it alone
is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb4:12) and alone 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.(2Tim 3:16) As I see it, you are currently no different than Romanists in your approach to God's truth, who uphold 'tradition' above the very words of God. Sola Scriptura, laz


Subject: laz, you and I see it the same.
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:10:08 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
And that is correctly, of course! :>) Here is the most important truth in your post: 'As I see it, you are currently no different than Romanists in your approach to God's truth, who uphold 'tradition' above the very words of God.' I've been trying to get that point over for some months.


Subject: Re: Are we in agreement?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:50:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, Thanks for your reply. Please look into the matter further, as you assume to much. Orthodox do not 'blindly take Constantinople's word for it.' >>>>>To hold to a Church tradition primarily because it has the longest pedigree<<<<< Please reread my post. I think you missed the point. Christopher


Subject: Re: Are we in agreement?
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:11:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, Thanks for your reply. Please look into the matter further, as you assume to much. Orthodox do not 'blindly take Constantinople's word for it.' >>>>>To hold to a Church tradition primarily because it has the longest pedigree<<<<< Please reread my post. I think you missed the point. Christopher
---
Christopher - perhaps I did miss your point but I am nevertheless troubled by this one you made:
Someone has to show consistency for 20 centuries in order to be trusted, and the Orthodox are the only ones I've seen do that. Is 'consistency' the barometer for truth? Hang on, you DID say: 3) the Orthodox rest authority on the Church as a whole. Is not 'pedigree' a legitimate issue? laz p.s. It's simply not human nature to take anyone's word for it (unless you posses a gullible mindest given to cultish leanings)...so of course YOU probably don't buy every jot and tittle of Greek Orthodox teachings (yet, hehe) ...but you ARE (in my opinion) making a church choice based primarily on church tradition over biblical substance. That's my point which I thought was germaine to yours. But then, what do I know? hehe


Subject: Re: Are we in agreement?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:31:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, Thank you for responding and I certainly understand where you and Rod are coming from. However, what is germaine is John's question and Pilgrim's (biblical) contentions that one faith was handed down for all. There is truth, and there is error, no? You assume that Tradition is placed
over Scripture, when Tradition, the ongoing Life of the Church, is precisely how we know what Scripture means. Your post does not address my contention that if God only preserved a text and did not also preserve the interpretation, then God has left believers as orphans to duke it out amongst themselves. The Ethiopian's question to Philip and Paul's letters to Timothy clearly indicate that Christian truth is something that is received, passed down. The Bible is not a Calculus text, in which all truth can be arrived at with enough study and enough brains. We do not understand the mystery of salvation like we came to understand the second law of thermodynamics. So, we must ask, is all 'tradition' bad? Or is there such a thing as Tradition? A criterion for Truth? If we hold that God preserved the texts of a few letters from some fishermen to some followers, a couple of letters from a convert doctor to a friend, a letter from another low-class fellow to converts from the scattered 12 tribes, and notes from the vision of an exile, I don't see why it's such a stretch to say that God has preserved a means by which all those desiring to know Truth can understand those texts. I don't know whether consistency is a barometer for truth, but that consistency impressed me, given the lack of consistency in western Christendom since the Reformation. What I do know are barometers for Truth in the Christian Church are universality, antiquity and consent. These benchmarks were accepted very early on (the first documentation I know of is Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century). The only people I see claiming sola scriptura in the first milleneum are those that end up being declared heretics by ecumencial councils. I could ask, if the concept of sola scriptura went horribly wrong then, why is it right now? Thanks for your participation in the conversation, by the way. I'm really not here to argue and I sincerely enjoy discussing matters of substance. Christopher


Subject: Forgot one thing, Rod...
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:33:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If 2 Peter was written to the Church, should we not also assume that I John was, as well?


Subject: To imply that I've said otherwise is completely false, Christorpher. n/t
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:19:09 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: To imply that I've said otherwise is completely false, Christorpher. n/t
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:29:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>>The emphasis is on how God leads His child, not just 'exalted leaders,' but every one who is His own, to know whether any teacher is actually of God or not. 'Let that, therefore, abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning...But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him' (1 John 2:24; 27). What can that mean? 'Ye need not that any man teach you.' But John was a man and he was teaching as he said it. John, writing by inspiration, revealed that God's indwelling Spirit is our first and primary Teacher. He will confirm to His own what is His truth by the standard of its agreement with the Bible. If any man tells you he has a corner on the truth and that God can only be known through his interpretation, he is to be shunned and avoided.<<<<< Rod, I believe we must be very careful with this passage. Some have taken it to mean that all one needs is his Bible and he can go through his Christian life without harm, being taught directly by the Holy Spirit. Only we know that when people claim that, they are usually wackos. Yes? As much as I was confused by the furor surrounding 2 Peter, this passage causes me similar concern, since St John is most definitely not saying that just because I read my Bible and pray, I have the annointing and don't need anyone to teach me. As Pilgrim said, a text without a context is merely a pretext. I believe wholeheartedly in that maxim. Christopher


Subject: That would be a totally false interpretation of my point.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 17:37:42 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, Please re-read the post. There is no way to get where you arrived from what I wrote.


Subject: See?
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 18:02:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
We get five. Then we have to wait a few days... :) Talk to you soon, Christopher


Subject: You must understand something else.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 20:27:12 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Passion and intensity don't mean that I'm angry. I do object strenuously when one doesn't read what I say and directs others' thoughts and mistakes to me. I've met a few deluded individuals who take the "no man" too far. But, if you read my posts, you cannot conclude that about me. And, the reason it disturbs me is that I think you know/knew that. If you want to discuss and not debate, I'm ready. But we must be fair to one another and not take what one another says to extremes to prove our own points. That isn't honest or ethical.


Subject: Re: Forgot one thing, Rod...
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:39:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If 2 Peter was written to the Church, should we not also assume that I John was, as well?
---
Christopher - I believe the entire canon of scripture was written for the Elect...since they are the only ones who will ever derive any benefit from it...since they alone understand it and will ever heed it with a saving faith granted freely to them by God. The rest are condemned by God's word. laz


Subject: Re: Forgot one thing, Rod...
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:51:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
So there is a distinction between the Elect and the Church?


Subject: Re: Forgot one thing, Rod...
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 16:02:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
So there is a distinction between the Elect and the Church?
---
Depends on the context. Not all who go to church are of the Elect (visible church contains wheat and tares)...and not all outside the visible Church are reprobate for God has always maintained a remnant not always visible but eventually coming out in the fullness of time (like me 7 yrs ago). In otherwords, there are some of the Elect wandering in darkness...obviously. So, if I understand the intent of your question, the Bible was written for the benefit of the Elect...but clearly given to the visible Church where the Elect will eventually find themselves in accordance with God's timing. In Him, laz


Subject: Wesley & Whitefield musings
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:10:49 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
(I'm somewhat reluctant to post this because I've posted so much lately and I don't want to dominate the board. But these thoughts persist.) As I read (possilby re-read) Wesley's sermon, which Christopher provided by link the other day, I had several impressions, ideas, and feelings. Naturally, the foremost one was that he was dead wrong in his conclusions! However, having been one and having dealt with Arminians quite a bit since God changed my mind, I was also strongly impressed with this thought: This is the most clear expression of the Arminian position I've encountered! It's outstanding in that regard, while simultaneously being 'brilliantly flawed!' The obvious flaw is, of course, that he has lifted so many things out of context, including citing 2 Peter 3:9, which, if looked at honestly in context, is really a convincing argument for his opponents, as is John 3, when carefully examined. But there is a more serious error, harder to detect because one is concentrating on so many aspects of the presentation at once. Our attention is deflected from the underlying fallacy behind most Arminian's approach to the problem presented them by sovereign grace. That fallacy is that they ascribe the concept and its foundations to ordinary, uninspired men, rather than where it properly belongs: to the Lord God, as expressed through His Son, His Apostles, and the other Bible authors in the inspired Word. Instead of taking a hard look at what God says about His plan and work, they want to sweep aside the things which bother them, many getting extremely angry when it's demonstrated that 'predestination' is a word actually used in the Bible, more than once, and that it is, as Whitefield used the term,
PREDESTINATION TO LIFE, not death. And that life is the life of the Son of God, Who is God. It is life eternal. And, though the offer of salvation goes out to all the world generally, it isn't made effectual to all men specifically, only to the 'predestinated to life.' Why use that particular term, 'predestinated to life?' Very simple. God says it. And He says it resoundingly. Twice. 'For whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate.' Pretty simple. Even I got it. Foreknowledge, in a special, loving, merciful way, brought on His predestination. It should be obvious that it is a particular kind of 'foreknowledge,' because it says 'whom.' Now He knew beforehand that He would create whomever He created, but some were chosen, for no reason we can see, for a special distribution of God's love called 'predestination.' That this cannot be all men ever living is made obvious by the completion of the sentence and the context of he verse. It is directed at a specially selected group, easily identifiable after a certain point in time, because of what they are 'predestinated' to: 'he also did predestinate [them] to be conformed to the image of his Son.' Anyone ultimately conformed to the image of His Son, and anyone being conformed to that image in personal sanctification ('growing in grace,' etc.), is pretty readily identified, if his life is studied. The holy Son of God was strikingly singular when He walked here. Those indwelt by His Spirit must reflect that unique way of life, that spectacular devotion and allegiance to God which He displayed (though most obviously to a lesser degree): 'Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy' (Ps. 107:2). As the moon reflects the glory of the sun, so we should show forth the Son of God, even as we pale in comparison. That this wonderful thing is the purpose and express planning, as well as the accomplishment, of the Lord God is made doubly plain from the other mention of the word 'predestination,' found in Eph. 1. 'According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, {purposing that] we should be holy and without blame before him, in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will' (verses 4-5). The 'adoption of sons,' meaning adult sons, sons who inherit, 'joint-heirs with Chrsit' (Rom. 8:17) because the grace of our wonderful God has 'predestinated us' to be 'conformed to his image' so that, as the final part of Rom. 8:29 announces, 'he might be the first born among many brethren.' That is simply incredible! We who deserve eternity in hell are presented to God as 'in Christ,' actually 'brethren' by imputation of His righteousness. We are, 'in Him,' children, sons of God, exalted beyond any and all expectation by His grace. The announcement to the Father and all creation by the Lord Jesus: 'Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me' (Heb. 2:13). What right-thinking child of God can hate and reject that truth and that sovereign grace?


Subject: Can we have an effect on God?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:26:15 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I posted this on another forum but received little response, so I thought I'd see what y'all think. For the last week I have been mulling and pondering up a veritable storm over whether or not we can actually cause the Lord our God to feel sad, or angry, or regretful, or increase or decrease His happiness in any way, shape, or form. Now, the Old Testament, in particular, says that we can. Of course, it also says that He possesses hands, feet, eyes, etc., so there you go. The more I mull and ponder, the more it seems to me that if we can have any effect on Him, then He cannot be either omniscient nor omnipotent. This is actually part of a larger question, but I would rather hear your views without your knowing what I'm trying to work out. It has been interesting, verging on unnerving, as to where following either 'yes' or 'no' to its logical conclusion takes me. Thanks! Anne


Subject: YES!
From: Gene
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 11:26:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, Look at Exodus 32:9-14. Moses was able to 'reason' with God. In fact, God changed his mind BECAUSE of what Moses said to Him. If Moses could not have an effect on God then why did God ask Moses to '...leave him alone'?


Subject: Re: Can we have an effect on God?
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:07:22 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, You really like to play in the deep end of the pool, don't you? :>) Not being a theologian and not being particularly 'deep,' my contribution won't be particularly valuable. Here are some thoughts anyway. It seems to me that what you've posed is best worked out as you've already done it in this statement: 'The more I mull and ponder, the more it seems to me that if we can have any effect on Him, then He cannot be either omniscient nor omnipotent.' This I regard as true and the starting point. The other day, someone trying to ridicule the idea of sovereign grace, foreordination of God position, asked me this: 'Does God determine the direction of the bird in flight or does He determine every flap of his wings?' (That would an approximation of the question.) My reply was, 'Yes.' In the large and ultimate sense, God has determined all things which come to pass, but He hasn't done so in the sense that He directly and morally causes people to sin against Him. Very important to keep that in mind about the moral responsibliity. So, nothing surprises Him; nothing is learned by Him. Then, why is it said that He is moved and feels emotions by things we do? I think He legitimately feels these emotions of anger, sorow, etc.. He feels them and He has determined in His foreordination that He will feel them specifically at certain, specific actions of men, to reveal to men His character, outlook, and nature. What must He have felt as His Son was being crucified, and that on 'trumped up' charges? (What would a human parent's reaction be to such a scenario?) We actually aren't told exactly what God's emotions were, except that we're told, 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him!' (Is. 53:10). What to any human parent would be a horror of gigantic proportions, God foredained for His ultimate pleasure: 'Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain....Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:23; 36). Whatever emotions of outrage, sorrow, anguish, and sadness God felt at that event were part of, and immersed in, His grand design to satisfy His own anger against believers' sins and to resurrect to glorification the Son in Whom He emphatically declared He was, 'well pleased.' He did it so that men might please God: 'Without faith it is impossible to please God...' (Heb. 11:6). Faith pleases God, and makes Him pleased with men who possess it, for the pure and simple reason that it honors the only Man in Whom He has pleasure, the God-Man, Christ Jesus. God's whole purpose in dealing with man is to glorify Himself through His Son. He has intended that man's faith cause Him pleasure and He has brought it about for His pleasure. A search of the concordance for words such as ' please,' 'pleasing,' 'well pleased,' and 'pleasure' in relation to our God can be very interesting and rewarding, revealing such passages as Eph. 1:5 and Rev. 4:11.


Subject: amen Rod
From: kevin
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:16:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I would disagree with you on one point: 1) If you love God and seek to know Him better and to know more about Him by studying His word then you are a theologian. I can post some of your replies to me for proof as well. Also, I find God's reply to Job a wonderful treatment on exactly how in control God is. He controls the path of the lightening bolt. Now to me that is something to be in awe of. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Amen, Kevin, and thank you.
From: Rod
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:30:13 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: ShowUS ShowMe
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:34:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear SM - since you seem to be having trouble conveying your views on 'sin nature' to some of us...perhaps someone who believes as you do can do a better job. Can you direct us to another theologian who shares your views? Can you direct us to this persons works and thoughts, in particular, his/her explanation of the effects (or non-effects) of the Fall? laz


Subject: Re: ShowUS ShowMe
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 18:02:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear SM - since you seem to be having trouble conveying your views on 'sin nature' to some of us...perhaps someone who believes as you do can do a better job. Can you direct us to another theologian who shares your views? Can you direct us to this persons works and thoughts, in particular, his/her explanation of the effects (or non-effects) of the Fall? laz
---
Laz, I didnít think that I was having any trouble at all conveying my views on an inherited sin nature, I thought that they were pretty plain. As far as I can tell, the doctrine of an inherited sin nature is an unnecessary man made doctrine that does away with all moral responsibility and in doing that does away with sin itself. Sin without free will is not sin, it is necessity. Either that, or only Christians, those with a new nature, the 'two nature people,' are the only ones that can actually sin. As for other theologians that may share this view, Iím sure that there are some. As King Solomon said, thereís nothing new under the sun :o) but I donít know of any offhand. Iíve studied Godís word for some 30 years and for most of that time I just accepted doctrines as true because they were so widely held. I just overlooked or tried to explain away the contradictions between them. In this particular case I noticed that Calvinism, which so abhors any notion of free will, had the doctrine of 'free agency' which is a convoluted way of having 'free will' while saying there is no free will. Itís simply not necessary and it does no harm to do away with the doctrine of some inherited sin nature that people can blame their sin on. Saying 'Adam made me do it' is not that much different than saying 'the devil made me do it' and 'the devil made me do it' is closer to Scripture. Sincerely, ShowMe P.S. I really donít think that it is fruitful to discuss this on this forum. I have several questions that I was hoping could be answered here. I was wrong, people are way to defensive and dogma rules :o)


Subject: Re: ShowUS ShowMe
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:53:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe - OK, now you've made your point clear...to me, anyway (you have been clear all along, I guess I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt not wanting to believe that you would so easily dismiss such a clear and necessary doctrine of the Faith)...you just don't see the doctrine in question in the scriptures....'responsibility' allegedly being negated causing you heartburn. OK, then can you pls exegete Act2:23 for me? I'm sure you have stumbled upon this sticky verse in the last 30 yrs.
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: And what 'responsibility' do these folks have who have been fitted for destruction by the potter who sovereignly created them for a specific purpose? 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? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And this last one.... Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. In Him, laz P.S. Your objections (summarized below) have been duly noted for all eternity: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (Rom 9:18-19)


Subject: Re: ShowUS ShowMe
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 08:20:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, Iím certainly familiar with the verses of Scripture that you quoted but they have absolutely nothing to do with an inherited sin nature. The doctrine of an inherited sin nature is completely unnecessary to uphold the truths of the verses you mentioned. I really donít see how you make the connection. Laz, this is pointless, I was looking for answers, nothing is set in stone for me on this subject but I must tell you that I doubt if anyone here has ever questioned this doctrine, traced it to its roots and found out just how much damage it does to Christianity and Godís word. Millions worship Mary because of this doctrine. Millions more do not comprehend what it does to the nature of our Substitute and countless numbers take no responsibility for their actions, believing that they cannot help but sin because they have 'two nature', split personalities, and they never know which one will take control. All of this, and more, from, as far as I can see, a totally useless doctrine. Thank you for your participation, but I really donít think that there is much use in continuing this discussion. I will look elsewhere for answers on this subject. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: ShowUS ShowMe
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 14:21:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, Iím certainly familiar with the verses of Scripture that you quoted but they have absolutely nothing to do with an inherited sin nature. The doctrine of an inherited sin nature is completely unnecessary to uphold the truths of the verses you mentioned. I really donít see how you make the connection. Laz, this is pointless, I was looking for answers, nothing is set in stone for me on this subject but I must tell you that I doubt if anyone here has ever questioned this doctrine, traced it to its roots and found out just how much damage it does to Christianity and Godís word. Millions worship Mary because of this doctrine. Millions more do not comprehend what it does to the nature of our Substitute and countless numbers take no responsibility for their actions, believing that they cannot help but sin because they have 'two nature', split personalities, and they never know which one will take control. All of this, and more, from, as far as I can see, a totally useless doctrine. Thank you for your participation, but I really donít think that there is much use in continuing this discussion. I will look elsewhere for answers on this subject. Sincerely, ShowMe
---
SHow ME - now I'm really lost...for I thought that those verses show God determining the final estate of men from eternity past, YET, holding them fully responsible for their willful sin. Acts 2:23 shows this clearly where we see men being held RESPONSIBLE who seem to be ordained to have acted as determined/foreknown by God. This is EXACTLY your distaste with inherited sin nature for it holds men RESPONSIBLE for sins they can't help themselves from commiting. NO? You say that an inherited sin nature is bogus but believe in the imputation of sin upon all men. You say that men are all guilty but do not have a corrupt nature as a direct result of Adam's fall? Do you then believe (it must logically be so) that we have remained essentially as Adam was IN THE GARDEN in terms of our prestine spirtual nature? Is this what you're saying? Again, that we don't have a 'sinful nature/disposition'? Yes or no, please? I really want to understand where you are coming from. Then you say:
and countless numbers take no responsibility for their actions, believing that they cannot help but sin because they have 'two nature', split personalities, and they never know which one will take control. Like who???? Do you also deny that the spirit and the flesh are at war within our members as Paul teaches? Gal5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. laz p.s. It is I who see absolutely no connection with Mariology (and impugning Jesus Christ's human nature) and this inherited sin nature doctrine of ours. Many people take perfectly good doctrines and pervert them....that doesn't make the doctrine bad.


Subject: ShowMe
From: Christopher
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:47:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe, As Pilgrim told me during a discussion on original sin, and I'm sure he must have mentioned it to you but I didn't read the last thread, Calvinists do not believe that the source of our problem as humans is inherited. It is imputed. At some point, Adam's sin is imputed to every man. If this were not the case, then Christ's righteousness could not be imputed. As he told me, without the imputation of Adam's sin,
there can be no imputation of Christ's righteousness. The distinction is that important. While it may seem a fine distinction to you, it's one way of getting dead babies out of Roman Catholic limbo or, worse, hell--which is one of the problems the reformers had to deal with. So, if you are going to believe in sola fide as defined by the Reformers, then the problem of sin must, in fact, be defined just as Pilgrim has probably given it to you and has given it to me in a past discussion. It is not exactly Augustinian, but Augustine is where it comes from. Disagree with Augustine and you remove yourself from 1,600 years of western theology--both Roman Catholic and Protestant. But, if you agree with him on justification and not the imputation of sin, you either have a wrong diagnosis of the disease or the wrong cure. If you don't accept one, you can't accept either of them. I may think some folks here can get a little too worked up at times, but I wouldn't question Pilgrim's knowledge of Reformed doctrine. I've come to the conclusion that if you call yourself Reformed in any sense, you should probably agree with him. His explanations of the mess man finds himself in, and the way out, are at least consistent with one another. It's a package deal. If, however, you reject the imputation of Adam's sin to every man, but maintain the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer as Pilgrim would/has explained it, I would very much like to know how you make those two views fit together, as they are totally incompatible. Christopher PS to Pilgrim--Please do correct me if I misstated your position in any way, but I hope I got this gist of our past conversation right. After the Whitefield/Wesley thread, I sure hope so!


Subject: Re: ShowUS ShowMe
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:52:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe,

Surely you are now resorting to 'humor' when you state that ' I have several questions that I was hoping could be answered here.'? Questions? All you have done since your entrance on this forum is state that one of the cardinal doctrines on which this web site is founded upon and one which ALL the churches of ALL the major denominations which came out of the Reformation have echoed, regardless of their other differences is 'unnecessary and harmful and unbiblical'. You haven't asked a question at all. This doctrine has been affirmed as being the teaching of the Word of God from the beginning although it wasn't officially put forth in a succinct manner until the Council of Orange in the sixth century. But you come along and in one fell swoop and with no biblical evidence whatsoever think to topple the giants of the church and their theology. I don't know what you have gained over your 30 years of 'studying the Bible', but one thing I DO know you haven't learned.... humility. I have often been amazed at people such as yourself, who can't find a handful, or in your case, even ONE single individual who holds to what you propose. Further, I would give almost anything to be able to see you stand face to face and toe to toe with some of the great and godly men which the church has been blessed with, e.g., John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, William Hendriksen or John H. Gerstner and tell them that their views are 'unnecessary and unbiblical', ROFL... If it were possible, they would show you to be more of an arrogant man than you are. You been SHOWN both the truth and how your unique heresy is wanting both from Scripture and reason. But it is very clear that no one is going to show you anything. Me thinks that you have become a legend in your own mind! Narcissism is not an attribute to be coveted. I suggest you reconsider both your view(s) and your spiritual state.

In His Electing Grace, Pilgrim 2Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


Subject: Argumentum ad Populum
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 08:23:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, You seem to rely upon, Argumentum ad Populum, Ad Fidentia, Ad Hominem, well poisoning, ridicule, Ad Ignorantiam, Argumentum ad Verecundiam, instead of sticking to the written Word of God. I suppose this latest diatribe of yours was designed to prove to me that you truly do have a sin nature that makes you behave in such an ill-mannered way? Iíve also noticed that you have a tendency towards man worship in your idolization of those that have formulated the doctrines that you hold, but this doctrine of a sin nature, like many others, comes from the Roman Catholic Church. The reformation is not over, Protestants still have many of the errors of the Roman Church, and this doctrine of an inherited sin nature seems to me to be one of them. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Argumentum ad Populum
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 12:12:22 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
ShowMe The only problem with what you say, is that you are the only one that believes it! You must be the only faithful one to the scriptures in all of Christendom. Personally, the fact that man has a sin nature should not even be discussed, it is obvious to any serious Bible student. I wouldn't mind it if you had a problem with just how much our sin natures effect our choices. Unless you can proove that man doesn't have a sin nature, via both the word of God and other soarses, then please don't waist anymore of our time. Again I ask, don't you think it odd that you are the only one who doesn't believe in the 'Sin Nature' of man? Are you more knowledgable than every great man of woman that has gone before you? Tom Tom


Subject: Re: Argumentum ad Populum
From: ShowMe
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 12:46:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe The only problem with what you say, is that you are the only one that believes it! You must be the only faithful one to the scriptures in all of Christendom. Personally, the fact that man has a sin nature should not even be discussed, it is obvious to any serious Bible student. I wouldn't mind it if you had a problem with just how much our sin natures effect our choices. Unless you can proove that man doesn't have a sin nature, via both the word of God and other soarses, then please don't waist anymore of our time. Again I ask, don't you think it odd that you are the only one who doesn't believe in the 'Sin Nature' of man? Are you more knowledgable than every great man of woman that has gone before you? Tom Tom
---
ShowMe, You wrote:
'The only problem with what you say, is that you are the only one that believes it!' Iím very sure that Iím not the only one that entertains the idea that the doctrine of an inherited sin nature is not Scriptural. You wrote: 'You must be the only faithful one to the scriptures in all of Christendom.' And: 'Unless you can proove that man doesn't have a sin nature, via both the word of God and other soarses, then please don't waist anymore of our time.' You obviously do not know, and did not look up the meaning of Argumentum ad Populum! I did not come to this forum to prove anything, nor to attack anyoneís cherished doctrines. I have legitimate questions on this and other subjects and I was looking for answers. You keep asking me to prove something that does not exist, something that is not in Godís word. You want me to use Godís word to prove something that, as far as I can tell, is simply not there. As for wasting anymore of your time, I have tried to end this dialogue several times, but people just keep bringing it up. Why do you keep asking me questions? Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Argumentum ad Populum
From: lazarus
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 14:59:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe - Hear me out one last time and I WILL leave you alone. hehe I believe the doctrines we hold dear only exist because they have been biblically and prayerfully derived over centuries, tested, defended, tested, defended,..... You have been shown a myriad of scriptures, in context, consistent with our entire body of doctrines stemming centuries across denominational lines from gifted teachers, so forgive me if I must insist that YOU prove us wrong, using scripture of course, and not your vain imagination. While it may be true that the EXACT wording, 'man has inherited a sin nature as a result of the fall' does not exist in scripture, neither is the Trinity declared directly in one fell swoop. But through the Holy Spirit teaching the Church through the whole counsel of God faithfully applied, we have arrived at both of these essential and blessed doctrines. They work, they fit...they have withstood the test of time and the onslaught of heretics. So, it seems to me that you DO have something to disprove and have yet to do so. Unless you don't mind being outside the household of faith. I believe God doesn't waste words and wrote: Gen 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; hmmm, interesting. Adam was created in the image of God...but Seth....that's another story. What happened between Adam's creation and Seth's birth? Furthermore, after Adam was created, God said it was good. Do you think God felt that SAME WAY when we were born? He regretted creating humanity by the sixth chapter of Genesis! Can you at least humor us with a plausible defense of your position? laz


Subject: Re: Argumentum ad Populum
From: Gene
To: lazarus
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 04:27:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, Your wrote: Furthermore, after Adam was created, God said it was good. Do you think God felt that SAME WAY when we were born? He regretted creating humanity by the sixth chapter of Genesis! Actually, He said it was 'very good!' And, yes, He still says it today. After the flood in Gen 9 He still declares that we are made in His image, SAME language found in Gen 1:26. It is not 'somewhat in my image,' or 'almost in my image.' I know the 'inherited sin' people will try and dispute this but it is right there in the text!


Subject: Re: Argumentum ad Populum
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 13:50:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, Your wrote: Furthermore, after Adam was created, God said it was good. Do you think God felt that SAME WAY when we were born? He regretted creating humanity by the sixth chapter of Genesis! Actually, He said it was 'very good!' And, yes, He still says it today. After the flood in Gen 9 He still declares that we are made in His image, SAME language found in Gen 1:26. It is not 'somewhat in my image,' or 'almost in my image.' I know the 'inherited sin' people will try and dispute this but it is right there in the text!
---
************ Gene - No one is disputing that all men are created
in the image of God (UNLIKE animals), possessing His communicable attributes (1Cor11:7). In fact, what we find being articulated in Gen 9 is God reminding Noah that human life is sacred on account of whose image it is patterned after, even if God did just eliminate 99% of it in the flood. Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. So, I still maintain that Adam's originally created 'image' certainly lost it's luster after he fell. He 'died' in spirit on THAT day just as God said. Notice this: Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Something happened somewhere for us to need renewing...to have to put on this 'new man'! Seth was created after his father's image and likeness... while still patterned after God...but definately tainted, dulled, etc, by a new fallen human nature whose every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen 6:5), even as mine was before God poured out His grace thru the washing of regeneration - for we have been predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29)...and not patterned after the now fallen image of the first Adam whereby all are born DEAD and in need of being REBORN from above. Keep trying, Gene. Hopefully some day you'll 'get it'. laz


Subject: Re: ShowUS ShowMe
From: Prestor John
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:45:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Ahhh so your reply is this: that there is none that hold to this particular heresy besides yourself. If there really were theologians of this ilk you could point them out. Plus you still haven't provided scriptural support for your system!!!! You say we are way too defensive and that dogma rules. In reality we are scriptural (and we have provided scripture for our beliefs ) and that is what rules our lives as opposed to yourself. 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you. Prestor John Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem!!


Subject: Are we who oppose Arminianism able
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:56:04 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
to deal fairly with 1 Tim. 2:1-6, particularly verses 4 and 6? There are some special 'problem verses' for both the Arminian and for those who espouse predestination. This is one which is a 'problem' for the supporters of predestination/election, one of the most effective passages in the Arminian 'arsenal.' How do we deal with this section? And have we dealt fairly with it traditionally. The Arminians say, 'No,' in the site Anne posted below. What say ye?


Subject: Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 18:20:02 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. I must confess that this one is a bit of a poser, Rod. Due to the first and second verses, it certainly sounds as if the
'all' Paul used could not mean the elect exclusively.


Subject: Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able
From: Prestor John
To: Anne
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:12:37 (PST)
Email Address: prestor_john@hotmail.com

Message:
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. I must confess that this one is a bit of a poser, Rod. Due to the first and second verses, it certainly sounds as if the
'all' Paul used could not mean the elect exclusively.
---
On the contrary it is an easy answer as long as one is able to examine the entire issue. The thought here being is that God wants all men to be saved the all being the every person who has ever lived. But that is without taking into consideration how God saved people before. Before salvation was from the Jews the Gentiles were excluded (John 4:22). No longer, the wall of seperation has been taken away (Eph. 2:14). So in this verse Paul is saying that all men (meaning all types of men; both Jew and Gentile) need to be prayed for and that God desires them to be saved. This obviously refers to the elect. See the attached link. Prestor John Servabo Fidem An Exegetical Study of 1Timothy 2:4 www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/1Tim2.4.html


Subject: Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able
From: Gene
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:01:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, But that is without taking into consideration how God saved people before. Before salvation was from the Jews the Gentiles were excluded (John 4:22). What about this verse?: Amos 9:7 Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel? says the LORD. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir? This verse CLEARLY shows that Israel was not the only nation that had an exodus. So if you are talking in terms of 'saved' people in the OT (as per OT terminology) then we see other nations being delivered. We don't read about it because the OT is about God working through His chosen people, the Jews. You wrote: This obviously refers to the elect Why? Cause you say it does?


Subject: Re: Are we who oppose Arminianism able
From: Prestor John
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 20:26:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know Gene Kevin has answered the question concerning the Old Testament and the different people groups and I have nothing to add to that. Way to go Kevin! As for your last comment: You wrote: This obviously refers to the elect Why? Cause you say it does?
No, not because I said, because it is the most logical exegesis of the text. And I've not only said this but so has any number of people before this. For that matter see the link that I attached to the original message.


Subject: Tell me ALL about it . . . .
From: Anne
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:37:20 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
All these
alls! Is the same Greek word used for all (oh, that word!) of them? 1) first of all 2) made for all men 3) all men that are in authority 4) all godliness and honesty 5) all men to be saved 6) a ransom for all


Subject: All
From: Howard
To: Anne
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 20:18:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, So then when Ceaser taxed all the world, did that also include North America? We must not forget that the context determines the final meaning of the word. If someone told you that your car is running, would you then also think it had legs? In Him Howard


Subject: What the heck would you do if I said 'Yes'?
From: Anne
To: Howard
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:37:30 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I am well aware that in most places
all means every type of people, from every nation, not every human inclusive. However, due to the 'kings, and all in authority' phrase,as well as the 'first of all', plus the 'all godliness and holiness', all (meaning all) of which sounds to me as if Paul meant all in its most inclusive, commonly-understood sense, it does strike me as a trifle peculiar that in the next sentence he suddenly switched to the exclusive sense of the word. Possibly he just wasn't thinking much about that, being anxious to get on to the main point of his letter. Common vernacular is, after all, that to which we default.


Subject: lengthy but i hope helpful
From: kevin
To: everyone
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 05:10:54 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
To all, I have to say that Prestor John has a strong point on the issue of Paul speaking of 'all' in the sense of the Gentiles being added into God's plan of salvation. First let me address the Amos verse. Did God make a covenant with any other nation besides Israel? No. What was God's view of the Ethiopians? As those outside of the covenant. The Amos verse actually tells us that God is rebuking Israel for pride. They took for granted their favor with God. That is why this shepherd was made a prophet. Remember that Amos was not of the religious schools of his days. He was reminding the religious leaders of his time that they had turned from God and that they had a special relationship with God that the other nations did not have. However, God had shown favor on other nations as well but not in the covenantal sense He did with Israel. Remember it was God who gave Babylon the power to overtake Israel. It was God who empowered the Assyrians to overtake Israel too. The Assyrians were raised up over the children of Israel to correct the Israelites of their sin. The Assyrians were prideful and did not praise God for their victory but themselves. God had already pronounced judgement over them and worked it out by using them to overthrow Israel then devastating the Assyrians later. So basically Amos is telling Israel to not take for granted their covenant with God. Their deliverance was not the only one, but it was the only one where God watched over the nation as a loving father. Now Tim. 2:1-2. Paul is displaying the soveriegnty of God. Remember, God ordained all authority on the earth. That is reason enough to pray for all men. Secondly, since we do not know who the elect are this is a way that we can best understand evangelism. Present it to all. Remember the parable of the sower. Verse 3 tells us that this is good and acceptable. By praying for and supporting those put in authority over us we also praise God. With this veiw in mind the rest of verse makes sense. Since God commands us to pray, supplicate, intercede, and give thanks for all men. To commit ourselves to the services of those who are in authority over us. By doing this we are a light to the world. Since God desires all men (matter of men would be an acceptable translation) to be saved, then let us not blemish the name of God by resisting the earthly authorities He has put over us but rather pray for them and live peaceably amoung those of the world. Sorry it is so long, In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Why not affirm...
From: E.V.
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:46:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
that God desires all men to be saved? This concept when taken with election, is no more of a contradiction than God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Yet most people here don't seem to have a problem with that. Why is there an urge to twist scripture to fit a certain doctrine? Same thing with John 3:16. It seems to me that one can affirm that God does desire all men to be saved and that only the elect are, and leave the rest up to mystery. Sort of like God's will that we be sinless, but at the same time decreeing man's sin. Or that God does not delight in the death of the wicked, but at the same time creating people for the express purpose of displaying His wrath. In Christ, E.V.


Subject: Re: John 3:16
From: Pilgrim
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:43:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
E.V.

Please forgive me for using a message I posted in this forum several months ago, but my time is limited at present and thus I am not able to answer you extempore. The matter of John 3:16 was thrashed out here at that time and a couple of months later and here are my replies. With all due respect to Dr. Carson, who I admire in most things, I feel, that if he holds that John 3:16 teaches ANY form of universality concerning the love of God, he is in error.

* * * * *

Well, I do think it would matter indeed if it referred to 'all mankind' in the sense of every single individual that was, is and ever will be. The other problem is that as you have rightly stated, other Scriptures define who these believers are, i.e., all those who were given to the Son and to whom it is given the ability to have faith. Thus, there would be a contradiction here, and we know that God doesn't 'stutter' or speak with a 'forked tongue'! :-) As I have laboured to show, this text, so misunderstood today due to the rampant Semi-Pelagian influence which has swept the churches, speaks of God's 'PURPOSE' to rescue 'the elect in all the world, i.e., believers' from perishing. The MEANS for accomplishing His purpose was in the sending of His Son to atone for them. And the motivation to do this was His incomprehensible love. This is how the text is properly rendered grammatically and exegetically. The 'world' can indeed be viewed as encompassing the entire human race 'generically', that is as a conglomerate made up of sinners. But this also does not in any way connote 'all mankind indiscriminately and inclusively', but rather it is a perspective of God as He views men as fallen creatures GENERALLY. As one considers the totality of the passage and then keeping true to the immediate and far context, it is without doubt speaking of certain individuals, (believers: without discrimination) who populate the world. The 2 preceding verses set the tone and the parameters for the proper interpretation of verse 16. It is a reference to the historical occurrence of God's sending venomous snakes into the midst of the Israelites, of whom many were bitten and died. Moses was instructed to lift up a bronze figure of a serpent on a pole with the injunction that whoever should gaze upon this inanimate object, they would not perish from the poisonous bites. Now this is reminiscent of several other events which were designed to cameo the power of God to deliver people from horrible diseases, e.g, leprosy (Naaman), death etc. The prerequisite to obtaining the deliverance was simple obedience by the individual who was afflicted. We know, e.g, that dunking oneself in the filth Jordan River seven times is totally inefficacious to the curing of one of leprosy. The act in itself was not the issue at all, but what was the issue was the trusting of that person in the sovereign power and mercy of God, who was able to do as He had promised. The lifting of the serpent in the wilderness is used to illustrate something very special indeed in the case of the Lord Christ. For in itself, the death of an individual has no efficacy to deliver one from the judgment of God and hell. There have been untold thousands who have given their lives for the sake of others, yet not one of their deaths could atone for the sins of another. In fact, even the sacrificial lambs, goats and bulls had no efficacy to save, but rather they pointed to God's sovereign mercy to justify sinners. In the case of Christ, to whom the Moses account points, it serves to emphasize all three of these elements: 1) God's willingness and ability to deliver sinners from the judgment to come, 2) the effective MEANS of apprehending the salvation offered, and 3) the efficacy of the sacrifice itself, since it was none other than God incarnate who makes the atonement for those who 'look unto Him for salvation' in faith. Thus, verse 16 begins, at least in the English translation with the preposition 'For. . .' which is meant to indicate that what is about to follow is to be understood from what has preceded it. The world 'so' in the English today is taken to mean something far different than the actual Greek world 'outws'. A more accurate translation of this word would be 'in this manner. . . God loved the world'. It thus sets forth HOW God demonstrated His love for sinners, i.e., in the sending of His Son to make atonement for them..... Now for whom did the Son atone? We know incontrovertibly, that Christ atoned ONLY for those whom the Father gave to Him, those to whom it was 'given to know the mysteries of the kingdom (the gospel), to those whom the Son willed to reveal Himself and His Father (Matt 11:25-27), for whom the Son prayed intercessorily (Jh 17:9), etc. The next word of note is the Greek word wste which can be properly rendered as 'for this reason/purpose'. The KJV simply translates it as 'that', which if understood as it was written by inspiration gives 'purpose' again in this text. And finally, there is yet another important word to consider, and that is, hina. Again, the English translation simply gives us the world 'that whosever believeth. . .' This little word again connotes strongly the element of purpose and is properly translated by the phrase, 'in order that'. When we take the near context of John 3:16, and then exegete the text grammatically as it was written by inspiration, we cannot avoid the clear emphasis of God's words here, and that is, PURPOSE...... INTENT.... and what God 'purposes to do; what He intends to do, IS ALWAYS ACCOMPLISHED! So by the simple plugging in the emphasis of this text and then considering what has been the view of some here, it is all too apparent that the 'world' of which God is said to have loved cannot mean, by any stretch of the imagination, ALL men inclusively without exception. Well, I hope this helps you to understand at least why I asserted what I did concerning this text below in the other threads. Right or wrong, this is my own exegetical work which I have done on my own many years ago, without the aid of 'tradition',!! Nevertheless, there are more than enough scholars in the conservative 'tradition' that would validate my conclusions. :-) Another exegetical study which albeit approaches John 3:16 from a different perspective, results in the same conclusion as that of my own can be seen by clicking on it here: John 3:16 by Rev. David Engelsma

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why not affirm...
From: Pilgrim
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:06:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
E.V. You ask,
'Why not affirm that God desires all men to be saved?' The answer is simple: Because the Word of God says He doesn't. Why twist the Scriptures to make them fit into a man-centered philosophy that would have God be less than man? Why render the Scriptures so that what some mean deem to be 'admirable attributes' are thrust upon God? The problem is that most men can't and/or won't accept the truth that no one is worthy of salvation and that has desire, thus He has decreed to save a certain and fixed number of undeserving sinners unto His own glory. What God 'desires' is exactly what He does; nothing more and nothing less. The biblical teaching on this truth has been offered to you myriad times on this forum, but they were ignored by you and so I won't bother to put them up again. For an excellent exegesis of 1Tim 2:4 go here: I Timothy 2:4. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: God's desires are more complex than you can understand
From: E.V.
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 14:11:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, >>>You ask, 'Why not affirm that God desires all men to be saved?' >>>The answer is simple: Because the Word of God says He doesn't. Why twist the Scriptures to make them fit into a man-centered philosophy that would have God be less than man? Oh, I thought the reason this discussion came up, is because the Bible DOES say that He desires all men to be saved, and it is because some people can't accept the plain reading of the God breathed text that this conversation is happening. >>>Why render the Scriptures so that what some mean deem to be 'admirable attributes' are thrust upon God? Who is twisting the scriptures here? I said affirm both, because the Bible teaches both. You say no, the Bible really can't mean what it says. >>>What God 'desires' is exactly what He does; nothing more and nothing less. Are you saying that God desires that men sin? God desires that people ridicule His son? God desires that billions of people blaspheme His Holy name? If so, your philosophical system clearly contradicts scripture on these points. >>>The biblical teaching on this truth has been offered to you myriad times on this forum, but they were ignored by you and so I won't bother to put them up again. Again your powers of prophecy amaze me--somehow you know what I ignore, or refuse to heed. Next thing you know, you are going to accuse me of being an Arminian. :) BTW, I have read the link before, and it is well done. However, if you notice, it does base it's conclusions on logical and philisophical deductions, and not scripture. God bless you, E.V. P.S. I wasn't looking to pick a fight with that post.


Subject: Re: God's desires are more complex than you can understand
From: Pilgrim
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:14:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
E.V.

I would never accuse you of being Arminian! It's too much of an insult. . . to Arminians! My quoted message is EXEGETICAL in nature and thus a valid one to which I would challenge you to refute. I just love it when someone throws out that over-worked refrain, 'the plain reading of the text'! Please.....!! My reply to this childish nonsense which is most used by those who have their 'man-centered philosophy' pricked is 'A text out of context is nothing less than PRETEXT!' Does a 'plain reading' of Ps 91:4 'He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:' mean that God is a chicken, that we should only have a reason to trust is if we are snuggled under his plumage? To turn this around, do YOU take the 'plain reading' of such texts as:

Ps 5:5 'The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.' and Ps 11:5, 6 'The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.' and Mal 1:2-4 'I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.'

You ask, Does God desire that men sin? In a real sense, the answer is YES! It is God's desire/will/determination/foreordination that men sin. Are men yet accountable for their sins as it transgresses the 'Preceptive Will'? Indeed, YES! That God has a 'secret will' which concerns His eternal and immutable counsel is everywhere taught throughout His Word. And it is also true that what God has determined for man to render obedience we call his 'preceptive will' for it sets forth those things which men are responsible to do to glorify their Creator. Was it God's will that Christ should be crucified?

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:'. . . Acts 3:18 'But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.' . . . Ac 4:27, 28 'For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.' Isa 46:9, 10 'Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:'

My 'philosophical system' as you have referred to my view is based soundly upon the written Word of God. But not only do you err fully in calling it 'philosophical' you also err further in referring to it as 'my' philosophical system, for it is not 'mine' as if I were the author of it, but it is rather the 'faith once delivered unto the saints' which the church throughout history has recorded in its various and myriad Confessions and Creeds. Therefore it is YOU who is embracing a 'philosophical system' which is self-serving, i.e., self-exalting as a fallen man. And by rejecting the 'plain reading' of the Scriptures which the analogy of faith has since the beginning been found to conclude that which I hold to be true, you have effectively put yourself 'outside the camp' and alienated yourself from the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: A fair question
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 14:01:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I know you're pressed for time and there are many waiting in line to get upset with you. :) However, you seem to be the one person here who is willing to make the appeal to Jude. And even to confessions and creeds and councils. What are the criteria for determining and what is the authority of a council? You like the Council of Orange, but that was a relatively small, western problem (comparatively speaking). So, if I can appeal to a council, which councils? And if a council says something I like and something I don't like (ie--affirming the title of Theotokos for Mary at Ephesus), what is the criteria for sorting out the one faith from other faiths? Normally, I wouldn't ask this, because I'm not sure we'd get anywhere and I get far more out of this board by taking advantage of your interest in and knowledge of early Reformed writings. But, given John's post at the top of the board, it seemed relevant. Thanks, Christopher


Subject: I expected better
From: E.V.
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:11:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, >>I would never accuse you of being Arminian! It's too much of an insult. . . to Arminians! Ahh, what kind Spirit filled words. May God show you more grace than you show others. >>>I just love it when someone throws out that over-worked refrain, 'the plain reading of the text'! Please.!! My reply to this childish nonsense which is most used by those who have their 'man-centered philosophy' pricked is 'A text out of context is nothing less than PRETEXT!' Okay, lets go to the passage and see if we can substitute elect for world: John 3:16-21 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. [19] This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. [20] Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. [21] But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.' It does seem that elect can be subsitituted in some of the cases, but clearly not all of them. So, ***GOD*** chose to use the word world when He could have just as easily used elect, but for some reason He didnít. So I say that yes, God does love the world, after all it is His handiwork. Why would He not love what He has made? Now, it is also clear that God hates the unrighteous. For you have provided many scriptures to point that out. So, I could choose to do what you have done, and set one set of scriptures over and above others, and in this case distort the Word of God into something that I can understand. Or, I can say, yes, in a sense God does love all of His creation, including the reprobate. But, He also hates, in a sense, all workers of iniquity. You might say this is contradictory, but no more so than your ď3 willsĒ of God. >>>Does a 'plain reading' of Ps 91:4 'He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:' mean that God is a chicken, that we should only have a reason to trust is if we are snuggled under his plumage? Is this what you have to resort too? Are you trying to tell me that you treat all of scripture the same way? You interpret obvious metaphor and anthropomorphism exactly the same as didactic and narrative? Of course not, and neither do I. >>>You ask, Does God desire that men sin? In a real sense, the answer is YES! It is God's desire/will/determination/foreordination that men sin. Are men yet accountable for their sins as it transgresses the 'Preceptive Will'? Indeed, YES! That God has a 'secret will' which concerns His eternal and immutable counsel is everywhere taught throughout His Word. And it is also true that what God has determined for man to render obedience we call his 'preceptive will' for it sets forth those things which men are responsible to do to glorify their Creator. Was it God's will that Christ should be crucified? Of course it was Godís will that Christ be crucified. >>>My 'philosophical system' as you have referred to my view is based soundly upon the written Word of God. But not only do you err fully in calling it 'philosophical' you also err further in referring to it as 'my' philosophical system, for it is not 'mine' as if I were the author of it, but it is rather the 'faith once delivered unto the saints' which the church throughout history has recorded in its various and myriad Confessions and Creeds. Again, silly rhetoric. Of course, when I refer to it as your system, I mean that which you embrace. >>>Therefore it is YOU who is embracing a 'philosophical system' which is self-serving, i.e., self-exalting as a fallen man. Please tell me how it is self exalting to hold that God loves the non-elect? Can you discuss anything without resorting to the tired old ďself-exaltingĒ or ďman-centeredĒ labels. They donít even apply in this case. >>>And by rejecting the 'plain reading' of the Scriptures which the analogy of faith has since the beginning been found to conclude that which I hold to be true, you have effectively put yourself 'outside the camp' and alienated yourself from the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. WOW! The ďanalogy of faithĒ has been around since the beginning? Are you sure about this? Maybe you should read up on that. Again you insist on condemning me to hell, and simply because I hold to the scriptural notion that God loves the non-elect and that He doesnít take pleasure in the death of the wicked. I am sorry Pilgrim, I believed that Christ will be the judge of my soul. I didnít realize that I should have substituted the word Pilgrim for Jesus Christ in my Bible. How dare you put yourself in that position! You donít know me, and you donít know what following Christ has cost me. In Christ no matter what you say, E.V.


Subject: There is little appreciation for the whole counsel of God.
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:51:51 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, E.V. has consistently demonstrated this mindset, as you're well-aware. And you are correct that the root of the problem is the failure to comprehend this fact: You ask, Does God desire that men sin? In a real sense, the answer is YES! It is God's desire/will/determination/foreordination that men sin. Are men yet accountable for their sins as it transgresses the 'Preceptive Will'? Indeed, YES! That God has a 'secret will' which concerns His eternal and immutable counsel is everywhere taught throughout His Word. And it is also true that what God has determined for man to render obedience we call his 'preceptive will' for it sets forth those things which men are responsible to do to glorify their Creator. Was it God's will that Christ should be crucified? Serious error, continually compounded, requires strong 'medicine.' That you have correctly administered.


Subject: E.V., this is an ill-advised response.
From: Rod
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:13:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I'm certain that Pilgrim would be the first to say that he doesn't completely understand God! Your statement in the title to your post is out-of-line and condescending to him. He is one of the most well-read people (both in the Bible and in related works) I've encountered. Additionally, he has been given tremendous insight by the Lord. His heart is sensitive to God and defending His truths. You may have been stung by his remarks in his post, but that statement was not tolerable for its terrible implications. Your statement, 'Who is twisting the scriptures here? I said [I] affirm both, because the Bible teaches both. You say no, the Bible really can't mean what it says,' is an indication of deep confusion on your part. To hold the position you do, while you think it's expansive and wise, is actually to declare that God contradicts Himself. That is one of the things which it's impossible for Him to do! God didn't give us the Bible so that we'd declare it an unfathomable mystery. He gave both it, and the indwelling Spirit, to believers so that it might be understood, even the 'hard' sayings and passages. There is no contradiction. To say, "There is contradiction," remains a serious error.


Subject: I apologize if offense was taken, but
From: E.V.
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 13:17:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, >>I'm certain that Pilgrim would be the first to say that he doesn't completely understand God! >>Your statement in the title to your post is out-of-line and condescending to him. He is one of the most well-read people (both in the Bible and in related works) I've encountered. Additionally, he has been given tremendous insight by the Lord. His heart is sensitive to God and defending His truths. You may have been stung by his remarks in his post, but that statement was not tolerable for its terrible implications. Actually Rod, the statement wasnít meant to be derogatory at all. I couldnít come up with a title, and it just came to me. I apologize to you if it came across that way. And if Pilgrim indicates that he was insulted by it, I will apologize to him as well. In regard to Pilgrim being well read, that is fine. But when he sentences me to hell for believing that God loves the world, and doesnít delight in the destruction of the wicked, I think it shows his lack of true understanding of the scriptures. I hope you will admonish him for passing judgement upon my soul. >>>Your statement, 'Who is twisting the scriptures here? I said [I] affirm both, because the Bible teaches both. You say no, the Bible really can't mean what it says,' is an indication of deep confusion on your part. To hold the position you do, while you think it's expansive and wise, is actually to declare that God contradicts Himself. That is one of the things which it's impossible for Him to do! No, I donít think it is expansive and wise, I think it is a more humble approach than what you are taking. Can God in a sense love and hate something at the same time? I say yes, because it is scriptural, even though I donít understand it fully. You say no, because that would be contradictory, so you will change the clearest meaning of scripture in order to preserve inerrancy and a doctrine that you find to be scriptural. I understand your reasons for taking that approach, but I donít think that your approach is necessary. >>God didn't give us the Bible so that we'd declare it an unfathomable mystery. He gave both it, and the indwelling Spirit, to believers so that it might be understood, even the 'hard' sayings and passages. There is no contradiction. To say, 'There is contradiction,' remains a serious error. No, but there will always be things that are a mystery until we are glorified. I donít think that there are any contradictions in the Bible, and my statement that we can affirm both, isnít necessarily contradictory. I will again point out the difficult doctrine of the ď3 willsĒ of God. Godís moral will is that we do not sin. Godís determinitive will is that we do sin. You hold to this, and yet most (not I) will say this is a contradiction. To put it another way, I contend that God, in a sense, loves the world, and he also, in a sense, hates the non-elect. My contention is that He does this in such a way, which I cannot understand, that they are not contradictory. If they were contradictory, then it wouldnít be true. Do you see my point? In Christ, E.V. P.S. Didnít you separate for a while because many on this board thought it might be possible for Christ to have sinned? I wouldnít think that for a minute, but I am branded a reprobate, while others who impune the name of Christ, are considered wise and learned. My only point is that there is room for opposing viewpoints in some areas.


Subject: If you read the title of that post starkly, it seems very condescending.
From: Rod
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:57:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
And I didn't see the intent relieved in the body of your message. I just reread it to be certain. Your words: 'No, I donít think it is expansive and wise, I think it is a more humble approach than what you are taking. Can God in a sense love and hate something at the same time? I say yes, because it is scriptural, even though I donít understand it fully.' Now, to be perfectly honest, I don't see you as being particularly 'humble.' If your suggestion is that 'my position' (which I ascribe to the God of the Bible, not to myself, and it is, therefore, not mine, but
His) is out of pride or arrogance, I can't see the reasoning. If I had done the plan of salvation, I couldn't have/wouldn't have come up with grace, but works. I wouldn't have designed some as 'vessels of mercy,' because, apart from my Lord and Savior, I had none. Also, I don't read that God truly 'loves' the non-elect. Of course, His love, which we can't fully comprehend is a love of the will, a decision to work for an individual's, an elect nation's, and a different 'nation's' good and benefit. I do read that God 'hates' some men, including, but not restricted to, Esau. His will has determined not to predestinate such to glorification in His Son, the result of His true love. God was generous to Esau (proving His provision for all men, some more than others) in many senses, including materially, even after his sin, but 'Isaac have I loved, but Esau have I hated,' and significantly that hatred was '...the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand...' (Rom. 9:11). And God said that before He expressed His love and hatred. Love is in predestination/election and hatred is expressed in His passing by those non-elect. And, it has to be emphasized greatly that each and both are for the glory of the holy and just God. He gets glory from executing judgment on whom He hardens and He gets glory for demonstrating grace toward those who deserve the same just punishment, but are marvelously awarded grace and inherit glory with the Savior, God's Son. Did God 'love' all the world of men, all people who have and will live? Decidedly not. His love is toward the 'elect,' specifically stated and illustrated. '...IN LOVE having predestinated us to unto the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will' (Eph. 1:4-5). 'We love him, because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). No, though He shows kindness and justice to all men, I do deny that the Bible teaches that He actually 'loves' them. He does it because it is 'right' and He is 'righteous.' That righteous He inevitably extends to all men; He must because it's His nature. In another great section on the nature of God's dealing with the elect, Paul says, 'But God, who is rich in mercy, FOR HIS GREAT LOVE with which he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace ye are saved)' (Eph. 2:4-5). The objects of God's love are the objects of grace. Grace in salvation isn't extended to all men. What we designate 'common grace' is extended to all men, but even that is because God has the predestinated in mind by doing it, working 'all things... together for good to them that love God' (Rom. 8:28). And, remember, He caused that love for Himself by loving us who are saved first. That is not a plan I could have formulated. But men, imposing their own sense of 'fairness,' and misconstruing God's love, force it on all men who ever live--that is a plan of man's formulation and, candidly, it was once my view too.


Subject: Re: If you read the title of that post starkly, it seems very condescending.
From: E.V.
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 05:21:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, No I didn't mean that your position was arrogant. I do think that you are neglecting to see, or are misunderstanding my point in regards to God's love of the non-elect. I do find some Calvinists (not you necessarily, for I don't know you) who insist on fitting all scripture within their doctrine of election. While election is biblical, it is only one part of God's revelation. I think your view of God's love is incomplete. God's love is not just decisional, that is just one part of it. Just like your love is not only decisional, but emotional, and affectional, and self-sacrificial. Do you love your wife or children by a mere act of the will, or is it something deeper? God's love was complete w/in the Godhead, and yet that wasn't only an 'act of God's will.' God loves the elect in a different way than He loves the non-elect. There is 'electing love' and 'common benevolent love.' That is how I see it. I hope that sheds some more light on where I am coming from. In Christ, E.V.


Subject: I have understood and do now understand your view.
From: Rod
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:07:07 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
There is a sense in which it's true that God 'loves the non-elect so much less' than the predestinated/elect that it's 'hatred.' But the fact is that His statement is tht He 'hated Esau.' The inescapable implication is that He hates those like Esau. And, as far as I can recall, I can't remember His ever stating that He 'loves' those like Esau. Provision for the creatures He's made to co-exist with the 'vessels of mercy' is, as I just previously said, a demonstration of His righteousness. Remember that God deals in a 'long-suffering way' with humanity. He does that not for the sake of the lost so that nonelect people might be saved, but so that His own, whom He foreknew might 'come to repentance.' This is firmly established in Rom. 9:22-24 and 2 Peter 3:1-9. The neglected fact is that the purpose of God toward the lost is to demonstrate by His dealings with them, providing them goodness in life and material things, along with the genuine offer of salvation, that He is just and right and they are totally deserving of the future which awaits rebels against God. He is 'long-suffering.' He 'endured' their blasphemies and rebellion, according to Rom. 9:22. He is 'angry with the wicked every day' (Ps.7:11), the source of that 'long-suffering.' His righteous anger demands release. It will be released when time ends: 'The LORD hath made all things for himself; yea even the wicked, for the day of evil' Prov. 16:4). Justice demonstrated. Righteousness displayed. And all the while His love is set forth in mercy and resultant grace. No, while He experiences emotions, His emotions toward men are born from His prior decisions toward them. He feels emotional love for the predestinated/elect because He has decided to in 'choosing' them before ever creating man (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9). We humans sometimes feel our emotional 'love' unreasonably, often apart from the will. God never does.


Subject: Okay, Rod
From: E.V.
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:34:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, Thank you for your comments on this topic. I believe that I have expressed my position as best I can, given the limited amount of time and the medium. You have presented your position well, and for the most part, I agree. We both agree that God hates the non-elect, though I don't think that God's hate is similiar to our own. We also agree that God showers blessings upon the non-elect for His own reasons, and not because of anything worthwhile in themselves. Praise God, because if God's love depended upon something within humans, we would all be lost. But His love is rooted and founded upon His love for His Son, and that is the only reason that we may find undeserved mercy and grace. We also agree that God's saving love is only shown to the elect who are chosen for His own purposes. God bless, E.V.


Subject: Re: I apologize if offense was taken, but
From: laz
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 15:18:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
E.V. - the 'world' at large is loved and cared for by God's 'common grace'. So in a way, God loves and hates. I'm sure this is not news for you. ;-) laz p.s. While I'm not wise or learned, I am one of those who happen to believe that Jesus Christ had the ability to sin in his human nature...but, OBEYED perfectly the will of His Father and feel no violence being done to the person and work of Christ Jesus. Call me crazy....


Subject: Hey laz
From: E.V.
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 05:06:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That is my point. I think that there are different 'types' of love. There is 'electing' love and for lack of a better term 'general' love which as you explained is evidenced by God's common grace extended to all. So from what I see, John 3:16 is talking about God's love to the world which is electing to some, and general to others. There is not a need to say that world doesn't imply all of creation. This can also be applied to God's desire to see all men saved. I think that we can agree that God wishes that men are righteous and live holy lives--call it His moral will, or whatever term you like. Therefore, I think that I can affirm that, in a sense, God does desire that all men have faith in Christ. But I do not claim that God elects all men, or shows the same amount of grace to all. In regard, to the comment about Christ sinning, I was only bringing that up because Rod made a point that Christians know the truth because God reveals it to all that are His children, and there is quite a disagreement here over Christ's ability to sin, one side is wrong, but both are still Christians. There is room for disagreement on some issues. Unfortunately, some people want to make acceptance of their distinctive doctrines part of salvation, which s really presenting a false gospel. In Christ, E.V.


Subject: and the scripture is...
From: Gene
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 02:57:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
E.V., And the scripture for these 2 types of love is.... I hope you are not saying this to rationalize John 3:16 with your theology.


Subject: Re: and the scripture is...
From: E.V.
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 13:16:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Gene, First let me say that when I speak of types, I am referring to different aspects of God's love, and how it is presented in scripture. God's general love towards his creation is evidenced by His governing providence of all of creation. Matthew 6:26-29 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? [27] Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? [28] 'And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. [29] Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. Genesis 9:6 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. Acts 17:26-30 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. [27] God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. [28] 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' [29] 'Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. [30] In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. John 3:16 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Electing love (one passage should do, as the others have been exhaustively covered on this board): Deut. 10:14-15 To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. [15] Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today. In regard to your question about my interpretation of John 3:16, my aim is to look at each literary unit and understand it as the author intended it to be understood by the readers of that day. I am not convinced by arguments that 'world' in 3:16 means elect, therefore, I must seek to incorporate God's love for the world and His hatred for the non-elect. Like I have said before, I think I can affirm both, without contradiction or exegetical gymnastics. Make sense? In Christ, E.V.


Subject: Terms: Benevolence vs Love
From: Prestor John
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 15:35:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
E.V. what you refer to as 'general love' is called 'benevolence', which is different than 'love'. Benevolence is the disposition to do good, to do charitable acts. (See Matt. 5:45) this is by no means 'love'. Love (to use the english definition) is a positive emotion of regard and affection. Benevolence is neutral, love is positive, benevolence is directed to no one specific, love is specific in its application. God is charitable toward the non-elect, He allows them to exist, to share in the benefits of existing with the elect. This doesn't mean that He loves them. Prestor John Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam


Subject: Re: Terms: Benevolence vs Love
From: E.V.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 08:34:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Prestor John, From my understanding, God's love is central to His character, so his benevolence flows out of His love. If you want to say that God only loves the elect, but is benevolent to all, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that we can say that benevolence for the non-elect flows out of His hatred towards them however. With that being said, I think it is possible to read John 3:16 as saying that out of His benevolence toward His creation He sent His Son. I think this is truer to the actual meaning of the text than to limit the word 'world' to mean the 'elect.' In Christ, E.V. fecitque ex uno omne genus hominum inhabitare super universam faciem terrae definiens statuta tempora et terminos habitationis eorum quaerere Deum si forte adtractent eum aut inveniant quamvis non longe sit ab unoquoque nostrum in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut et quidam vestrum poetarum dixerunt ipsius enim et genus sumus


Subject: Can't affirm what the Bible declares untrue.
From: Rod
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 10:23:21 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
E.V. John 3:16 is easily, from the immediately connected context, shown not to apply to all men without exception. It is, in that specific, different from the text in Timothy.


Subject: Might I suggest.
From: E.V.
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:18:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, I just read a book by D.A. Carson called 'The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.' In this book, he states that John 3:16 cannot be legetimately interpreted as referring to the elect only. It is universal in application. This does not necessarily refute the Calvinist position--which is obvious since Carson is a very reputable and admired Reformed scholar. Carson presents a good look at the various ways in which God loves his creation, and warns against pitting one 'version or type' of love over and above another, which many Reformed people do in regard to God's love of the non-elect. Love is an inexorable part of God's character, and influences all He does. He states that many people assume that wrath is also an essential part of His character, but it is not. Anyway, get the book, it is only 100 pages or so, and it is very helpful. God bless, E.V.


Subject: Thanks, E.V., but...
From: Rod
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:36:50 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Actually the fact is that, being a former Arminian, I have long since settled any questions concerning this passage with my Lord and my God, submitting my doubts and questions to Him to clarify and put to rest. He has done so. In the latest thread here on that passage some time ago, this site was mentioned. I found it very insightful: http://www@geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/john316.html, the URL which displays when I access it. If you're inclined to read more.


Subject: Have you arrived?
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:34:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now there is a 'good' answer! 'I have already made up my mind and I don't want to cloud it anymore!' No reason to 'revisit' John 3:16. I hope when I grow up I can come to a full knowledge of ANY verse in the Bible. Gee, Rod, how does it feel to 'arrive'?


Subject: Re: Have you arrived?
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:53:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now there is a 'good' answer! 'I have already made up my mind and I don't want to cloud it anymore!' No reason to 'revisit' John 3:16. I hope when I grow up I can come to a full knowledge of ANY verse in the Bible. Gee, Rod, how does it feel to 'arrive'?
---
Gene,

Well, I for one understood exactly what Rod meant by his reply. It's not that he's 'arrived' in the sense that he has exhausted all the possible renderings of John 3:16, but rather that there are just so many possibilities to be had. And the majority of them are man exalting and contradictory to the analogy of faith, thus they can be summarily excluded from serious consideration. Also, over a period of years, one does get the opportunity to hear and read many of these offerings, which by and large can all be lumped together as being again, 'man-centered' and contradictory to the plain teachings of God's Word. Thus, it is basically a waste of time to rehash old news. One surely is sometimes given 'deeper' insight which BUILDS UPON THE ALREADY ESTABLISHED TRUTH of a text, and that is to be always sought after.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Have you arrived?
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 19:16:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
It is funny, D.A. Carson is one of the 'Reformed' people that disagrees with Rod (among others)so I wonder if there is a remote chance that John 3:16 MAY have another meaning than that which Rod holds. Then again, Carson doesn't quite grasp sovereign grace yet!!! It is clear Rod, that you have your mind made up and do not want to read anyone who disagrees with you, even those more knowledgable than you in your own fellowship.


Subject: Re: Have you arrived?
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 22:10:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey Gene - I'm sure 'interpretations' of John 3:16 abound...if you include aberrant groups within christendom...so what's your point? Only ONE meaning can be correct. I happen to believe the verse in context (just read the entire book of John to see Jesus Christ being one-tracked relative to the Father's love of THE 'sheep') is either promoting universal/unlimited atonement (Arminians) or merely making the statement regarding the proximate cause of salvation (true belief by grace thru faith) relative to 'the world' in either an organic sense, or referring without 'distinction' to the eternal objects of God's redemptive love, the Elect. Let's be consistent, shall we, and allow scripture to dictate what we are to believe. There is simply no getting around the FACT that we don't choose,
God ELECTS....for many are called, few are chosen. Besides, it isn't an issue of who's in whose 'camp', but which view is most faithful to the whole counsel of God. No? laz Ps 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.


Subject: Precisely, brother, thank you. n/t
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 14:07:50 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Universal Redemption
From: Christopher
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:20:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The recent conversation on this board prompted me to do a little surfing and reading. I came across the attached link, but was confused about something. Since the term has been used here, I was sure that there might be someone who was a little more familiar with the situation and might be able to clarify. First, I was wondering whether Universal Redemption refers only to the idea that all will be saved, or whether there's more to it than that. In Wesley's Free Grace article, he says clearly that not all will be saved. However, he uses a different line of reasoning for that than does Whitefield. Whitefield mentions Universal Redemption repeatedly, but does not exactly accuse Wesley of it. And that is my second question. Was there another group which held to Universal Redemption, and Whitefield and Wesley were 'competing' for the correct response, or was Whitefield charging Wesley with holding to Universal Redemption? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Christopher Whitefield to Wesley www.gty.org/~phil/wesley.htm


Subject: May God raise up more stalwarts like Whitefield!
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:41:53 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, I won't presume to speak for Whitlefield, a very great man of God, but I will offer some thoughts with the intention of showing my own understanding of 'universal redemption' which the Arminian view does seem to inevitably demand. Stating the issue as simply as possible, it's this: The Lord Jesus died on the cross for all men who ever live upon the earth, according to the Wesley/Arminian view. That would apply His lifeblood, the thing which is required in Biblical sacrifice, from the OT on, to every person ever born. His blood is 'shed for all' and upon all men. The Arminians might deny that extensive an application, but it is inevitable from their own assertions, because, if the sacrificial system is examined, it is always substitutionary, and specifically applied, so that the blood is for its object's purification in the eyes of God. It seems that they have a faulty view of sacrifice, and specifically the Lord Christ's
vicarious sacrifice in His blood. That idea is so abhorent to us as sovereign grace believers because it means that God squanders His Son's blood, shedding it indiscriminately. It also means that the plan of God fails because He has determined to save whomever receives the application and purpose of that blood. All men aren't saved, so, therefore, God has failed in His sovereign purpose, ceasing to be God, but something less than One Who can accomplish His will. Our belief is that the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ was/is so effective in cleansing sin, that it actually and forever cleanses (in God's sight) whomsover is touched by it. That would be those of God's determination: 'For whom he did foreknow, be also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). The sole way to that conformation of glorification (cp. verse 30) is through the sacrifice of Christ and its subsequent workings in the believer (Gal. 2:20). Rom. 8:14-17 outlines the process of the plan of God for His predesinated and elect. These are incredibly blessed and undeserving recipients of that redeeming blood, and not anyone else who remains lost in his sins, dead to God (Eph. 2:1-3). 2 Cor. 5:21, in stating that the Lord Jesus was 'made to be sin for us' and that our sins were imputed to Him, undeniably means that the 'becoming sin for us' signifies the placing of the person's sins on the Lord Jesus as He died. If those sins (all of them, not one left over) were paid for, and if this means that all men were in God's purpose in His substitutionary payment, then all men MUST be saved, for that was God's intent in the Arminian view. We who believe in sovereign grace say that is impossible and not according to God's simply stated Word.


Subject: It gets better!
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 17:33:29 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Check out this action: http://www.expression.org/~tnungesser/Christia.html No-one goes to Hell. Permanently, anyway. Everyone eventually heads to Heaven! No exceptions. Don't worry . . . . . be happy! www.expression.org/~tnungesser/Christia.html


Subject: Re: May God raise up more stalwarts like Whitefield!
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:05:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Thanks for taking the time to respond. It seems that both sides object to where they feel the opposing doctrines lead. So you would object to the line of reasoning below (from Wesley's Free Grace) and the Scriptures on which its based? If so, how do you (and Whitefield, I presume, based on the similarity of your post and his letter to Wesley) understand these Scriptures? Thanks again, Christopher PS--forgive me if you have already addressed these specific Scriptures elsewhere. I must admit that I lose track of the discussion here quite often. The Whiteford/Wesley documents give me an opportunity to study the matter more easily. '22. If you ask, 'Why then are not all men saved?' the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, As I live, saith the Lord God,' I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.' (Ezek. 18:3, 32.) Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, 'He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;' (2 Pet. 3:9;) 'He willeth that all men should be saved.' And they, Secondly, declare what is the cause why all men are not saved, namely, that they will not be saved: So our Lord expressly, 'Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life.' (John 5:40.) 'The power of the Lord is present to heal' them, but they will not be healed. 'They reject the counsel,' the merciful counsel, 'of God against themselves,' as did their stiff-necked forefathers. And therefore are they without excuse; because God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, 'How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!' (Matt. 23:37.) '


Subject: Re: May God raise up more stalwarts like Whitefield!
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:18:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher,

The problem with Wesley's theology as is the theology of all who reject the biblical teaching of God's sovereign free grace is their view of the Fall and it's consequences. Inevitably, everyone of these aberrant views accredits fallen men with an ability; a 'goodness' and power to desire and come to Christ 'if they so will'. However, if man is as 'dead' as the Scriptures say they are, then it is IMPOSSIBLE that any man can either desire or flee to Christ for salvation. In 2Pet 3:9, the true meaning is so clear it really doesn't warrant an exegetical tome, for if one would only take the passage in its CONTEXT, it is plain that the key to a proper understanding of it is found in the word 'us' used myriad times by Peter, even from the very first verse of the first chapter and throughout the Epistle to refer to those who 'have obtained like precious faith' or projecting into the future, those who God ordained TO received the 'like precious faith'! It is referring to the elect; 'All that the Father giveth me . . . all which he hath given me' (Joh 6:37, 39). 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: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . .' The 'us' and 'any' in 2Pet 3:9 are inseparably bound together and cannot be understood properly without seeing the relationship between them which Peter establishes from the very beginning of the Epistle. Again, the 'us' refers to those who have 'obtained like faith', i.e., believers (present and future) and the 'any' is qualified by the 'us' thus rendering the true meaning of it as 'any of the 'us'' (the elect). As to Ezek 18:3, 32 these verses simply convey the truth that God is not a 'blood-thirsty' God but One who indeed is moved even to grief over the death of His creation in general. The Lord Christ also wept in like manner at the grave of Lazarus (Joh 11:35). One may doubtless 'take no pleasure' in the execution of a murderer, but nonetheless take satisfaction in seeing justice done according to the law which prescribes death for those who take the life of another. Matt 23:37 is a marvelous text and one which I would gladly exegete for you, but only at your request, for my time at this moment is unfortunately short and thus I am unable to give it at this time. I would only say in passing, that the text is in no way speaking about Christ's/God's inability to save those who are opposed to Him and His Christ, thus effectively denying His desire to save 'all men without exception'. Nor, in particular is it teaching that other men may effectually prevent others from being saved (a most odious thought indeed!). John Owen's unrivaled and yet unanswered treatise The Death of Death in the Death of Christ sets forth an incontrovertible defense of the biblical doctrine of 'Definite Atonement'. In that work he offers a challenge to all who would propose that Christ's death was either purposed for 'all' or sufficient for 'all'. You can read that very brief challenge here: For Whom Did Christ Die?. A marvelous work by Dr. J.I. Packer in regards to Owen's treatise Introductory Essay to John Owen's Death of Death should be read by ALL! :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Matt 23
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:23:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, As usual, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I am assuming that you and Rod are saying the same thing when it comes to 2 Pet 3:9. What you have just said is regarding the 'us' is what I was trying to express to Rod, but apparently I did that poorly. Where I am sincerely confused at this point is where the 'inability' part comes in so, yes, I would like to hear your thoughts on the passage in Matthew. I don't yet understand how Mr Wesley saying that a man's refusal to repent (which is what I am taking his article to mean) makes the other side charge that his theology makes God unable to save that man. Thanks again, Christopher PS--and thanks, too, for the links


Subject: I think I've dealt with 2 Peter 3:9 almost weekly...
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:43:43 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
..since I came to the discussion boards on the net. It won't be so frequently now, as this is the only board I'm on. I can and have dealt with the 'proofs' offered by Wesley in his sermon in the past, though not all at once, I don't think. I'll try to answer simply, though I'm not avoiding the issue--I'm completely willing to explore it. I just think this approach is more productive at this point, in view of the fact that you are a careful student. First of all, please note, that in these cases, and in particularly, as Whilefield pointed out, in Romans 8, Wesley feels greatly at liberty to take texts out of their intended context, as do all Arminians. The best illustration of that is 2 Peter 3:9; it seems universal that they remove it from Scripture and use it as a club. But it's a 'club' of foam rubber such as children play with, an annoyance, but not a weapon. 'Hits' with it are ridiculous, and do no damage! Please do this, Christopher, read 2 Peter 3:1-9 in the NASB, the KJV, the YLT, but not the NIV, which is a 'commentary,' and no real translation at this point. When through, ask yourself this, if there is judgment 'reserved,' as the NASB says, 'for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men,' how can Wesley or anyone else say that 'God is not willing that anyone of his creatures shall perish?' It's 'for...unglodly
MEN!' Also, please note specifically that the 'beloved' are addressed and it is toward them that God directs His 'not willing' that they perish. And please compare Rom. 9:22 as to what God is 'willing' to do. Would He actually contradict His own Word? Does 2 Peter 3:1-9 really say what Wesley contorts it to say? No, it doesn't. The rest of the 'proofs' similarly vanish under examination. Please let me know what you think when you subject this to real examination by reading the texts in context.


Subject: Re: I think I've dealt with 2 Peter 3:9 almost weekly...
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 14:16:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Thanks. I'll check out Rom 9 and 2 Pet 3 again tonight but, in the meantime, the 'non-Wesleyan' view of the other Scriptures cited would be appreciated. Wesley says what he thinks they mean, but Whitefield did not. So what I'm trying to understand here is what is done with those other Scriptures if they don't support Wesley's position. But let me see if I understand your position. What you are saying is that anywhere in the Bible where there is language that might seem to indicate that salvation is offered to all, we are to understand that God only desires the predestinated elect to be saved? This would mean that the offer of salvation is not to all, but only to the elect. However, since none of us knows who the elect are, the Gospel must be preached as if it were meant for all. Hence, the instruction of Christ to preach to all nations. The preachers are preaching because those who are elect will hear and believe. Those who are not elect will not believe. Your help with these two things would be appreciated. Thanks again, Christopher PS--what's a YLT?


Subject: the nature of God's offer
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 15:34:37 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, Here are a few things to chew on, though you really should see that Peter and Paul are in agreement in 1 Peter and Romans first. Most people can't see a couple of things: 1) If two people are believers indwelt by God's Spirit and consequently led and taught by Him, they cannot both be right if they disagree about Scripture. And
both may be wrong, or, at least, partially wrong. Or one may be right or partilly right. 2) God doesn't contradict Himself. Painful as it may be, we have to accept and strive to understand the whole of Scripture, even when it's seemingly not in support of our beliefs. For, if it isn't in support of our beliefs, we must shift those beliefs to conformity to God's Word--I did that myself on the issue of sovereign grace and it was painful for me. The offer is genuinely made to all men. It is, therefore, a legitimate offer, referenced as the 'general call,' which goes out universally. (It's essential at this point that you review Romans 1:18-32 to remind youself of this basic truth: at one time all men knew about God and they willfully disobeyed and consistently rejected Him and His teaching, as did Cain and others, excepting Noah, to whom God extended grace. After the flood, the same pattern established itself in Noah's line, with only those given God's grace differing.) But the offer to all men falls on deaf ears (spiritually dead ears), until and unless the one dead in sin is made alive by the Spirit of God (see Eph. 2: 4-5). Those 'elect' ones are 'born again,' 'quickened,' made spiritually alive, 'regenerated' by God by the indwelling of His Spirit (John 3:3-7). Those are then and only then enabled to receive the Word of faith, provided by grace, which the faithful witness of the Lord God delivers (Rom. 1:16-17; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16). So you see, without God's direct intervention and provision of grace, instead of all being saved, all would be lost. Paul identifies this fact in Eph. 2:1-3, where he explains that men are 'by nature the children of wrath,' helpless to help themselves, being dead, and under God's sentence of death because of Adam's rebellion. After carefully building his case there, he masterfully continues his explanation of grace by the wonderful pronouncements of verses 8-10, the 'NT in miniature. ______________________________ Christopher, I urge you to run down all these Scriptures, noticing that they are not just a verse here and there taken from context, but are a coherent theme of the Lord God in all His Word. If you do that, and carefully read and study the other passages given, and we're are in agreement that this is God's Word and plan, then let's move on to the other Scriptures. This will avoid the relatively ineffective 'shotgun approach' of looking at a lot of verses at once, when they require careful analysis. (Thanks.) YLT = Youngs Literal Translation


Subject: Re: the nature of God's offer
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 18:02:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Thanks for making such a considerate response. Comments on your post in *'s. It makes the post incredibly long and for that I'm sorry, but it seemed the only way to do it. Christopher, Here are a few things to chew on, though you really should see that Peter and Paul are in agreement in 1 Peter and Romans first. *I have no doubt that Peter, Paul and the rest of the writers of Scripture are all in agreement. Most people can't see a couple of things: 1) If two people are believers indwelt by God's Spirit and consequently led and taught by Him, they cannot both be right if they disagree about Scripture. And
both may be wrong, or, at least, partially wrong. Or one may be right or partilly right. *With you up to a point. I would put it this way: if two people agree on an interpretation of Scripture, they have only determined that they agree with one another. This is because two other people, carrying on a separate conversation, my come to a completely different and/or opposite conclusion and be in complete agreement with one another. So, because two people agree on something does not make it true, although they may indeed be correct. All four may be equally sincere and equally wrong. 2) God doesn't contradict Himself. Painful as it may be, we have to accept and strive to understand the whole of Scripture, even when it's seemingly not in support of our beliefs. For, if it isn't in support of our beliefs, we must shift those beliefs to conformity to God's Word--I did that myself on the issue of sovereign grace and it was painful for me. *I wholeheartedly agree with you. If Paul seems to someone to contradict Peter, it is because the theology seeking support is wrong, not Paul or Peter. This problem is particularly evident when it comes to the Apostles Paul and James. It is why I have thrown most of Luther, except for his objections to various Roman innovations, out the window. He wrote that James totally contradicted Paul and that he preached an all together different gospel. This is something that I cannot accept, given what has just been previously said about God not contradicting Himself. The offer is genuinely made to all men. It is, therefore, a legitimate offer, referenced as the 'general call,' which goes out universally. (It's essential at this point that you review Romans 1:18-32 to remind youself of this basic truth: at one time all men knew about God and they willfully disobeyed and consistently rejected Him and His teaching, as did Cain and others, excepting Noah, to whom God extended grace. After the flood, the same pattern established itself in Noah's line, with only those given God's grace differing.) But the offer to all men falls on deaf ears (spiritually dead ears), until and unless the one dead in sin is made alive by the Spirit of God (see Eph. 2: 4-5). Those 'elect' ones are 'born again,' 'quickened,' made spiritually alive, 'regenerated' by God by the indwelling of His Spirit (John 3:3-7). Those are then and only then enabled to receive the Word of faith, provided by grace, which the faithful witness of the Lord God delivers (Rom. 1:16-17; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16). *I am still a little unclear on whether I accurately stated the position in my previous post. If the offer to turn (repent) and live is genuine for all, then how does it apply only to some? Genuine seems to imply capacity to receive, whether given by God or natural. And since both sides say that it is a gift of God, I don't see where natural (ie--semi-Pelagian) fits in as a valid accusation. So you see, without God's direct intervention and provision of grace, instead of all being saved, all would be lost. *Undoubtedly. Otherwise, why would mankind be in need of salvation? Paul identifies this fact in Eph. 2:1-3, where he explains that men are 'by nature the children of wrath,' helpless to help themselves, being dead, and under God's sentence of death because of Adam's rebellion. After carefully building his case there, he masterfully continues his explanation of grace by the wonderful pronouncements of verses 8-10, the 'NT in miniature. *There is no question that salvation is by grace, through faith and unto good works. Unless I am misunderstanding the exchange between Mr Wesley and Mr Whitefield, and all the discusions up to and including the recent ones on this board, the issue is whether the doctrines of grace and election as stated by 'Calvinists' mean that some are created specifically for destruction and, therefore, have absolutely no choice in the matter. Those who would follow Mr Wesley say that man does indeed have a choice. He is commanded to choose. The response to that is that it makes God need to know something or turns him into a small-g god and man into a big-g god. The Calvinists say that man cannot have a choice in the matter without destroying the soverignty of God. But, either way, it seems like both sides have to gloss over some Scripture or other. Mr Wesley and the Arminians don't seem to have dealt well with Rom 9 (although I have only read the one piece by Wesley) and the Calvinists don't seem to have explained the 'Arminian' passages very well. That is why I would like to know what you think they mean. Thanks again, Christopher ______________________________ Christopher, I urge you to run down all these Scriptures, noticing that they are not just a verse here and there taken from context, but are a coherent theme of the Lord God in all His Word. If you do that, and carefully read and study the other passages given, and we're are in agreement that this is God's Word and plan, then let's move on to the other Scriptures. This will avoid the relatively ineffective 'shotgun approach' of looking at a lot of verses at once, when they require careful analysis. (Thanks.) *I'm not going anywhere, so I don't need to rush through anything. Given the nature of message boards, slow and deliberate is probably the only way anyone can understand what anyone else is saying. I would only ask that you allow me to clarify something before you blast me. If I hold to what I say, and don't feel the need to change anything, then you may blast away! YLT = Youngs Literal Translation *Thank you. I haven't ever heard of that translation.


Subject: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 19:39:47 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, Your words--'I would only ask that you allow me to clarify something before you blast me. If I hold to what I say, and don't feel the need to change anything, then you may blast away!' I am very strong in my convictions and try to put them forth as persuasively and forcefully as possible, believing they are the truth as far as God's Word is concerned. However, I deny that I 'bash' you. Actually, I've gone out of my way to patiently answer your questions, on subjects which have been dealt with very often by me and others here in recent months. Sometimes the subject is tiresome, if the same issues are dealt with too often and too closely together. Also, you must realize something else, I (and probably others here who deal with those of opposite views publically, both on the boards and in ministry) have frequently been called a non-Christian by venomous Arminians, even as I confessing the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and my God, along with Thomas. This happened last week on another board by its owner, a pastor and a man whom I had called 'brother' for a year or so in print. I would like to say that doesn't really bother me, but I was so taken aback and surprised by this turn of events by one who had affirmed his conviction of my salvation early on when another Arminian had attacked it, that I was deeply affected. God has given me peace about it since, however. You have been a gentleman and I'm appreciative of that. 'Type A's' like myself come on very strong, but my intention isn't to deal with personalities, except when they prove, as some here do, that they aren't inclined to (or can't, because of being unregenerate) hear God's Word and discuss the issues with an idea of resolution. I make no bones about denouncing that. I have Arminian friends, charismatic friends, people I call 'brother' and 'sister.' We have deep differences in the Lord, but I think that they are actually 'in Christ' even as they are in deep error about Him. All true believers are my brothers and sisters. ________________________________ Now, from reading your last post, I have to say I'm honestly not sure whether you indicate you have had time to read and study 2 Peter 3:1-9 or not. If so, do you agree that it can't possibly mean that God is referring to all men without exception when it says He isn't willing that 'any' should perish, even as He declares just previously that He has reserved the fire of judgment specifically for 'ungodly men?' (BTW, the word 'willing' here is in the strongest possible sense.) If you do agree that that is the proper and only possible interpretation, then we can move on. If not, please list your specific objections to the interpretation. ________________________________ Again, we're approaching the 'shotgun situation,' trying to hit every mark at once, but this statement of yours demands address: 'Unless I am misunderstanding the exchange between Mr Wesley and Mr Whitefield, and all the discusions up to and including the recent ones on this board, the issue is whether the doctrines of grace and election as stated by 'Calvinists' mean that some are created specifically for destruction and, therefore, have absolutely no choice in the matter.' I'm afraid you've most definitely missed the point(s). Do not pass 'go,' do not collect $200.00 until you get it fixed in your mind what God says man is predestinated
TO. There can be no progress whatsoever until that is clearly perceived. I have laid it out before. Here it is again. Romans 8:29: 'For whom he did foreknow, he did predestinate TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, [in order that] he might be the first born among many brethren.' Where is predestination to death in that? It is, as Whitefield said, and I explained earlier, PREDESTINATION TO LIFE, life eternal. The only other place I can recall predestination being specifically referenced is Eph. 1, which says the same thing in more elaboration: 'According as he hath chosen us in him [Christ Jesus] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him, in love having predestinated us UNTO THE ADOPTION OF SONS by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will' (verses 4-5). I can see nothing but life in predestination in that. Nothing but goodness and grace. When you speak thus of 'hav[ing] absolutely no choice in the matter,' you make a grave and fundamental error, one crucial to the understanding of the issue. The truth is that men make choices continually. Every person who ever lived has made a choice in the matter. Adam had a choice, freely made, whether to obey God or join his wife in his deliberate disobedience. He chose to sin. the choice was made under the most auspicious of conditions. He had only one command. Very simple situation. He chose death, having been warned previously by God that it meant death. Whose fault was it? Hint: It wasn't God's! :>) Adam's offspring have ever since been making choices of their wills. Their will is one will: They don't want God; they choose to reject His genuine offer of salvation to all who will come; they get what they want and don't come because they don't will to. Their will and choice isn't violated. They aren't caused to be lost by God. Their lost condition is because they are 'enemies of God' (Rom. 8:7), refusing to accept his offer. Grace must be understood clearly. And I think Wesley and others misunderstand what it is. It is meeting a need of man despite his inability to meet it for himself. In doing that God doesn't violate that person's will. Instead, He replaces the old will with a new one which can receive and desires to receive salvation in Christ. Once again, the person gets exactly what he wants. Everyone on earth gets exactly his heart's desire, whether it is to come to Christ in grace or to reject Him. The real issue in this is this simple fact: Wesley and those like him think that God is unfair! Here's the issue of sovereignty. Is it unfair for God to do whatsoever He wills with His creatures? Paul says, 'YES,' resoundingly in Rom. 9:14-24. He may have mercy on whom He will and He may, by bringing out exactly what is in their hearts, as though wringing a wet garment, harden Pharaoh who refuses, out of his already hard heart to accept God's authority over himself and to do His will. 'Fairness' is giving justice to men. All men deserve hellfire. That is God's justice. Mercy, being born of love, produces grace for those of God's choice to rescue. But, it has to be remembered that His justice has to be served. So He came, in the Person of Christ, in the flesh to receive the penalty for the predestinated. He paid an awesomely awful price on behalf of those who are saved. What's fair to Him about that? But He, marvelous God that He is, did it willingly and purposefully. We should stop finding fault with the One Whose ways are beyond us and start praising Him!


Subject: Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 00:54:22 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Hi Rod I am sorry to hear about that Arminian who had previously called you a brother. That shouldn't surprise you though, many take that possition. Not long ago I was in an e-mail discussion with another Calvinist who insisted that any Calvinist who believes that it is possible for an Arminian to be a brother or sister in the Lord. Hasn't yet come to faith in Christ. He then went on to call me and others 'tolerant Calvinists' who haven't as yet grasped the full understanding of the gospel. He also said that there are many hot beds of 'tolerant Calvinists' such as Westminster Seminary, and if I am in conversation with any I should not listen to them. Of course I did not take his advice in the matter, otherwise I probably would not be on this site. Right Pilgrim? ;-) Tom


Subject: Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:33:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, RIGHT! hehehe Having had the 'pleasure' of studying in three seminaries of 'opposing' theological persuasions; Arminian, Calvinist and Hyper-Calvinist, I can speak from personal knowledge and experience about what you spoke of concerning the person who said you are a 'tolerant Calvinist'. Such people often use the word 'reprobate' in an unwarranted universal way, and perhaps even more disheartening is that they are not moved in heart when they do use that word. Their coldness may in fact ironically be that which makes they themselves 'reprobate' and frightfully in both the biblical and theological sense. On the other hand, there are many who err on the opposite side and are want to see ANY who profess to 'love Jesus' as brothers/sisters in Christ. This too the Scripture teaches is not the case as you are well aware of. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:36:47 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, yourself, Tom, :>) It is possible for people on both sides to be wrong, as you well know. When either side holds such a position as to automatically say one bearing such a label is unsaved, he immediately shows little understanding of God's workings. Personally, I pray that I will be of the mind of Geogre Whitefield in this matter: 'I desire therefore that they who hold election would not triumph, or make a party on one hand (for I detest any such thing)....' He knew that Christianity was diverse and that it was possible to be Arminian and to be saved. he wished unity in Christ, not 'party' divisions. It's curious that Arminains and 'sovereign gracers' alike are confused when I, after having presented the gospel, issue a simple invitation to 'come to Christ.' The Arminians think no one has a choice, according to the 'Calvinist view.' And the sovereign gracers think that I'm advocating 'free will' in the same way as the Arminians! How little we understand! Now what I don't understand is how those who continually shout, 'John 3:16!' can deny that one believing in Jesus Christ as the Bible portrays Him, a sinless Substitute for my sins, whose shed blood is upon me, can deny that I'm a 'whosoever will.' It seems the utmost in hypocrisy to me. :>) 'That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved' (Rom.10:9). Amen! Praise God!


Subject: Re: the nature of God's offer is bound up in mercy and grace
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 21:22:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Thanks again for responding. No, I don't think you bash me. That comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek. And thank you for the compliment. I would hope that all those claiming to belong to Christ could at least be courteous to one another, if not show outright love! What happened to basic manners, fer cryin' out loud?! As far as 2 Peter 3:9 is concerned, I had an opportunity to reread it this evening and search out some Orthodox commentary. My very (and I mean very) limited understanding is that the situation is like many other things--it is not either/or. Yes, the fire is reserved for ungodly men (although our understanding of fire is probably different, but that is another thread)
and God is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish. Exactly like the text says. I don't see any confusion or contradiction here. The focus seems to be on God's patience with us, and His kindness in giving us time in this life for repentance. Anyway, we seem to be getting off course. While I can certainly understand your reticence in touching on the Scriptures Wesley mentions, given your experience on other boards and some of the--at the very least--unkind things people can say to one another, I would really like to hear your thoughts on the Scriptures posted other that 2 Pet 3:9. Think of it as your opportunity to just say what you think without the worry of Arminian opposition or any unkind words. I sincerely want to know what you think these passages mean. Apart from any controversy. I just try to ask questions when I post here. My interest is educational. I can't ask George Whitefield questions, but I can post questions on this board and get some further insight. And, since no one else here has offered any thoughts, you seem to be my only hope. Besides, you wouldn't want me to think you were refusing to deal with Scripture now, would you? :) Thanks again, Christopher


Subject: Rom 9:22-24
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 22:08:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Below is the commentary on Romans 9:22-24 from St John Chrysostom (Chrysostom doesn't mean Golden Mouthed for nothin'!), considered one of the Three Great Heirarchs, along with St Gregory the Theologian and St Basil the Great. It seems to pertain directly to the question of 2 Peter 3:9, grace and free will. Plus, it seems to solve the entire problem of grace v free will quite nicely. Please don't feel you have to comment on it. I just though you might be interested in reading it. Christopher Ver. 22, 23, 24. 'What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.' What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath of God. For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calleth him not only 'a vessel of wrath,' but also one 'fitted for destruction.' That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self. For neither had God left out aught of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out aught of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew this, 'He endured him with much long-suffering,' being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath, He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power. For that it is not God's wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul does not wish to appear powerful in this way ('not that we should appear approved,' he says, 'but that ye should do that which is honest,') (2 Cor. xiii. 7), much less doth God. But after that be had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins but repented, He manifested His love toward man. But it does not say, love towards man, but glory, to show that this is especially God's glory, and for this He was above all things earnest. But in saying, 'which He had afore prepared unto glory,' he does not mean that all is God's doing. Since if this were so, there were nothing to hinder all men from being saved. But he is setting forth again His foreknowledge, and doing away with the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. And on this topic again he grounds a defence of his statement, which is no small one. For it was not in the case of the Jews only that some men perished, and some were saved, but with the Gentiles also this was the case. Wherefore he does not say, all the Gentiles, but, 'of the Gentiles,' nor, all the Jews, but, 'of the Jews.' As then Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey. For though the more part is of God, still they also have contributed themselves some little. Whence he does not say either, vessels of well-doing, or vessels of boldness (parrhsias), but 'vessels of mercy,' to show that the whole is of God. For the phrase, 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,' even if it comes in the course of the objection, still, were it said by Paul, would create no difficulty, Because when he says, 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,' he does not deprive us of free-will, but shows that all is not one's own, for that it requires grace from above. For it is binding on us to will, and also to run: but to confide not in our own labors, but in the love of God toward man. And this he has expressed elsewhere. 'Yet not I, but the grace which was with me.' (1 Cor. xv. 10.), And he well says, 'Which He had afore prepared unto glory.' For since they reproached them with this, that they were saved by grace, and thought to make them ashamed, he far more than sets aside this insinuation. For if the thing brought glory even to God, much more to them through whom God was glorified. But observe his forbearance, and unspeakable wisdom. For when he had it in his power to adduce, as an instance of those punished, not Pharaoh, but such of the Jews as had sinned, and so make his discourse much clearer, and show that where there were the same fathers, and the same sins, some perished, and some had mercy shown them, and persuade them not to be doubtful-minded, even if some of the Gentiles were saved, while the Jews were perishing; that he might not make his discourse irksome, the showing forth of the punishment he draws from the foreigner, so that he may not be forced to call them 'vessels of wrath.' But those that obtained mercy he draws from the people of the Jews. And besides, he also has spoken in a sufficient way in God's behalf, because though He knew very well that the nation was fitting itself as a vessel of destruction, still He contributed all on His part, His patience, His long-suffering, and that not merely long-suffering, but 'much long-suffering;' yet still he was not minded to state it barely against the Jews. Whence then are some vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerneth God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved.


Subject: there are so many grounds on which to object to this.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 00:14:29 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
But I will confine myself to two. First, I know it's common practice to cut and paste in on this board. And there are times when the 'experts' can say it better than we. Most of the time, however, it would be well for us to speak for ourselves, even if it is paraphrase their thoughts. That way we are forced to incorporate thoughts and integrate them with our expression. I urge you to consider doing that. Second, I will quote and reply to the last paragraph: 'For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerneth God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved.' That last statement: 'since, as for what concerneth God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved,' is uttelly indefinsible in the face of the text of verses 14-24. In fact, to conclude that Paul spoke only of Pharaoh, is not justified. In verses 22 and 23, he speaks of vessels, plural. In verse 23 he makes it plain that God showed 'mercy,' not to the vessels of wrath, but exclusively to the other vessels, the ones He created expressly as the Sovereign Potter for that purpose, designing them with that purpose in mind, 'even us, whom he hath called' (effectually with the special calling of Rom. 8:28-30). It is furthermore totally obvious that, if God 'had done as much for' the lost, the vessels of wrath, as He had for the saved (that is, regenerating them) they would have been saved as are we Christians. He plainly didn't do that for them. Salvation is the gift of God, 'by grace' and 'through faith,' which, as Eph. 2 declares, is a complete package, one step inevitably and surely leading to the other, in the sovereign provision of God, just as Rom. 8:30 lays it out. Christopher, to give as much authority to the pronouncements of extra-Biblical sources as to the Scripture, is not acceptable for a Christian. You know that, assuredly, for we together have discussed this before here months ago. And you know that one of the basics of the beliefs of the majority here is sola scriptura: the Bible is the final authority. To disbelieve that fundamental fact is the source of all kinds of errors, the reason the RCC goes so far astray. It will lead (and has led) you and others astray also.


Subject: Re: there are so many grounds on which to object to this.
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:29:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Then we should probably leave the thing rest, since I did not start the thread to revive a discucssion on Sola Scriptura and Tradition, but to better understand the nature of the dispute between Mr Whitefield and Mr Wesley. Thanks again for all your time in responding. Hope to talk to you soon. Christopher


Subject: No discussion of the God of the Bible can legitimately...
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:24:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
...omit that issue. What you don't percieve is that it isn't an unimportant 'side issue,' but at the heart or your difficulty with 'our' position. There is no basis for agreement outside the Bible and God's precepts expressed within it. Pronouncemts of other men are secondary to and to be painstakingly judged in light of their agreement with the inspired Word. All the comments of men, including 'exalted' leaders and lowly students such as myself, are to be subjected to severe scrutiny in the searchlight glare of the revealed Word, the principle God approves so obviously in Acts 17:11.


Subject: Re: No discussion of the God of the Bible can legitimately...
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:41:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Please do not misunderstand. I most definitely do not think it's an unimportant side issue. It's just that it's another thread. Again, I only started this thread to better understand the nature of the dispute between Whitefield and Wesley and I was sure that those on this board would be familiar with the situation. Christopher


Subject: 2 Peter 3 is crucial to the entire situation.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 22:01:56 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christopher, I wasn't holding off answering you on any Scripture out of fear or any motive other than trying to narrow the focus of the discussiion to specifics and to keep it from growing uncontrollably. Plus, you must remember that it's easy to ask a question (most times), but a real labor to try to answer faithfully and in detail--maybe not for others, but for me, at least. ________________________________ I have to admit I'm very troubled by your statements: 'As far as 2 Peter 3:9 is concerned, I had an opportunity to reread it this evening and search out some Orthodox commentary. My very (and I mean very) limited understanding is that the situation is like many other things--it is not either/or.' and 'I don't see any confusion or contradiction here. The focus seems to be on God's patience with us, and His kindness in giving us time in this life for repentance.' I, and I'm certain the vast majority of the people on this board, must disagree with that. And not only just disagree, but vehemently. I asked this of you above: 'If you do agree that that is the proper and only possible interpretation, then we can move on. If not, please list your specific objections to the interpretation.' I'm sorry, I see no specific objections to the interpretation and no reason for your conclusion except that you disagree. There really isn't any basis for continuance if there is to be no discussion. I stand ready to look at the other Scriptures, having made some outline notes on them, but we must resolve this issue first. If that is impossilbe, well.... Maybe someone else will take up the issue.


Subject: Re: 2 Peter 3 is crucial to the entire situation.
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 22:11:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, To what do you disagree vehemently? As far as I can tell, I simply agreed with what the text says. ?


Subject: The disagreement is that the text does say that. n/t
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 23:01:57 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: The disagreement is that the text does say that. n/t
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 08:26:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
It's clear that 2 Pet was written TO the Church and the saints residing therein....not the world at large...so God's longsuffering in 3:9 is towards His people (us-ward)...the Elect. laz 2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 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.


Subject: laz, was this directed to Christopher? YES, ROD! (n/t)
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 10:16:53 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: you betcha (n/t)
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 21:54:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Clarification?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 23:32:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, Please explain why you directed the post to me. I agreed with Pilgrim above that Peter is writing to the Church and don't understand what you objected to about what I said. Thanks, Christopher


Subject: Re: Clarification?
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 06:27:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher - I got the impression that while you believe Peter was writing the Church(how can this be denied), you don't necessarily believe that God's salvific desires is limited to His Elect based on chapter 3 verse 9. At least you are on the fence? In Him, laz


Subject: Re: Clarification?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 10:57:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, Thanks for getting back. The entire NT was written to the Church, no? When I'm through reading the links Pilgrim gave me and comparing them to Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word, I'll get back to you. Thanks again, Christopher


Subject: Openess of God theology
From: Starr Stevens
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:53:31 (PST)
Email Address: Starr33333@aol.com

Message:
I am into a dialogue with a friend who is into the 'openess of God' theology while I am a classic Calvinist. Any suggestions as to good material for me to read to defend my position against his? He has me reading Pinnock's 'Wideness in God's Mercy' much of which I find to be repulsive, but need help to formulate my thoughts for a response.


Subject: Re: Openess of God theology
From: Rod
To: Starr Stevens
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:10:31 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, SS, Let me urge you not to be dismayed or discouraged by this doctrine, as I understand it from the presentations below. All you can do, and all your are responsible for, is to show your friend God's truth. You're not responsible to argue him to conviction of it, though I sense your tender heart and desire to help him, which is natural and admirable. My advice: don't worrry about other books on this issue. Saturate your own mind and heart with the Word of God, leaning on the principle of Ps. 119:11: 'Thy word have I hidden in mine heart,
that I might not sin against thee.' Specifically, carefully read and digest such passages as Romans 8, particularly verse 29 in relation to the verse preceding it and the one succeeding it. Then go to Eph. 1:3-14 and 2:8-10, winding up at Rev. 4:11 and 5:8-10. Next, get a good, exhaustive concondordance and begin searching related words and passages, remembering to check out the words, 'eternal' and 'everlasting.' Good hunting!


Subject: Re: Openess of God theology
From: mebaser
To: Starr Stevens
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 23:54:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am into a dialogue with a friend who is into the 'openess of God' theology while I am a classic Calvinist. Any suggestions as to good material for me to read to defend my position against his? He has me reading Pinnock's 'Wideness in God's Mercy' much of which I find to be repulsive, but need help to formulate my thoughts for a response.
---
Greetings Mr. Stevens, Some of us, including myself, could use a brief overview of what this school of thought believes. Thanks, mebaser


Subject: Re: Openess of God theology
From: laz
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:02:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brother Mebaser - don't you remember the recent 'beatings' we took in maintaining the immutability of God and how He does not live IN time (but created and thus transcends time) along with us....cleaning up our messess and such...the argument being that there could be no love btwn God and man if all things have been ordained from eternity past...that there must be this real-time and constant interplay btwn God and man whereby God doesn't know what our next moves are going to be in order for a 'real' relationship to exist. Also, how can God know the future if the future has yet to happen and thus is unknowable? Prophecies are but God's intentions which He eventually finds ways to work out as planned. We believe as we do on account of Platonic/Aristolean logic and related hellenistic views of God. And so the argument goes as best I can tell. laz


Subject: Re: Openess of God theology
From: mebaser
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 18:38:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brother Mebaser - don't you remember the recent 'beatings' we took in maintaining the immutability of God and how He does not live IN time (but created and thus transcends time) along with us....cleaning up our messess and such...the argument being that there could be no love btwn God and man if all things have been ordained from eternity past...that there must be this real-time and constant interplay btwn God and man whereby God doesn't know what our next moves are going to be in order for a 'real' relationship to exist. Also, how can God know the future if the future has yet to happen and thus is unknowable? Prophecies are but God's intentions which He eventually finds ways to work out as planned. We believe as we do on account of Platonic/Aristolean logic and related hellenistic views of God. And so the argument goes as best I can tell. laz
---
EEEEKKKKKK!!!! mebaser


Subject: short definition
From: kevin
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:53:11 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
If I can sum up what laz posted in one sentence. The openess of God teaches that God is just as suprised about what will happen tommorrow as you and I are. In Him, kevin sdg PS The January issue of Tabletalk has a wonderful little article opposing the openess of God view. I don't think I can legally post it here. Does anyone know?


Subject: Re: short definition
From: Pilgrim
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 13:55:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If I can sum up what laz posted in one sentence. The openess of God teaches that God is just as suprised about what will happen tommorrow as you and I are. In Him, kevin sdg PS The January issue of Tabletalk has a wonderful little article opposing the openess of God view. I don't think I can legally post it here. Does anyone know?
---
kevin, Yes that was a nice albeit simply stated article concerning the 'Openness of God' heresy. You certainly may post it here! In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: short summary: It's blasphemy! n/t
From: Rod
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 11:57:19 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: Openess of God theology
From: John
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:39:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My friends: May I suggest you look at the website for the Baptist General Conference, since this theology is being hotly debated within their denomination right now. The website is at:
www.bgc.bethel.edu/ Professor Greg Boyd of Bethel Seminary is the idea's leading proponent within the BGC. A board of his seminary peers have pronounced him to be within orthodox evangelicalism. He is opposed mainly by John Piper. If you go to that website and click on the link for the 'Foreknowldge Discussion' it will have a wealth of information from both sides you can read. Happy hunting. John


Subject: Re: Openess of God theology
From: laz
To: John
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:02:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Wow...lots of stuff on that site. Thanks, laz


Subject: Questions for Kevin
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 06:35:41 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Kevin, In examining the thread on James 5, some questions come to mind concerning your belief on this matter of healing. 1) Is healing of all physical disease made possible by the Atonement (the propitiation, actually), the Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for His people? 2) Is healing actually and only possible through intercessory prayer of 'the elders?' Or can healing of Chritians take place for other reasons? A) If for other reasons, what would those reasons be? 3) Is God obligated to heal those for whom 'fervent prayer' by 'righteous men' is offered? A) If so, is He obligated because of a prior decision He has made to heal always and completely through this method? B) If so, is God obligated
by the action of the prayer to heal the person in question? 4) Is it safe and advisable to build a doctrine on one passage of Scripture? I think the answers to these questions may help us to explore the situation of healing in some greater depth, with a better focus.


Subject: answers for rod
From: kevin
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:16:29 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
*Rod, I will try to answer your questions by posting them along with my post. But I do want to state that I am in agreement with the monitor and with the issue of sin being involved. I hope the answers to your questions help make this less muddled. In examining the thread on James 5, some questions come to mind concerning your belief on this matter of healing. 1) Is healing of all physical disease made possible by the Atonement (the propitiation, actually), the Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for His people? *Yes. I base this from Isaiah 53:5. I do believe this to be dealing with both physical and spiritual healing. I also hold that an aspect of this is also suported in the lifting up of the serpent on the staff by Moses. This is a shadow of the suffering symbol that has become Jesus on the cross. 2) Is healing actually and only possible through intercessory prayer of 'the elders?' Or can healing of Chritians take place for other reasons? *Yes it is actually possible but only as a means of God's grace being displayed through the work of prayer. It is the same as evangelism being God's means of bringing His children to Him. But no this is obviously not the only method in which Christians may be healed. I believe that even Communion can work such a grace. Basically I leave this up to God's sovereignty in the issue. Now I do with this question get a hint of an allusion to something else. Forgive me if I am wrong. I do believe that God had ordained medicine for healing as well, doctor's. Also the gift of faith which is displayed in the healing of the woman with the bleeding who touched Jesus' hem. This is what I believe is meant by your faith has made you well. A) If for other reasons, what would those reasons be? *I hope this is answered above. 3) Is God obligated to heal those for whom 'fervent prayer' by 'righteous men' is offered? *Yes and no. I would never want to state God is obligated to do anything except that He is obligated to doing what is in His best interest. Whether or not healing takes place, be it from prayer or medicine is always in God's sovereign hand. A) If so, is He obligated because of a prior decision He has made to heal always and completely through this method? *In the sense of yes I offer Deut. 28. I can expound on this if need be. But to save space I will leave that to the reader for now. B) If so, is God obligated
by the action of the prayer to heal the person in question? *Once again I think this is best answered by Deut. 28 4) Is it safe and advisable to build a doctrine on one passage of Scripture? No. But I hope that I have given some other examples of scripture that seem to be in agreement with James 5. I think the answers to these questions may help us to explore the situation of healing in some greater depth, with a better focus. *I appreciate your laying out some questions. I can at times have difficulty expressing exactly what I am saying. This has helped. I would like to add that I am in agreement with a relationship between sin and sickness that goes beyond the general fall of man. I believe that some examples have been cited already, ie. David's sin with Bathsheba. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Thanks for answering.
From: Rod
To: kevin
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 16:31:25 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I appreciate your time and effort. :>) There's a great deal here which can't be dealt with in a forum like this, where space and attention spans are limited, but I'd like to target some specific points for examination and hopeful resolution of differences. I would like to have had more explanation of what your reference to Dt. 28 means. Well-being and prosperity is 'obedience based,' that is, predicated on works, works of man, which the law of Moses requires, according to the introductory remarks of that chapter, specifically verses 1-2. Without elaboration on your part, it seems necessary to conclude at this point that you believe that God is dealing with Christians in exactly the same way He dealt with Israel. If so, I would point out to you that Israel failed, inevitably; it was in God's plan that she fail and that no man can keep the law. For that reason, after demonstrating the helplessness of man, God sent His Son to keep the law for us, bringing about the rest (spiritual rest) of the salvation of the Lord Jesus. Compare Matt. 11:28-30, Acts 15:7-11 and Rom. 8:2-3. That, seemingly, by extention of your presentation above, means that we Christians are eligible for the exact promises of the OT for Israel, including Dt. 28. Such a conclusion seems to me to carry with it an enormous difficulty. Beginning in verse 15, a specific set of things which bring curses are outlined for that nation. Verses 36 and 37 seem particularly irreconcilable to your position, since the Church isn't a national entity, as portrayed here, having no earthly, sinful king and since real Christians can never worship idols, having turned away from false gods
by the action of turning to the living God: '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' (1 Thes. 1:9). Acceptance of these conditional belssings and application of them literally to te Church would mean accepting all the provisions of that chapter, including the punishments (see verses 27, 35) of the directive. Review of the rest of the chapter indicates that these are specific prophecies applying to the nation of Israel for their impending disobedience, specifically and unmistakeably. I spent the better part of the first three decades of my life unsaved, though I was 'churched' as a child and adolescent. Very rarely in my formative years I would take out the one and only Bible in our house and take a 'casual' (I'm positive the Providence of God was guiding me) look at it, with no particular object in mind, other than curiosity. I noticed a very baffling thing. In this chapter, the headings at the top of the pages read 'Blessings for the church', but declared, 'Curses for Israel.' How can that be? Food for thought. __________________________________ Kevin, there's more I want to comment about, but this is so long, I'll continue in this sequence immediately below.


Subject: Response continued
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 17:44:58 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Kevin, Here is one of the questions and your response from your ''answers for' post: '1) Is healing of all physical disease made possible by the Atonement (the propitiation, actually), the Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for His people? *Yes. I base this from Isaiah 53:5. I do believe this to be dealing with both physical and spiritual healing. I also hold that an aspect of this is also suported in the lifting up of the serpent on the staff by Moses. This is a shadow of the suffering symbol that has become Jesus on the cross.' I believe your answer contains some important truths. Is. 53:5: 'But he was wonded
for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.' Now, as always, as careful students of the Bible, we have to ask ourselves, 'What is the context of this verse/chapter and how does it apply?' The context of the entire chapter is that of the vicarious substitution of the Lord Jesus on the cross for the iniquities and transgressions of the chosen of God. There is nothing in the context of the chapter, which I can determine, dealing with physical healing, but spiritual restoration: 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief, When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall prolong his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied [the propitiation]; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities' (verses 10-11). The direction and purpose seem very clear. Now it is true that the gospel of Matthew applies this verse five to physical healing: 'That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah, the prophet, saying, He himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses' (8:17). However, we have to notice that the exact wording of what Isaiah pronounced is changed in this pronouncement, a prerogative of inspired writers to suit God's purpose. Compare Ps. 40:6 with the citation of it in Heb. 10:5, where the author makes it clear what the meaning of the Psalm was. Also note that the verse in Matthew declares the prophecy 'fulfilled.' Granted there are partial fulfillments, but is that so in this case? On the basis of Scripture, it seems not. The Lord Jesus performed His miracles of healing out of compassion, out of fulfillment of prophecy about Himself, and to authenticate His ministry, as well as to incite the Jewish leaders to seek His crucifixion. Look at the very next chapter in Matthew's gospel, an indirect commentary on this prophecy and its fulfillment. 'And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed; and Jesus, seeing their faith, said unto the sick of the palsy, Son be of good cheer...' Now what did He identify as the source of man's 'good cheer,' a joyous heart? Was it healing of his disease? No, it was instead because, 'thy sins be forgiven thee.' This man and the crowd probably didn't grasp that fact, but the next verses reveal that is exactly the reason the Lord Jesus performed these miracles, to underscore that fundamental truth while demonstrating His compassion. 'And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And, Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Why think ye evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they glorified God, who had given such power unto men' (9:2-8). (A comparison of Mark 2:4-12 is in order here.) Then again, it has to be noted what the rest of the NT says about this verse. It is specifically noted in 1 Peter 2:24: 'Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.' There is no view of physical healing here. The healing is here shown as past tense, 'were.' Our spiritual infirmity and sin-sickness was dealt with at the cross for believers, the elect. Physical healing is possible with God for His own, but is in no sense required of Him, even by the 'fervent prayer of a righteous man.' Paul, who declares, 'For I am crucified with Christ,' and goes on in the same verse to say that, 'Christ liveth in me,' was not able to heal himself by his prayerful petition (see1 Cor. 12) and he was in the presence of other brothers whom he didn't heal (I think his healing gift had faded away after his ministry was established and authenticated), including Timothy, whom he called his 'son.' It is to be assumed that he prayed for these men; he prayed about everything else! These facts would be particularly puzzling if all that were required for healing was the fervent prayer of a righteous man. Surely an Apostle is reckoned righteous by God. More food for thought.


Subject: Re: Response continued
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:00:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

Excellent response brother!. But if I interject but a couple things here that seems to be overlooked by those who are want to view physical healing in the atonement of the Lord Christ. 1)Although all sickness and disease are a direct result of Adam's sin and the requisite Fall, not all diseases, etc. are a direct result of sin committed by the afflicted individual (cf. Jh 9:1ff). It is sometimes, and by my own perception, more often than not that God consigns believers to suffer physical maladies throughout their life, for no other reason than to have them rest more and more on His goodness and grace (cf. 2Cor. 12:9) and thus for His own glory. From this I have concluded that to be afflicted with a particular ailment or disease is far more a blessing than not. This of course does not preclude one from praying unto the Lord for healing. For it be His will to lift one out of the affliction unto His own glory, it will surely be done. 2) This second point is for me perhaps the most salient in rejecting 'universal healing in the atonement.' Again, referring back to the sin of Adam and the Fall, one of the consequences of punishment brought upon all men through Adam's transgression was physical death. If it were true that ALL diseases and afflictions were open to reversal through the fervent prayers of righteous men, then of all the 'diseases' which we are afflicted with, death being the most serious, it cannot be disregarded as one from which man can be delivered. Why should death be an exception to this 'rule'? Indeed, how many would not rather pray for the recovery of one terminally ill or even one who had already died, rather than pray for a healing from the flu or a broken leg? I will unashamedly say that I cannot accept any of the myriad reports of alleged 'healers' bringing one back from the dead. I do firmly believe that such reports are fabricated to serve the deceitful and greedy purposes of those who perpetrate such frauds.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim PS... I'll be quiet now, so carry on! :-)


Subject: Thank you, Pilgrim, and these are excellent points.
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 20:59:27 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I actually had your second point in mind at one point, but forgot to make a note of it and thus forgot to mention it. As you say, it is extremely important to recognize that death must be entered into, unless the Lord returns first, so that we may enter His presence, these dying bodies being subject to sin and unfit for His company. If the Lord Jesus had meant to accomplish our physical healing, He could have and would have done just that. His work was for our eternal and spiritual benefit. To be physically alive and able to be free from death would necessitate our remaining here on earth, an earth where sin, even if we weren't personally touched by its physical effects, works its terrible consequences on men. To live always in such a world and state would actually make us in a worse condition than Adam was in the Garden and keep us from our ultimate glorification with the Lord. For the believer, death is the gateway to a glorious future, the place when sickness and sorrow no longer prevail or even exist. _________________________ It's interesting that you should mention this in your first evidence: 'It is sometimes, and by my own perception, more often than not that God consigns believers to suffer physical maladies throughout their life, for no other reason than to have them rest more and more on His goodness and grace (cf. 2Cor. 12:9) and thus for His own glory. From this I have concluded that to be afflicted with a particular ailment or disease is far more a blessing than not. This of course does not preclude one from praying unto the Lord for healing. For it be His will to lift one out of the affliction unto His own glory, it will surely be done.' This is my own conviction. Just this morning I read Ps. 107 and noticed this: 'Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men' (verses 8, 15, 21, 31) and the Psalmist concludes this after such verses as 19: 'Then [when they are in danger of death and sorely afraid] they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses.' As you say, we are such perverse creatures that praising the Lord God is not our priority, but He sends affliction so that He may cause us to praise and glorify Him, leaning on His strength to His glory. His strength is certainly 'made perfect in [our] weakness,' the reason Paul says just previously, 'of such an one will I glory; yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities' (I Cor. 12:5, 9). I praise God for your wonderful spirit and for the marvelous grace with which He has gifted you.


Subject: Re: Thank you, Pilgrim, and these are excellent points.
From: kevin
To: Rod and Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:05:24 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
Rod and Pilgrim, Thank you for your honest and helpful replies. I believe I mentioned in my initial posting, if not I will now, that I am seeking advice on the issue of James 5:15. I have not fully hashed out my views on the issue as of yet and your replies give me more perspective on the issue. I would like to reply to one instance in the postings. I seeemed to have misunderstood Rod's question on healing and the Atonement as well as the fervent prayer of a righteous man. I hope I can clarify because I do not believe that we are in disagreement on the issues. Basically, and forgive me if this only muddles the whole thing, had there been no atonement then there would be no healing available in Jesus' name. Follow my logic please: no death of Jesus Christ, no acts of the apostles, no healing of the lame man, no missionary work of Paul, etc. Only in that since does the Atonement make healing possible. I hope this is coming out correctly. If not then let's say that I do agree with you. Secondly, God is not bound by the prayers of the righteous man. Since God wants what is best for us, Himself, and since all things work to the benefit of those who love Him who are called according to His purpose, then the fervent prayers of a righteous man can be the means of the grace of healing. I emphasise can. I agree that due to our old man still hanging around with us that God uses sickness to make us rely on Him more strongly. I believe that Spurgeon stated that that was the sad case of the believer. I hope this helps. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: The Atonement
From: Rod
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:46:14 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Kevin, I for one am more confused. In relation to the Atonement you wrote this: '...had there been no atonement then there would be no healing available in Jesus' name. Follow my logic please: no death of Jesus Christ, no acts of the apostles, no healing of the lame man, no missionary work of Paul, etc. Only in that since does the Atonement make healing possible.' Actually, Kevin, this is true, but seems to overlook the larger sense of the Atonement, that its purpose was to effect the overall, and ultimate, state of man, so that true 'healing' of the whole person, his well-being insured by association with the Savior in His glory could be enabled and guaranteed. In this connection, it's interesting to consider the words of Rev. 22:2. Concerning the eventual destination's description, it says, 'In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bore twelve kinds of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.' Everything the Lord God does is directed toward that end, including the sovereign choice of physically healing now whom He will for His own purposes.


Subject: Re: The Atonement
From: kevin
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:37:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I think I am not communicating my point properly. I agree with your post completely. All things point towards the end mentioned in Revelations. I am afraid that I must just state that I do agree with you. I do not believe there is any obligation from God for our healing. I do believe that the spiritual is far more important, but does not by necessity cancel out, than the physical healing. Physical healing is utterly useless without spiritual healing. I believe this is Jesus' point when He forgave the lame man then He healed him. This is not the case for all. Some of us must suffer no physical healing even though we receive spiritual healing (salvation). Does this make more sense? Healing is a work made possible by what God has done for us in Jesus Christ on the cross. The primary work is salvation of His children. A secondary and much lesser work is healing. I apologize for muddling up the issue with my last post. And if I have done so again then please bear in mind that I am in 100% agreement with your previous posting. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: I hope we are in essential agreement!
From: Rod
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:00:26 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Kevin, I'm sincerely glad we're in agreement! :>) Let me explain my confusion. I am confused by your agreement with my posts because you stated this in your opening post on James: 'I do believe that all of the gifts of the Spirit can be experienced today.' You went on to state that you weren't referring to the gift of healing in that thread, but it seems inevitably tied to the issue, the reason I started a separate thread on the issue of healing in general, according to Biblical pronouncements. It would seem that, if we're in agreement, and I have stated that the gift of healing isn't in operation today, you are in agreement with that. Would that be an accurate statement? I'm not trying to frustrate you. I'm seeking truth and resolution in this matter. :>)


Subject: Re: I hope we are in essential agreement!
From: kevin
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:46:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, It does seem that we are essentially in agreement. In answer to your question on the gift of healing I would say yes I do believe the gift exists today. Have I witnessed it? No. Have I heard well documented accounts of it? Not to my knowledge. I guess you could say that in one sense I would not want to say that there is something God won't do without there being convincing evidence in the scriptures for me. I haven't scrolled all the way down yet but I deal with this in my reply to Pilgrim. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Enoch NOT from Cain
From: laz
To: all
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 18:43:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I stumbled upon this webpage(OK, ignore the dates)....compared with my Bible and while Enoch, Lamech, Cainan,Enosh...and other names are repeated and/or sound similar....Seth's seed produced
THE Enoch who walked with God...(Gen 5:24). Glad that's solved... laz p.s. for all who don't use 'dogpile.com', I typed in 'Enoch descendent' and the first hit and only relevant hit was that solitary webpage with the geneologies of Adam... love that dogpile. ;-) Where Enoch Came From www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2444/Adam.htm


Subject: Defying the written Word and logic
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:12:49 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: I'm sorry if I'm overworking Romans (I actually think it's impossible to do!), but the fact is that the Lord God goes to great lengths in that epistle to prove that man has declined progressively and tragically from the incident of the first sin, because he is, inherently, a sinner at his core, the enemy of God. God has His Apostle spend a lot of time documenting this in 1:18-3:20, saying in 3:9 that everyone in the whole world of Jews and Gentiles is 'under sin.' That means that they are sinners and that they are under the penalty of sin, a death sentence. Spiritual death, resulting in physical death, is the penalty. Therefore, the Apostle uses the strongest terms in the verses immediately following to declare the hopelessness of man to help himself. The words, 'none,' and, 'no, not one' leave no doubt that this is an all-inclusive situation and that the entire population of the earth is in view, every person, every type of person, 'both Jews and Greeks.' Yet there are countless numbers in 'Christendom' who fly in the face of God's pronouncements and declare that, though He says, 'there is none that seeketh after God,' some men, somehow, in their own dead natures, which are bound to sin, do seek Him. That would be a great mystery! As every 'sovereign gracer' realizes, this is placing man in the superior postion, relegating the Creator and Sovereign God to a position of utter dependence on lost men to honor His Son. That is unthinkable! Though it mightily angers those who hold this position, this is nothing but pride and arrogance on the part of man (realized or not). Not understanding God and His ways, man wants to 'cast the deciding vote,' cooperating with (actually dictating to) God in salvation by first acquiring faith which demands God's grace, contrary to the express teaching of the Word that faith is born of God's grace due to the prior regeneration of the lost person. If it is the Christian's duty and desire to honor God, then he must look at the two scenarios presented and ask himself, 'Which glorifies God, the one which presents Him as a weakling, at the whim and mercy of man's desires (sinful man!), or the one which presents Him as a just and merciful Sovereign, One who rescues the otherwise unredeemable?


Subject: Please show me! Showme!
From: Joel H
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:06:04 (PST)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu

Message:
Why have you so carefully ignored Pilgrim's challenge to present a BIBLICAL defense of your position? You have BOLDLY claimed that the doctrine of total inability is contradictory to Scripture, yet you seem COWARDLY when asked to bring the Bible to your defense. If reformed theology is in open contradiction to Scripture, then it should be relatively easy to show. Have you no Scripture to prove your point? Sola SCRIPTURA Joel H


Subject: James 5:13-18
From: kevin
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 19:58:32 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
I will first let you know that I am Calvinistic in my theology and I do believe that all of the gifts of the Spirit can be experienced today. However, that is not the issue I wish addressed. In the fifth chapter of James he tells us of the elders anointing the sick with oil and praying for them. Are there any Reformed Churches that practice this? I must say that it has been my experience (therefore it is fallible and not the rule) that most people who hold to the Reformed faith do not practice a faith in a Jesus Christ Who is capable of reversing illnesses, especially those deemed incurable by medicine. I am not espousing any view of the Faith movement here. Please keep that in mind. I do however believe that God answers prayer (James 5:16). I also believe that as believers in covenant with others in a church that I should pray for their healing as well as their spiritual growth in their knowledge of Jesus Christ. I also find no difficulty with expecting God to answer a prayer in the sense of when the answer does arrive I should not be surprised that God answered it. Now I know there are those who believe this view to be offbase with Calvinism and that may be, but in light in James chapter 5 and Jesus' earthly ministry and the ministry of the Apostles and other disciples recorded in Acts is it not biblical? I am not seeking to throw a wrench into any cog here on this posting board. I simply desire sincere responses based in scripture. All replies will be appreciated. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: stan
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 20:40:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Spose we might need to include the SIN of verse 15 in the discussion. Since the text mentions it it must relate.


Subject: amen! n/t
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:30:49 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: laz
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:17:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Good question. How is this oil applied? What kind of oil is it? How long do we leave it on? Inquiring minds sincerely want to know. blessings, laz


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: kevin
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 19:04:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The type of oil is cooking oil if the individual is reprobate. Okay bad joke but hey I started this thread so hopefully I am the only one offended by it. It there are others I apologise. Seriously that is a good question on what type of oil. One could assume olive oil as a symbol of Christ's blood since He is the Olive Vine and we are the branches grafted on. Maybe hyssop, myrrh. I think a little delving into the Jewish custom of annointing with oil is called for. But regardless of the type of oil or time of application would not James' statement be a type of command? I am not saying that there is healing in the action. All healing is up to the sovereignty of God. Maybe (I could be barbecued for this maybe) it is quasi-sacramental. You know, how baptism is a sign and a seal of our salvation maybe the laying on of hands and the annointing of oil is a means of grace toward healing. Now this is just a maybe and I am seriously accepting opinions here since that is all mine is. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: Tom
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:16:12 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Kevin Just an observation. Praying for someone that they might recieve healing and having the gift of healing are two different things. All Christian's can pray or someone's healing, but not all have the gift of healing. Tom


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: kevin
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:42:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom I agree. I hope that my post did not come across that way. That is not what I believe. Thank you for your reply In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 22:10:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hmmm, what does that verse say again? Pour oil on the sick and they will be healed of diseases? No? Let's see, I notice in James 5:1, taken literally as we MUST do, we find that the rich will have their riches rot and their clothes moth-eaten. That's bad news. But even worse, somehow their gold and silver riches will rust, oh no, oxidized gold. Worse yet, somehow the rust will eat the rich peoples flesh. An obvious reference to a flesh-eating virus no doubt. OK, enough with literal interpretations. The primary message of the Bible is salvation. The healing God is speaking of is spiritual healing, and the sickness God sees that leads to death is a spiritual sickness that leads the soul to eternal death. Are any in the church spiritually sick? Yes, then call the spiritual leaders of the church to pray that God might save that one. Let the leaders anoint with oil, a picture of ordaining a king, or priest to carry out their kingly or priestly duties, and a picture of God the Holy Spirit. What does the Holy Spirit's healing of a sick soul relate to, none other than regeneration. The result of the ministering to the sick in the congregation is that God might 'save the sick' and then on the last day God will 'raise them up' to life, only possible because, in Christ, all their transgressions 'will be forgiven'. Notice the reference to Elijah and rain. Drought is used to signify spiritually a lack of truth, a lack of life giving water. Just as Elijah was used by God to cut off rain and God's salvation, so too God can use the prayers of men to work out the salvation of His elect and 'yield its harvest' at the appropriate time. As the last verse in Chapter 5 says, if a believer by his spiritual attending to the needs of the sick (witnessing) and through the witness of the truth brings back a sinner from wandering the path that leads to death, the sinner may indeed be enlightened by the truth (assuming God has opened the sinnerís eyes, a result of regeneration), thus the believer nurtures that life given by God, a life which Christ has already 'covered a multitude of sins' thereby redeeming that sinner's soul from the second death, the lake of fire. James is speaking consistently about salvation, about the wicked repenting, about fleeing evil, coming humble and contritely before God who will heal. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physical healing of some disease by pouring oil on sick people. I write this for myself, just to say I did. Thanks. john


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: a monitor
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:01:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hmmm, what does that verse say again? Pour oil on the sick and they will be healed of diseases? No? Let's see, I notice in James 5:1, taken literally as we MUST do, we find that the rich will have their riches rot and their clothes moth-eaten. That's bad news. But even worse, somehow their gold and silver riches will rust, oh no, oxidized gold. Worse yet, somehow the rust will eat the rich peoples flesh. An obvious reference to a flesh-eating virus no doubt. OK, enough with literal interpretations. The primary message of the Bible is salvation. The healing God is speaking of is spiritual healing, and the sickness God sees that leads to death is a spiritual sickness that leads the soul to eternal death. Are any in the church spiritually sick? Yes, then call the spiritual leaders of the church to pray that God might save that one. Let the leaders anoint with oil, a picture of ordaining a king, or priest to carry out their kingly or priestly duties, and a picture of God the Holy Spirit. What does the Holy Spirit's healing of a sick soul relate to, none other than regeneration. The result of the ministering to the sick in the congregation is that God might 'save the sick' and then on the last day God will 'raise them up' to life, only possible because, in Christ, all their transgressions 'will be forgiven'. Notice the reference to Elijah and rain. Drought is used to signify spiritually a lack of truth, a lack of life giving water. Just as Elijah was used by God to cut off rain and God's salvation, so too God can use the prayers of men to work out the salvation of His elect and 'yield its harvest' at the appropriate time. As the last verse in Chapter 5 says, if a believer by his spiritual attending to the needs of the sick (witnessing) and through the witness of the truth brings back a sinner from wandering the path that leads to death, the sinner may indeed be enlightened by the truth (assuming God has opened the sinnerís eyes, a result of regeneration), thus the believer nurtures that life given by God, a life which Christ has already 'covered a multitude of sins' thereby redeeming that sinner's soul from the second death, the lake of fire. James is speaking consistently about salvation, about the wicked repenting, about fleeing evil, coming humble and contritely before God who will heal. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physical healing of some disease by pouring oil on sick people. I write this for myself, just to say I did. Thanks. john
---
Unfortunately for you, you have not paid attention to everyone in this forum who has made a credible contribution to you regarding 'literal interpretation.' How you represent James 5:1 is NOT a literal interpretation, that is a wooden headed letterist interpretation which does not allow for figurative language in any respect. Literal interpretation INCLUDES the use of figures and symbols within a section when they are obvious, as in James 5:1. It is not so obvious in 13-18, regarding the oil and laying on of hands. Kevin has a point in that your interpretation is highly due to your pre-conceived notion that there is no such thing as literal interpretation in the Bible. a monitor


Subject: a monitor: exactly! Thanks. n/t
From: Rod
To: a monitor
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:35:36 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: kevin
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 05:04:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, Thank you for your reply. I do find difficulty with your exegesis of the chapter however. Please take no offense since none is intended but is it possible that you are interpreting this passage in light of preconceived prejudices? I am merely asking. I understand the concept of James possibly speaking in parable form. But is there any scriptural proof of that? In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Re: James 5:13-18
From: laz
To: kevin
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 07:30:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Kevin/John - verse 15 says '
if he have committed sins' which suggests that the annointing is NOT primarily about sin/salvation ... but about physical healing as the plain reading of this text seems to warrant. my 2 cents. laz


Subject: 'if'
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 09:09:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, The 'if' here is not conditional. It is certain that he has committed sins. All of us have and do. Also, we know from other sections of the Holy Word that God forgives our sins, both in our initial salvation and in our continuing personal sanctification, as 1 John 1:5-2:2 demonstrates. Compare the use of the word 'if' in 1 John 2:1. This is a prayer of faith in God, offered both by the man who came, in faith, to the elders and by the faithful elders themselves. God always honors that request (implied, but certain) for the forgiveness of the man's sins, because He is 'faithful and just...cleans[ing] us from all unrighteousness,' and keeping us cleansed. God will always honor such a prayer. Also, in this passage in James, it's important to note that, though God cleanses and forgives, honoring the request for restoration of right conditions between the creature and his Lord, that doesn't mean there won't be consequences in proportion to our sins. David sinned terribly in the matter of Bathsheba and her husband, but, though he was forgiven (Ps. 51), the child died and, 'Now, therefore, the sword shall vever depart from thine house, because thou hast despised me...(2 Sam.12:10, see though verse 23). David's immediate and proper response was, 'I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD hath also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die' (verse 13), but notice verse 15: 'And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child...and it was very sick.' Succeeding verses explain that David prayed for the child, trusting the mercy and also the justice of the Lord. But the child died, part of David's punishment and sorrow. David's sin, by the testimony of the prophet, had been 'put away,' but the punishment and consequences were still realized. Scripture remains its own best commentary.


Subject: A thought occured to me
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 01:00:59 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
A thought occured to me about the subject of healing. As I read in the book of Acts about the apostles healing the sick and lame. It would seem to me that this was the gift of healing manifested. For instance, (sorry I don't have the scripture referrence handy) a lame begger asked the disciples, for some money. Their responce was something to the effect of, 'silver and gold have I nun, but such as I have give I thee, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk'. The signifacance of this, to me is that they didn't stop and pray for the healing of this man. They proclaimed it so, in the Name of Jesus Christ. This was obviously the gift of healing in action. How many today, have you heard about, that have been used in this gift this way? Tom


Subject: You are correct, brother Tom.
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:59:07 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
This has been touched on briefly here somewhere. I think it was laz who pointed out that there is a difference between the gift of healing, and being healed without outside intervention, except possibly additional prayer from someone else. Those who believe the 'gift of healing' exists and is practiced for today, don't believe in the actual gift of healing, as was practiced in this case (so that the gospel could go out with great effect), but concentrate on the 'event' itself, making that the goal and focus and not the glory of the Lord Jesus. It can be described as, 'healing on demand.'


Subject: small point on gifts
From: kevin
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:46:55 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
Rod, You posted the statement below. 'Those who believe the 'gift of healing' exists and is practiced for today, don't believe in the actual gift of healing, as was practiced in this case (so that the gospel could go out with great effect), but concentrate on the 'event' itself, making that the goal and focus and not the glory of the Lord Jesus. It can be described as, 'healing on demand.'' I agree that is a popular view of the 'gift of healing.' However, I believe that the gift of healing is still in existence today. Now I am aware of the influence of B.B. Warfield in the Calvinist school of thought on this and of some theologians opinions on what John Owen may have believed. I personally find no proof in scripture for the cesation of any of the gifts of the Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit's primary function is to point to Jesus Christ so are the gifts. It is sad that there are those who capitalise on conterfiet miracles. No one can put up a sign that states 'healings this Sunday.' That is not the healings in the ministry of Jesus nor as recorded in the book of the acts of the apostles. All these healings were spontaneous and not done until the Holy Spirit gave the individual the authority to minister that particular gift. Paul himself had to wait to cast the demon out of the slave girl. To sum up, all of the gifts of the Spirit are under the subjection of the soveriegnty of the Holy Spirit and should always point towards Christ. They are in no means and end unto themselves but, at best, a begining. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: a couple of other significant points
From: Rod
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 13:13:32 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Kevin, I should say, that though I am an ardent, 'sovereign gracer,' those who claim to be 'true Calvinists' don't fully accept me into their circle, though many acknowledge me as a brother in Christ, as I do them. :>) Neither do I claim 'Calvinism' or any other label specifically for myself. Also, I have offered, though not in great detail, Biblical evidence for the cessation of the gift of healing in the thread above on healing, which I started to explore the whole subject. You haven't responded to or acknowledged that, as my most recent post there shows. I have not read Warfield and I'm not a theologian, merely a student and lover of the Word of God, the way to the God of the Word through His Son.


Subject: Re: small point on gifts
From: Pilgrim
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:23:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Kevin, Sorry, but I hold firmly to Weak Cessationism, but it wasn't Warfield or Owen (who is one of my favourite Puritan writers), nor any other writer who influenced my thinking on this. It was the reading of Scripture, which I do believe teaches the cessation of ALL the miraculous gifts which God gave to the infant N.T. church. However, there IS at least one writer today (among several others) who is worthy of giving a precise, profound and cogent defense of the historic and Reformed position of the cessation of the gifts. And that man would be Dr. Richard Gaffin in his first book on the subject,
Perspectives on Pentecost. I believe his biblical exegesis is incontrovertible. :-) In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: thank you
From: kevin
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:43:29 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
Pilgrim, Thank you for your reply. I too am a fan, if you will, of the writings of John Owen. Like you I base my view on the existence of the gifts from the scriptures. The difference is that I find that scripture does not state that the gifts have ceased. It does state that they will cease but I do not find the evidence of Corinthians as to have happened yet (the issue of when the perfect comes). I have seen and thumbed through Dr. Gaffin's 'Perspectives on Pentecost.' Admittedly I have not given it a good read, but since there is a recommendation on it I shall. A strong defense for the continuation of the gifts is put forth by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in the collection of his sermons titled 'Baptism and Gifts of the Spirit.' It is edited by his grandson. Lloyd-Jones was a cessationist at one time, this is evident in his sermon series on the Holy Spirit (also available and edited by his daughters). However, Ian Murray deals with Lloyd-Jones' change of opinion in his biography as does Christopher Catherwood (the grandson) in his biography. I mention these because it is interesting to note how an individual comes to change their view. In Him, kevin sdg PS is weak cessationism the view that some of the gifts are still in existance or the view that the gifts are with-held and resurge according to the timing and soveriegnty of God? I believe it is that latter that some think Owen professed to believing.


Subject: Re: thank you
From: Pilgrim
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 07:57:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
kevin,

I have read all the references to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones you mentioned. :-) And after considering his presentations I must find him in error on this point. Ian Murray does indeed bring up some salient issues which refute the late and godly Lloyd-Jones' view. Murray's latest offering, Pentecost Today? is quite good and should be read. :-) Surely men may change their mind, and I hope that this is to be seen as a good thing when one goes from an unbiblical view to a biblical one. However, it seems that especially in our day, there is far more of a movement from the biblical to the unbiblical (which I accredit to the prophetical fulfillment of the 'end times'), e.g., Clark Pinnock, Craig Lane, John Reisinger, et al. I think that you will find Gaffin's argument inefficacious if you are already convinced in mind that the ecstatic gifts are still extant today. However, if you are truly 'seeking' for an answer to this issue, Gaffin's book can go a long way to helping reach that answer. Dr. O. Palmer Robertson's little work, The Final Word is also worthy of your time to read. Lastly, in regards to the definition of 'Weak Cessationism', it is neither of those which you have mentioned. 'Weak Cessationism' holds that ALL the ecstatic gifts were ended at the close of the Apostolic era. But miracles are that which God alone brings about according to His eternal purpose and counsel for His own glory and the temporal good of men. Therefore they are and still occur, albeit rarely. The supernatural is inherent in God and therefore it never can cease. :-) But the 'gifts' which the first century and infant church experienced were designed and purposed of God for a specific reason; to accomplish the establishment of the N.T. universal church, after which, when those who were appointed for this task, i.e., the 'prophets and apostles' (Eph 2:20) who laid the foundation, they ceased, having accomplished that which God ordained.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: thank you
From: kevin
To: Pilgrim and Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 14:57:58 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
Rod and Pilgrim, I am going to save myself a little time and post to both of you together. I sincerely appreciate your time and patience in the issue, especially since we did get a little off the original subject of James 5:15. But that is to be expected when dealing with theological issues. Scripture is not a take a piece here, take a piece there kind of book. And for the most part neither is what we believe. Faith fills in our blanks when the Holy Spirit has yet to enlighted an aspect of God's word for us (I am not talking about new revelation but just the basic revelation where you are reading along in scripture and for the first time a particular passage makes more sense than it ever did before or there is a sense of conviction from any given verse or verses. ie. when Peter quotes 'be holy as I am holy' that just really convicted me one day, and I had been a believer for 7 years, but I digress) Anyway thank you for the time and patience once again. I do plan on seeking out those sources you mentioned Pilgrim. I am mostly convinced on the existance of all the gifts today. I guess you could say that I am using as much discernment as the Holy Spirit is giving me. Rod, you had mentioned that I did not address certain issues you mentioned. I apologise for I was not aware of which ones. It is so easy to get sidetracked in these posting boards. If you would like to better know my stance please feel free to repost any of them or email me. I, personally, have received enough information for now on many issues that I would like to absorb and pray about. But you will probably see me in other postings. In Him, kevin sdg PS I am curious as to what you two thought of my post on the Timothy passage. It was typed while I was at work and is rather lengthy. But I would like some constructive criticism on it if you have the time.


Subject: post by kevin titled Re: thank you for Rod and Pilgrim
From: kevin
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 15:21:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
sorry guys it didn't show up on the screen as I had hoped


Subject: Re: A thought occured to me
From: kevin
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 03:47:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, That is correct. I do not believe James to be dealing with the gift of healing. There is a difference between the gift of healing and God healing individuals through other means. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Re: 'if'
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:00:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod - but what is your take on John's post saying that James 5 is about spiritual healing only? ' I was trying to show that the annointing was for physical infirmity for it's clear that everyone sin..but not all commit those sins that are particularly aggregious as to warrant open repentence or sanctions. The 'sin' mentioned could be of the severity to disqualify them from the communion table...or even disfellowship. Of course we all sin all the time...but not all sins are dealt with alike. I don't need the elders of my church paying me a visit just because I lose my temper at home over the dog puking on the carpet. ;-) I think that a person seeking physical healing with a known sin problem (one of the type and severity mentioned above..cheating on his wife for instance) is going to have a problem getting heard by God. No? As Kevin alluded, if this special annointing is another means of grace...like all means of grace...we must come with a repentent heart and ready to deal on God's terms. Did I miss something? laz


Subject: Re: 'if'
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:35:02 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, 'Rod - but what is your take on John's post saying that James 5 is about spiritual healing only?' See a monitor's and Stan's posts above. The context of the passage is that this is a praticularly severe illness, possibly and likely brought on by sin. The person's coming to the elders in faith and repentance seems to be in view, which would invite and necessitate a restoration to proper standing in the local assembly. It is probably adviseable to consider 1 Cor. 5:1-5 in relation to this section of James: '...to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus' (verse 5). (It may be that 2 Cor. 2:1-11 bears on this situation.) Your statement: 'Kevin/John - verse 15 says 'if he have committed sins' which suggests that the annointing is NOT primarily about sin/salvation ...but about physical healing as the plain reading of this text seems to warrant,' signified to me that you didn't think sin was involved. I truly don't want to misread you and misunderstand, but this is my impression from your posts.


Subject: Re: 'if'
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 14:26:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hmmm, i think i see your point. I thought sin was a secondary matter....physical illness being primary. But anyway...i agree with your above post. laz


Subject: Calvinist's view of sanctification
From: E.V.
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 18:11:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Looking for opinions here, what is the 'traditional' Calvinist view of sanctification, is it synergistic or monergistic? In Christ, E.V.


Subject: Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification
From: Prestor John
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 22:21:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Synergistic: The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXIV Man's Sanctification and Good Works We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Spirit, sanctifies [1] him and makes him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man; for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith which is called in Scripture a faith working through love, which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word. These works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace. Nevertheless they are of no account towards our justification, for it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good. Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?); nay, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He who worketh in us both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written: When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do. In the meantime we do not deny that God rewards good works, but it is through His grace that He crowns His gifts. Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we can do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus, then, we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be continually vexed if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior. The Larger Catechism, Questions 75 Q75: What is sanctification? A75: Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit [1] applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them,[2] renewed in their whole man after the image of God;[3] having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts,[4] and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened,[5] as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.[6] 1. Eph. 1:4; I Cor. 6:11; II Thess. 2:13 2. Rom. 6:4-6 3. Eph. 4:23-24 4. Acts 11:18; I John 3:9 5. Jude 1:20; Heb. 6:11-12; Eph. 3:16-19; Col. 1:10-11 6. Rom. 6:4; 6:14; Gal. 5:24 The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XIII Of Sanctification I. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally[1] through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them;[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified,[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6] 1. Acts 20:32; Rom. 6:5-6 2. John 17:17; Eph. 3:16-19; I Thess. 5:21-23 3. Rom. 6:14 4. Gal. 5:24 5. Col. 1:11 6. II Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:14 II. This sanctification is throughout the whole man,[7] yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part,[8] when ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9] 7. I Thess. 5:23 8. Rom. 7:18, 23 9. Gal. 5:17; I Peter 2:11 III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail,[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome;[11] and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed to them.[12] 10. Rom. 7:23 11. Rom. 6:14 12. Eph. 4:15-16; II Cor. 3:18; 7:1 Q76: What is repentance unto life? A76: Repentance unto life is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger,[4] but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins,[5] and upon the apprehension of God's mercy in Christ to such as are penitent,[6] he so grieves for [7] and hates his sins,[8] as that he turns from them all to God,[9] purposing and endeavoring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.[10] 1. II Tim. 2:25 2. Zech. 12:10 3. Acts 11:18, 20-21 4. Ezek. 18:28, 30, 32; Luke 15:17-18; Hosea 2:6-7 5. Ezek. 36:31; Isa. 30:22 6. Joel 2:12-13 7. Jer. 31:18-19 8. II Cor. 7:11 9. Acts 26:18; Ezek. 14:6; I Kings 8:47-48 10. Psa. 119:6, 59, 128; Luke 1:6; II Kings 23:25 Hope that was enough sources. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification
From: E.V.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 08:05:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Prestor John, The following quote does not sound like synergism to me: The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXIV >>....Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man; for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith which is called in Scripture a faith working through love, which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word. How is this not monergism? If sanctification is synergistic, then it cannot be important in justification, and therefore not really necessary for salvation. But scripture clearly denies this. We know that without holiness, no one will see the Lord. If my level of sanctification depends upon my cooperating with the grace of God, and I fail to cooperate, I fail in sanctification. So then God either glorifies me without being sanctified, or He doesn't glorifiy me at all, and thus my salvation was dependant upon my works. If someone says that progress in sanctification results in rewards in heaven, but doesn't affect justification, then Non-Lordship salvation must be accepted, which I find unaccepable. So it seems that monergistic sanctification is our only hope. Any thoughts? In Christ, E.V.


Subject: Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification
From: Prestor John
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 22:08:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Prestor John, The following quote does not sound like synergism to me: The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXIV >>....Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man; for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith which is called in Scripture a faith working through love, which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word. How is this not monergism? If sanctification is synergistic, then it cannot be important in justification, and therefore not really necessary for salvation. But scripture clearly denies this. We know that without holiness, no one will see the Lord. If my level of sanctification depends upon my cooperating with the grace of God, and I fail to cooperate, I fail in sanctification. So then God either glorifies me without being sanctified, or He doesn't glorifiy me at all, and thus my salvation was dependant upon my works. If someone says that progress in sanctification results in rewards in heaven, but doesn't affect justification, then Non-Lordship salvation must be accepted, which I find unaccepable. So it seems that monergistic sanctification is our only hope. Any thoughts? In Christ, E.V.
---
Okay lets look at what it is saying: We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Spirit, sanctifies [1] him and makes him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin
Now you forgot this part because without this the second part makes no sense. Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Now remiss means this: Failing in what duty requires So that without the justifying faith men would do good works for wrong motive that being self-love or fear of damnation. So the Spirit of God working with man causes man to want to do good works from proper motivation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man; for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith which is called in Scripture a faith working through love, which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word. So because of this we do good works and even though they are not up to the standard of what God calls good yet they please Him because we are doing what He wills. Now as remember justification is different from sanctification, justification declares us righteous, sanctification is the work of God with us to make us holy which will continue until our glorification. This is the total package of salvation. Justification, Sanctification, Glorification this is God's salvation each part is just as important as the other. Prestor John


Subject: SYNERGY YES...
From: Hesed
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 16:54:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
EV When calvinists talk about God's sovereignity in salvation they are especially refering to the beginning: God reaches down to a corpse to give it new life. A corpse has no will, life nor desire for godliness ! It is God's will alone that is effecting the change necesary for new life. Afterwards however, the risen corpse is alive and is expected even commanded to live for the Lord. His believing, desiring, willing obedience plus everything else he does is by his 'will' in accordance to God's will. This is synergy. Two wills cooperating; one precedes the other follows. One 'works in' and the other 'works out!' The willing is a gift of God but we exercise that gift freely of our own volition. In His sovereign Love, Hesed


Subject: Further questions
From: E.V.
To: Hesed
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 10:53:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Hesed, I am not sure that I am getting the distinction you are making in regards to two wills cooperating. The same could be said of justification. God changes our hearts in order that we may exercise our will and accept/believe in/submit to Christ. For most certainly we are not justified without believing in Christ, and it is US and not God who does the believing. This seems to be the same explanation that you gave to sanctification. God changes our wills, and as a result, we freely obey and progress in sanctification. Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Philip. 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. If it is God who works in us to will and to act according to His purpose, how come we so often fail? It *seems* that we are thwarting God's plan, because most certainly He does not desire us to sin. Would you agree then that we can hinder/thwart/limit our sanctification? Does God provide everybody He justifies with a minimum amount of sanctification from which they cannot lose, and further advances are up to the individual cooperating with the grace God gives? In Christ, E.V.


Subject: Re: Further questions
From: laz
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:20:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Golly Gee, sounds like another sovereignty vs responsibility question again. ;-) Even what we and others mean for evil...God means for good...for has He not ordained all things (without being the author of sin, or course)? I think that I can safely say that at the end of the day (the end of my natural life)...I will look back and see the hand of God lovingly orchestrating the events of my less-than-perfect life seeing to it that I become the very man God had ordained from before the foundations of the world...thru my own sins even....and all for my greater good and for His ultimate glory and good pleasure. There will be no loose ends...no regrets...only gratitude for such a marvelous grace for it was done by Him, thru Him and in Him. laz


Subject: amen and amen
From: kevin
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:15:44 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
Why wait till the end of the day? Let us rejoice now. As Paul says so empatically, 'Rejoice and again I say rejoice!' I believe what you have stated is what so many people who oppose Calvinism fail to see. How can someone who does not believe that God's hand is directly involved in their own life to give them that which is best for them (that which is God and from God) ever have any joy in the Lord? I cannot imagine what a miserable creature I would be if I could not rest in God's providence. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: Okay laz,
From: E.V.
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 15:51:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Re: Calvinist's view of sanctification
From: Tom
To: E.V.
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:34:48 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Perhaps Romans 8:30 will help in this issue. Tom


Subject: Okay, 'Show Me'
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:53:34 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Here are your last pious words in a post below: 'God does not expect me to blindly accept what you or anyone else says, Iíll continue to search the Scripture to see if these things are true.' Good for you! Be a Berean! When the Bible writers rehearse the history of Israel under the inspiration of God, the emphasis is always on what God has done for His chosen people. When the Apostles write in the NT, the emphasis is on that which God has accomplished for the Christians. The story throughout the whole of the collection of its books is His grace. One primary and very noteworthy example of this is Ps. 106. The entire Psalm is dedicated to proving God's grace and mercy and is a plea to be under that mercy. The message is: Man continually is failing and evil, but God's grace rescues His chosen, executing justice on the lost. It isn't suprising that this is the message of that Psalm; it's the message of the Bible. I do sincerely urge you to read the whole Psalm prayerfully. After you've done so, please go back and look at verse 31, comparing it most carefully to Gen. 15:6 and Romans, 3:21-4:25. 'And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able to perform' (Rom. 4:21). May God enable you to see and grasp the concept of His marvelous grace, portrayed and revealed constantly in His holy Word.


Subject: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 08:53:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I thought that this subject had come to an end until I came across your last post, therefore my tardiness in replying. You said:
' Why don't you offer something more than empty rhetoric either by way of disproving the doctrine of total depravity or positively by giving us your own personal view?' The doctrine of total depravity was concocted by Augustine to counter Pelagius and then revived by Calvin in opposition to Jacobus Arminius (Jacob Harmensen, or Hermansz). It was thought that if man had a 'free will,' if he could choose between sinning and not sinning, then he could choose to be saved, but salvation is not something that someone chooses. Salvation is something that is done to and for someone. Something that they cannot do themselves. No one can save themselves. Salvation is an act whereby Jesus Christ saves you, period. This whole notion of total depravity, an inherited sin nature, just muddies the waters, creates contradiction where no contradiction exists. It is a totally useless doctrine and is not Bible based. I know that people like to have an excuse for sinning, itís either 'the devil made me do it' or 'my old sin nature made me do it' no one wants to be responsible for their sins. But it seems to me that without taking responsibility there can be no true repentance. So long as we blame our sins on some inherited sin nature then we are not really taking responsibility for our actions and therefore our repentance is a hollow gesture. Calvin wrote: 'Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God, that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with fetters of wickedness.' The Calvinist theologian Augustus Strong notes: 'Man's present inability is natural, in the sense of being inborn, - it is not acquired by our personal act, but is congenital.' Which makes sin the same as race or eye color, our inability to do good is a state over which we have no control. It is heredity. Sin is no more our fault than the color of our eyes is our fault. How are we to repent for something that is not really our fault? As for the source of this sin nature, Calvin says: '...the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains originated in the first man's revolt against his Maker.' According to Augustine/Calvin, 'The Fall' (not a biblical term for Adam and Eve's sin) was the cause of man's inability toward all good and the source of his sin nature. But there is no mention of anything like that in the Genesis account. There is no record there of God imposing this curse of a sin nature on man. There are other curses listed. God pronounced the death sentence, which He defined as a return to the dust (Gen. 3:19), which obviously denotes a physical death. God decreed the presence of 'thorns and thistles' to make toil more difficult (v.18). He told the woman that she must endure great pain in childbearing (v.16), but thereís no mention of a sin nature. These curses are nothing in comparison to a sin nature. You would think that at the very least the text would have something like, 'Because you have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. You and your offspring shall have no freedom to do good, but everything they do shall be sin.' It is certainly true that death passed upon everyone through the First Adam. His expulsion from the Garden with its Tree of Life removed him from the source of immortality and made death certain. This is also true of his posterity. But the transmission of a sin nature is not to be found in the text. I suppose that you hold to another useless and unnecessary doctrine the London Confession's reference to 'perfection of nature'? Is that why you must have a doctrine of an inherited sin nature? As for giving my 'own personal view' I truly thought that I had. To one of your posts I replied: 'As human beings we have needs, legitimate needs. Primary needs and secondary needs. Primary need consist of air, water, food, clothing, shelter. We also have many secondary needs, the need to procreate, the need to communicate, the need to belong, etc., etc., etc. These needs are not sinful but the way in which we decide to meet our needs can be sinful. Sin is the meeting of our needs in an unlawful way. For instance, the need to procreate is to be satisfied in 'marriage', to satisfy that need outside of 'marriage' is sin. The desire to procreate is 'natural' and not sinful, the means by which we satisfy that desire can be sinful. We do not have a 'sin nature' that forces us to meet our legitimate desires in an unlawful way.' As for 'empty rhetoric' I tried to answer every reasonable objection. In a reply to Tom, I wrote: ' If you blame sin on a inherited sin nature then the person that chooses to steal, or chooses to practice homosexuality, has no alternative but to so choose. The choice was necessitated by the desire, and the desire was necessitated by their inherited sin nature. It might just as well be a sin to have blue eyes as to commit the most evil act since both are just a result of ones heredity.' I think thatís a rational argument and not 'empty rhetoric.' And to Tomís idea that: ' : 'This does not mean that because of the sin nature the unsaved will nessasarily become a Hitler or a Charles Manson. Indeed, many people who are not saved, do things that are commendable.' I replied: 'Here you introduce a different problem, you now have degrees of sin, are you saying that Hitler and Charles Manson inherited a stronger sin nature than the rest of us? That there are varying degrees of 'sin natures'? Is that how you explain the fact that some donít sin as greatly as others?' I received no answer. Are varying degrees of sin natures a part of your doctrine? Are some born with stronger sin natures than others? To Rod, who said that he was not really interested in answering me but was using the forum to reach others I asked: ' This certainly does not prove that Adam had a sin nature but it does make me wonder how you explain away Enoch, Iím pretty sure that I know how, but perhaps you have a new twist. Enoch was the offspring of Cain, you certainly would think that if anyone inherited a 'sin nature' it would be Enoch, but we are told in Gen. 5:24 'And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.' The only person before Enoch that we are told 'walked with God' is Adam, in the Garden, before he sinned.' I received no response, and I thought the question of Enoch was a perfectly legitimate point and not 'empty rhetoric.' It really seems to me that the doctrine of an inherited sin nature is an unnecessary doctrine that takes away all moral responsibly and without moral responsibility there is no such thing as sin. If it is inherited behavior then we simply are not responsible. How hollow repentance is with this doctrine, one may say 'forgive me Lord for I have sinned', but what they are really saying with this doctrine is forgive me Lord for I could not help but sin because of this sin nature that I inherited. Thatís not much different than saying 'the devil made me do it', either way we are blaming something or someone else for our sins. Thatís hardly genuine repentance. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:53:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe,

I won't bother to quote your menial reply above but simply refer you and everyone else to it for examination for the purposing of finding even ONE Scriptural text given to substantiate your objection to the Protestant and Reformed doctrine of 'Total Depravity'; or better 'Total Inability'. Neither will anyone find even ONE Scriptural text to substantiate your prognostication that 'responsibility predicates free-will'. But sir, this is exactly what I asked of you previously; to give a BIBLICAL defense of your proposition. Instead you constantly prate about with redundancies saying that the doctrine of Total Depravity does a great injustice to Christianity, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Your entire line of argumentation has been one that is absent any biblical support. It is based rather on á priori presuppositions which remain unproved. Again, to put it simple terms; simply stating something does not prove its verity. Can you offer any biblical evidence for your proposition or can you not? If you think you can, please do so. Now I will obviate from presenting an exegesis of Rom 5:12-18, since you have already at least implied, that you accept the solidarity of the human race with Adam. Further, it would appear that you also acknowledge, at least to some degree, that the transgression of Adam had a direct impact and influence upon all his progeny. Thus, I think it would be far more productive and to the point to discuss what that actual 'impact and influence' was that has affected mankind. It is the shared faith among all those who hold to the historic faith of the Reformers in particular, that there were explicit noetic effects upon all men consequence to the transgression of Adam. And that effect was the depravity of man's spiritual nature. To this you strongly disagree, but again for no biblical reason stated. And so I would therefore have you consider the biblical record concerning this depravity and the visible results of it. First, there is the specific perception and indictment of God Himself concerning man's 'modus operandi' but further the cause of it.

Gen 6:5 'And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'[The Hebrew word signifies not only the imagination, but also the purposes and desires.] . . . Gen 8:21 'And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; . . .'

There are a couple of terse items to be pointed out here for consideration. 1) The nature of all men was that of corruption; opposed to all that which is good and acceptable to God. It was due to this radical corruption that God cursed the ground and brought about the flood to destroy the wickedness that permeated the earth and all those who practiced it, with the exception of Noah and his family [a display of sovereign grace]. 2) The corruption of nature which permeated the human race was not eradicated by the flood, but continued afterwards. Thus, we must learn that even while Noah 'found grace in the eyes of the Lord' it was not due to any inherent goodness on his part, but that he was spared by grace based upon the future vicarious substitutionary work of the Lord Christ on Noah's behalf. This 'sin nature' was existent in Noah and his family and was promulgated throughout the resulting generations. Through the inspired pen of Solomon we read,

Eccl 9:2 'All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. 3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.'

Again two things should grasp our attention: 1) In verse 2, the writer speaks of physical death as being the universal experience to all men without exception. It makes no difference whether the individual is a rank pagan or a devout worshipper of God. All alike die and go to the grave. 2) The CAUSE is the universal evil which dominates the hearts of all men during their lifetimes. There is a corruption of nature which predominates the lives of men. Job was inspired to write these words of Eliphaz,

Job 15:14 'What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? 15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?'

The questions asked are rhetorical in nature due to the fact that the answers are doubtless obvious to all, or at least they should be. There is no room here for asserting that man, in his natural born state, has any desire or ability to do that which is good. There is hardly a more severe indictment of mankind than is found here, 'How much more abominable and filthy is man, . . .' We see two things stated in these words, 1) Men are abominable, ie., they are odious in their manner of living. 2) That men are inherently filthy is the CAUSE of their abominable deeds. The 'root' determines the 'fruit'! (cf. Matt 7:17, 18; Lk 6:43. Jeremiah concurs with Eliphaz's observation when he says, Jer 13:23 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.' Notice here also, that ABILITY is inherent in the rhetorical question with the word, 'can', i.e., 'Is it possible for an Ethiopian to change the color of his skin, or is it possible for a leopard to change its spots?' With that, Jeremiah then brings the inevitable and inescapable; sinners cannot, they are unable to do anything good. Why? Because, like the Ethiopian's skin and/or the leopard's spots, they are integral to their respective natures. Thus, due to a corrupt and sinful nature, men cannot do that which is good. They are inclined to do only that which is evil in the sight of God. Jeremiah was also inspired to write this, referring to the very nature of men,

Jer 17:9 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?'

There is little that needs to be said by way of explanation of this text. But I would only point out that it is the 'heart' to which Jeremiah speaks, which according to the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, is the seat of the affections, the governing force, the residence of the will that determines every thought, word and deed which man is capable of and does. (cf. Prov 4:23; 22:15; Matt 15:19; Mk 7:21-23; Acts 8:21; Eph 4:18, 19). I would like to skip Ephesians 2:1-5 and return to that later and move to a statement of Paul further on in that Epistle, namely:

Eph 5:8 'For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:'

It should be noticed that Paul doesn't say of the Christians that they were sometimes guilty of walking in darkness, but that they WERE darkness. This statement must also be seen in the light of what he previously wrote in chapter 4:17-19, where a more detailed description of this darkness is delineated. For the sake of brevity, I will forgo displaying the full passage here, but simply enjoin you to read it carefully. Now on to Eph 2:1-5,

Eph 2:1 '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;)'

I have already taken up quite a bit of space and to wit much time of those who will read this, thus I would like to point out simply this from this grand passage of Scripture. The 'death' of which Paul states here as being the lot of all men is not the inevitable physical death to which you seem to say it is and/or some poetic phrase to imply the end judgment to which unrepentant sinners will inevitably face. [Gene might have suggested this? ala 'dead men walking' etc.] The text is perspicuous enough on its face, 'who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked . . .' (vss 1, 2) Paul says that we who are believers, before we received grace, were in league and no different than those who are yet living in unbelief. He says that we all were 'dead in trespasses and sins' WHEREIN WE ONCE WALKED . . .. Indeed, all men are as 'dead men walking' but not in reference to some future inevitability where they will suffer eternal death, or even physical death, but contrariwise, it is a 'living death' which is expressed by the resultant sin. The 'death' here is a reality. It is the opposite of 'life'. It is not 'non-entity' but rather a 'existent state of being'. Along with this 'death' is added the influence of the Evil One who works in conjunction with the already existent corrupt nature, thus increasing the hopelessness and culpability of all men, but more so the INABILITY of all men to even incline themselves to God or to desire that which is good. (cf. Joh 3:19; 6:44; Job 14:4; Rom 3:9-12). Now I would ask of you to give an BIBLICAL explanation to an affirmation you have made several times elsewhere on this forum. You stated that you hold that man contributes absolutely nothing to his salvation; that salvation is totally of grace and of God. To this I can say, Amen! However, I have little doubt that what you actually mean by this and what I mean are not synonymous. To either justify my suspicions or negate them, could you please explain to me, to all of us, if man contributes nothing to salvation, and by NOTHING, I would assume you are including conviction, repentance, faith, love etc., which all are part and parcel of God's redemption in Christ and prerequisites to apprehending it, how is a man saved? If as you vehemently maintain, that all men are vested with a 'free will' and thus are inherently ABLE to do that which is good, yet man contributes nothing which is good, for one indeed does a good thing by believing upon Christ etc. to gain salvation, how is anyone saved? Where does your alleged 'free will' come into play? Where does 'grace' fit into your scheme of things? Please include biblical evidence to support your answer.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:22:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, You ask:
'Can you offer any biblical evidence for your proposition or can you not? If you think you can, please do so.' The Bible is full of people choosing good over evil, and evil over good, choosing to sin or not to sin. David chose to sin and was held responsible for that sin, he was even given a choice of punishments. Iím really at a loss as to what you are asking me to prove. I came here looking for answers, for one thing I would like to know how you answer to Jesus being descended from Adam and yet without the so called sin nature. Thatís the very reason the Roman Church has a sinless Mary, please, how do the reformed explain this and still maintain that Jesus Christ was truly Man. Heb.2:17 Wherefore IN ALL THINGS it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest . . . Wouldnít the 'all things' include a sin nature if that were truly a part of us? Iíll go through and answer your 'proof texts', this is a work day for me, so I probably will not have the time to answer them all in one setting, but Iíll do my best. You quote Gen.6:5 and say: The nature of all men was that of corruption; opposed to all that which is good and acceptable to God. It was due to this radical corruption that God cursed the ground and brought about the flood to destroy the wickedness that permeated the earth and all those who practiced it, with the exception of Noah and his family [a display of sovereign grace]. There is a noticeable failure on your part to give the actual Biblical reason for the corruption shown in Gen. 6:5. When taken in context we are told in no uncertain terms why this corruption existed and it is not because of some inherited sin nature, here read the reason for yourself: Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen. 6:3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Gen. 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Gen. 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen. 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Gen. 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen. 1-4 gives the reason for Verse 4 verses 5, 6 and 7. Also notice that in verse 7 the animals as well as man are to be destroyed. Do cows and chickens also have a sin nature? It really doesnít matter who you say that the 'sons of God' were, or the 'giants' but it is certain that they were the cause of Gen. 6:5 and not some inherited sin nature. As for Noah, verse 8 says 'Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.' Why? We are told in Gen. 6:9 Ö'Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.' Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord because: 1. He was a just man, a man who gave to all their due; thatís the best meaning of the original word. 2. He was perfect in his generation; he was consistent in moral character. Next you use try to use Eccl. 9: 2&3, in support of your belief that we can do nothing but sin because of an inherited sin nature, you write: 'Again two things should grasp our attention: 1) In verse 2, the writer speaks of physical death as being the universal experience to all men without exception. It makes no difference whether the individual is a rank pagan or a devout worshipper of God. All alike die and go to the grave. 2) The CAUSE is the universal evil which dominates the hearts of all men during their lifetimes. There is a corruption of nature which predominates the lives of men.' Eccl.9:2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. Eccl.9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. A more literal translation of verse 3 is 'There is an evil above all (evils) that are done,' meaning that not only is there 'one event to all,' but 'also the heart of the sons of men' makes this fact, that the one event that comes to the righteous as will as the wicked, is the reason for 'madly' persisting in evil while they live. This verse is simply stating that 'sin is madness' it has nothing at all to do with some inherited sin nature. Furthermore verse 3 is speaking of 'an evil' as a great trouble to a good man. There are some very interesting and strange doctrines that people have come out of the Book of Ecclesiastes, an inherited sin nature is just one of many. Then you turn to Job and tell me that 'Job was inspired to write these words of Eliphaz. Implying that they are true because Job wrote them but God Himself testifies that Job's friends did not hold the truth. Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. God says that Eliphaz is wrong and has not spoken correctly. Thatís good enough for me and I have no idea why you would resort to using this passage of Scripture to try to prove your point. Next you bring up Jeremiah 17:9, you wrote: Jeremiah was also inspired to write this, referring to the very nature of men, Jer 17:9 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?' There is little that needs to be said by way of explanation of this text. But I would only point out that it is the 'heart' to which Jeremiah speaks, which according to the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, is the seat of the affections, the governing force, the residence of the will that determines every thought, word and deed which man is capable of and does. (cf. Prov 4:23; 22:15; Matt 15:19; Mk 7:21-23; Acts 8:21; Eph 4:18, 19).' I find it interesting that Judaism to this day does not teach that we sin because of an inherited sin nature. Iím sure that their Old Testament Scholars were and are every bit as good as those of the Reformed persuasion. This chapter begins with the sin of Judah, idolatry, and its fatal consequences verses 1-4. The happiness that comes from trusting in God is then contrasted with the opposite, trusting in man, verses 5-8. That brings us to the verses that you quoted in support of the doctrine of an inherited sin nature. The word translated deceitful here is from a root, 'supplanting,' from which Jacob (Hos.12:3) took his name. In speaking of the Jewsí deceit of heart, it is very appropriate that a term referring to there forefather Jacob is used. It showing that they were following Jacobís deceit but not his faith. Jacobís 'supplanting' was in order to obtain Godís blessing. Here they supplant God for 'trust in man' (Jer. 17:5), and then they think that they can deceive God, as if it could escape His notice that it is in man and not in Him that they trust. It is shown that trust in oneís own heart instead of God is as foolish as trusting in man instead of God. When taken in context this has nothing to do with some inherited sin nature. Next you try to incorporate Eph. 5:8 into your doctrine, you wrote: 'It should be noticed that Paul doesn't say of the Christians that they were sometimes guilty of walking in darkness, but that they WERE darkness. This statement must also be seen in the light of what he previously wrote in chapter 4:17-19, where a more detailed description of this darkness is delineated. For the sake of brevity, I will forgo displaying the full passage here, but simply enjoin you to read it carefully.' Eph.4:19 reads: 'Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.' 'Öhave given themselves over' sounds like free will sinning to me! As for Eph. 5:8 'For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:' 'Sometimes' is an interesting translation here. This verse is not referring to some kind of inherited sin nature that makes people sin. 'Ye were sometimes darkness' simply means that they gave off no light and actually darkened others. Now they have the Light of the World and they themselves are to be lights to the world. Not only have they now been 'enlightened' they are to be a light enlightening others (Eph. 5:13). Hereís the note from the Geneva Bible, Calvinís Bible: 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now [are ye] {c} light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (c) The faithful are called light, both because they have the true light in them which enlightens them, and also because they give light to others, insomuch that their honest conversation reproves the life of wicked men. Ye were sometimes darkness. Not only lived in darkness, but gave off no light and darkened others. Now [are ye] light in the Lord. Shining with the light that comes from Christ. Iím out of time right now, got to get back to work but I will cover Eph. 2:1-5 later if you really want me to. You ask me again if I truly believe that we do nothing to save ourselves! I donít know how to be any clearer on this subject, for some reason you refuse to accept my words at face value, again, I say, in no uncertain terms, that there is absolutely nothing that a person can do to save themselves. By nothing I mean nothing. I canít make it any plainer. You simply donít want to accept that I mean what I say. I must go. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 13:14:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe,

Thanks for the response! It went a long way to proving my point. I think the readers will easily see the error you embrace is wholly unbiblical and that you have no grasp of the Scriptures. You love to prate about and point out that men MUST have a free will because they 'freely sin' and 'freely do that which is good!' However, the Scriptures concur with the doctrine of Total Depravity/Inability for men are indeed FREE to sin. As to sinners doing 'good'? Well, Paul says that 'no man does good', and the Lord Christ says, that 'only God is good'! Any 'good' which men do in the Scriptures in an unregenerate state is a 'relative good'; that which is virtuous and/or beneficial to others. But when brought before the light of God's holy Law, 'there is NONE that does good'! Even the regenerate's good works are fraught with sin. They are accepted by God only on the merits of the cleansing blood of the Lord Christ which is imputed to them. As to your iteration of your belief that 'we do nothing to save ourselves!', I cannot help but perceive that this is a deliberate attempt to deceive others into thinking that you hold to Sola Gratia. Yes, I doubt the veracity of your acclamation and on good grounds. For anyone who proposes that men in their unregenerate state are not bound by a sin nature but rather are born with a 'Tabula Rasa' or some other like nature, being able to do good or evil according to their 'free will', then they obviously bring SOMETHING to the cross. This is why I meticulously asked the questions I did, e.g., concerning the origin of faith, repentance, etc. For these things are inextricably bound to the apprehension of Christ and justification. It is true that man is 'responsible' for his own repentance and to believe upon Christ. But this does not answer the question as to their origin. Nor does it answer the question as to their efficacy once possessed by a sinner. Your avoidance in answering these questions is plain for all to see. If it were a matter of being pressed for time, one would assume that you would have made a statement to that affect with a promise to return to expand on the questions. But it was only to your former remarks concerning my offering to you that you applied this excuse. Man indeed contributes NOTHING to his salvation. And it is also true that no man even desires salvation apart from regeneration, for all men HATE THE LIGHT and love darkness, and thus says the Lord Christ, 'NO man CAN come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him!' In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim 'The very name, Free-will, was odious to all the Fathers. I, for my part, admit that God gave to mankind a free will, but the question is, whether this same freedom be in our power and strength, or no? We may very fitly call it a subverted, perverse, fickle, and wavering will, for it is only God that works in us, and we must suffer and be subject to his pleasure. Even as a potter out of his clay makes a pot or vessel, as he wills, so it is for our free will, to suffer and not to work. It stands not in our strength; for we are not able to do anything that is good in divine matters.' - The Table-talk of Martin Luther (CCLIX)


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 17:09:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, You wrote:
'As to your iteration of your belief that 'we do nothing to save ourselves!', I cannot help but perceive that this is a deliberate attempt to deceive others into thinking that you hold to Sola Gratia.' And: You wrote: 'It is true that man is 'responsible' for his own repentance and to believe upon Christ. But this does not answer the question as to their origin.' Iíll say it again, no one can do anything to save themselves. This statement includes in it the fact that everything necessary for our salvation is by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit. You quoted : John 6:44 'NO man CAN come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him!'' I agree with this verse of Scripture, totally and completely. Why canít anyone go to the Father? Itís not because of some inherited sin nature, itís because they have not been draw. Do you see that? Itís not because of some sin nature, itís because they have not been draw to Him!!! This is ridiculous, you either will not or cannot answer some basic questions on the doctrine of a sin nature. A doctrine that is totally and completely unnecessary. A doctrine that is not supported by Scripture. Instead of answering by questions, questions that are important to me, all I get are snide remarks and ridicule from you and your followers. I really do not understand why you people are so defensive, I really was not attacking your beliefs, I just wanted to have some of my questions answered. Thanks anyway. Maybe Iíll try again some other day. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 01:08:03 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
In your post in reply to Pilgrim using John 6:44 as his proof text, your reply was: I agree with this verse of Scripture, totally and completely. Why canít anyone go to the Father? Itís not because of some inherited sin nature, itís because they have not been draw. Do you see that? Itís not because of some sin nature, itís because they have not been draw to Him!!! I am afraid it is you that is not seeing something! Don't you see that if it wasn't for the sin nature, the Father would not have to draw us? Before the fall, the Father did not have to draw Adam and Eve, because they were not in need of salvation. In other words their nature was good in God's eyes. You seem to trip over the word 'nature', I would suggest to you that you look the word up in a dictionary, for it's meaning. Again, I say that the fact that man has a sin nature, shouldn't be in dispute. The amount man is depraved, can be disputed, but I believe that the scripture verses Pilgrim gave should be suffice to show how much man is depraved. Man is totally depraved, therefore no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. Tom


Subject: You Must Be Born Again
From: ShowMe
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 05:53:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, I doubt that this is worth my time but I cannot in good conscious let such an error go unanswered. I will try to make this my last post on this subject. You wrote:
'Don't you see that if it wasn't for the sin nature, the Father would not have to draw us? Before the fall, the Father did not have to draw Adam and Eve, because they were not in need of salvation. In other words their nature was good in God's eyes.' As I have already shown in another post, Adamís nature was not changed because he disobeyed, the Bible simply does not teach that. The Bible says that they ate of the 'fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' and that they 'KNEW' it does not say that they ate that fruit and therefore could only 'DO' evil and not good. Humanity is condemned solely on account of the sin committed by Adam. Donít you believe that? Or do you believe that condemnation comes from your own actions? From this post it sounds like you believe that condemnation comes from your own sins, because of your inherited sin nature, and not because of Adamís transgression. Thatís not what the Bible teaches. Your assumption here is that man without a sin nature would seek God? Would not need to be drawn to God? Would not need to be saved? Surely you donít believe that if a man did not have an inherited sin nature he would automatically be spiritual? Without being 'born again'? If so, you are confusing 'natural' with 'spiritual.' Lack of a sin nature certainly does not make one 'spiritual', that takes being 'born again' or 'from above'. You have to be 'spiritual' in order to seek God, you must be 'born again' or 'from above' in order to seek God and thatís why we must be drawn to Him, not because we have an inherited sin nature but because we are not born 'spiritual.' Before being 'born again' or 'born from above, a person is 'natural' that does not mean that they have some kind of inherited sin nature that makes them sin, it means that they are not 'spiritual.' If you want to say that they are 'spiritually dead' thatís all right but that does not mean that they are physically, intellectually, emotionally, or volitionally dead. You wrote: 'You seem to trip over the word 'nature', I would suggest to you that you look the word up in a dictionary, for it's meaning.' Iím not tripping over the word 'nature' at all, I know exactly what the Biblical meaning is. I would suggest to you that you not depend upon a English dictionary to get the meanings of the Greek words of the New Testament, that will most certainly lead to error. 1Co 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. 'Natural' here does not mean 'sin nature.' Adam lost communion with God, and thatís the condition of the 'natural' man, he is out of communion with God, he cannot discern the things of the Spirit of God. He must be 'born again' made 'spiritual' if that union is to be restored, and that Tom, takes a supernatural act of God. The doctrine of an inherited sin nature that makes people sin is a useless doctrine that is not, as far as I can tell, Scriptural, and it creates several contradictions that undermine the integrity of Godís word. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: You Must Be Born Again
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:24:05 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
ShowMe I am not sure my saying any more to try to help you understand will do any good. Read Pilgrim's responce below, if that won't do it, I am not sure anything will. One thing I can not help but say, is you have put yourself in a possition where you disagree with most if not all of Christendom on this issue. To me, since this is one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. It is almost like you are ready to say, 'everyone else is wrong so I am going to start my own religion. One where errors of Christemdom will be corrected and the Lord will be glorified!' That may seem harsh, but follow your reasoning through, and see if I am not correct. Tom


Subject: Re: You Must Be Born Again
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 24, 2000 at 08:12:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe,

Your view is ostensibly obnoxious and a contradiction of all that Scripture teaches. You have decided to redefine what 'natural', 'flesh', and 'spiritual' mean to fit your preconceived ideas. God created Adam and therefore all mankind in him as 'spiritual' creatures. They were created with the imago dei, which in its first estate was that which reflected the Creator within the bounds of the creature. There was communion glorious between the Creator and the creature. Adam's 'theology' was pure and true. He was endowed with 'knowledge, true holiness and righteousness (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). He was truly a 'spiritual' man in the fullest sense of the word, for all that he did was motivated out of a disposition that sought only to please God through righteous living and a desire to glorify the Creator. There was no arbitrary 'thinking' on Adam's part, i.e., he didn't have to evaluate and decide for himself what was good and right. Total trust and love for his God brought only perfect obedience to all that God had required of him, up and until the moment of his transgression. It was his disobedience, i.e., becoming alienated in his love and obedience to God that brought about his demise and all those who would follow after him. The PUNISHMENT which God sentenced him to was not only a physical removal from the Garden of Eden and all its benefits, but a removal from the relationship between the Creator and the creature. Further, the imago dei was also sentenced to 'death', ie., corruption; the first act of disobedience was but a foretaste of what Adam would become wholly. That which precipitated his rebellious act was to be that which would govern all his being from that day forward. Thus he 'DIED' on the very day which he transgressed the holy law of God. From that day forward, Adam ceased to be a 'spiritual man' and became a 'natural man', being governed no longer by a true love for God or having a desire to please Him as he once did. The myriad biblical passages I offered you are but the descriptions of the essence of this 'depraved nature', whose fruit is 'every thought and imagination of man is evil continually' and whose 'heart is deceitful beyond all things' and which is capable of doing 'no good'! Thus it is of necessity that any and all men must BE BORN AGAIN/FROM ABOVE... i.e., that the nature/disposition must be re-created/quickened/resurrected/made alive to that which was once 'dead'. The language is all too clear. Man is INCAPABLE of desiring or doing good. He is INCAPABLE of loving God. He is INCAPABLE of changing his ways. He is hopelessly lost in sin and helpless to even desire the change necessary, never mind accomplish it. Men are totally enamored with sin; it is their fetish and joy. Yes, most men hate the consequences which their sin brings upon them, but not enough to cease from committing a life of sin. 'Men love darkness. .. and hate the light' (Jh 3:19; Eph 4:17-19). Lastly, your view embraces another fatal error in that you state that 'Humanity is condemned solely on account of the sin committed by Adam.' Yet you would have men condemned even though, by their own 'free will' they could theoretically live perfectly righteous lives, if they so chose to do so. The Scriptures teach that men are culpable and therefore guilty. Along with the imputed guilt, the source of that guilt, the sin nature is inherited. They are inseparable items. In other words, it's like a parent telling his disobedient child, 'Okay, so you want to do what you want to do and not what I want you to do? Fine. . . then you can have it your way and therefore you are now no longer a part of my house. You are on your own. You are no longer a part of my family and all the benefits which flowed from my headship are no longer yours. And this includes all the 'rules and regulations' which were designed for your good, for now you are to live only according to that which YOU think is good. But NOTHING you think or do from now on will be acceptable to me, for YOUR way of thinking is totally opposed to that which I say is good.' Adam got what the serpent promised, which was in fact the punishment God had promised, Gen 3:5 'For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.' But the Devil failed to explain the implications of all this. He deceitfully held back the truth which was that to 'know good and evil' is to cut yourself off from God and to be come 'a god unto yourself'. One's entire nature needs be changed; from living out of a heart enthralled with love for God and all that He commands, to one that is enthralled with self and all that IT commands. And so on the very day which Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, THEY DIED and were thus alienated from God in body and soul. Salvation is the restoration of that which was lost. Man needs to be 'born again', i.e., he needs a NEW NATURE if communion is to be regained between himself and the Creator. This is SOLA GRATIA, SOLA FIDE, SOLUS CHRISTUS and SOLI DEO GLORIA. It is the GOSPEL and the 'faith once delivered by the saints'! It is the 'OLD PATHS' on which the Church has walked for ages past and will always until the Lord Christ appears to usher in the New Heaven and New Earth. You may hold to whatever belief you desire. But automatons have no place in the Kingdom of God.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 12:29:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,

Amen, brother! You are right on two counts. 1) 'You Can NEVER ShowME' doesn't get it. 2) IF man has a 'free-will' as asserted by him, then what is the need of God having to 'draw' anyone? Surely, if a man CAN (has the inherent ability) to repentant and/or believe, IF a man can 'freely' choose to hate sin and love Christ, which are all 'good things', then why must God 'draw' them? IF all men are not born with an inherited sin nature which would prevent them from doing ANY good thing, including coming to Christ with a repentant faith, what is to prevent them from doing so? Conclusion: This proposition is illogical and contradictory to the overwhelming testimony of the biblical record, it does immeasurable harm to the Church and it exalts man to a place that rivals even God Himself. Could this not be just one of the many reasons the church historical has consistently rejected this view? DOUBTLESS!!


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 07:49:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom - great point! Sort of like the wild deer around my house, timid by nature...but in some areas, the deer have become tame and actually eat out of your hands. blessings, laz p.s. perhaps No Show should check out J. Edwards excellent explanation of the nature of our will....how everything we will is predicated upon some other stimulous or deeper inherent desire/nature within us...usually a selfish one. In otherwords, we don't chose things in a vacuum (as though we are totally nuetral in how we make decisions), some innate desire within us is what's causing us to will/choose chocolate vs vanilla, Ford vs Chevy, Sue vs Janet, paper vs plastic, etc....and even THAT is granted by a sovereign God who created us and in Him we live, move and have our being.


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 19:02:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Show ME - I think I get your subtle point of departure relative to original sin. You say that we are not predisposed towards sin (i.e., deny a 'sin nature')...otherwise culpability would be negated. Am I with you so far? You also say you believe that all men are condemned on account of Adam's sin imputed to us all (Amen)...even newborn babies that die at birth....them being 'sinners in Adam' as well. Why then do we sin? I believe you say it's because of a will that's truly free (as Adam had in the Garden?) ... which implies that we are born morally/spiritually neutral. And that nothing 'died' relative to Adam the
very day he sinned (contrary to what God said). Do you really believe that we are created today just as Adam was relative to a spiritual nature and that all them verses dealing with man's sinfulness have been misinterpreted by us to support a useless doctrine? laz p.s. why then does a believer have such a different perspective towards sin? What happens 'inside us' at regeneration that suddenly enables us to 'see and hear' the things of God whereas before it was just foolishness?


Subject: I hope everyone here sees this post of yours.
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:19:08 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, As you correctly point out, Show Me has shown himself to be a person who is not only confused, but confusing. Your statement, 'As to your iteration of your belief that 'we do nothing to save ourselves!', I cannot help but perceive that this is a deliberate attempt to deceive others into thinking that you hold to Sola Gratia,' is exactly right. No one can hold to the deliberate misapplication of such Scriptures such as Rom 3:9-20 which Show Me put forth in a very recent post and believe in the grace of God as portrayed in Eph. 2:1-10. The actual fact that grace exists, as given us in the Scriptures, is proof that man can do nothing for himself, that he is totally depraved/totally unable to effect good, except, as you point out, 'relative good.' That 'relative good,' that which man perceives as 'good,' is utterly disgusting to the Lord God, as Is. 64:6 so vividly displays it. 'And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But it it be by works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work' (Rom. 11:6). God's Word is very clear on this.


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:14:07 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
ShowMe May I ask you a question? Your views are a little new to me, so I ask that you reveal to us where you are coming from, ie. denominational persquasion. Like I said in an earier post, most Arminians believe in man's inherited sin nature. Tom


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: ShowMe
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:06:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, I really donít know how to answer your question, I donít have any denominational affiliation. Iím still trying to glean the truth from all the different denominations. I certainly donít blindly accept anything because itís what every one else in a particular group believes. I really donít think of myself as a Calvinist or an Arminian. I have studied the works of both men. Most Calvinist that I have come in contact with have never studied the works of Jacobus Arminius and most Arminians have never studied the works of John Calvin. Instead they take what they have been taught as the truth of each system of theology. I prefer to find out for myself. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:09:39 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
ShowMe It is commendable that you like to study history and different denominations beliefs. However in your case that may be part of your problem. You have made yourself out to be a sectarian, by not believing what most if not all denominations hold to. They all hold that man has a sin nature, but what they can't agree on is how depraved that sin nature makes man. Think about that for a minute, is it possible that you are right about this issue, and everyone else is wrong? I have said this before on this forum, but I think it bares repeteing again. If I believed scripture said one thing, but found that I was the only one who believed it. I would be very suspiscious that it is me who is in error. Tom


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:52:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Did Enoch really come from the line of Cain? If mankind is not predisposed to sin (on account of being sinners at conception as I believe the psalmist declared)...why did God only find one man, Noah, just in His sight? Must be that mankind is infact predisposed in Adam to sin, sin, sin. For all have sinned (and WILL sin) and fallen short of the glory of God. Why else would Christ need to come if it were possible to NOT sin? Would we ever live without sin? Why else do we sin now but won't in heaven? IT's all in the nature, man....and yes, GOd will hold us responsible for our sin....we have been judged already in Adam. THat's Christianity 101! All your protestations about augustine, calvin....etc notwithstanding...Romans reads pretty clear to me (as does Eph)that sin has been inputed to all mankind thru Adam....it's clearly who we are and what we do by nature ...YET, God clearly holds us responsible for our actions for we sin WILLFULLY consistent with our fallen natures....in fact, the more the reprobate sin, the greater condemnation they can expect in the afterlife...but, found in Christ, there is no condemnation. laz


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:31:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, You ask:
'Did Enoch really come from the line of Cain?' The Scriptures seem to say so: Gen. 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, I must assume that you have in mind some kind of 'spiritual' origin for Enoch? I donít understand? You ask: If mankind is not predisposed to sin (on account of being sinners at conception as I believe the psalmist declared)...why did God only find one man, Noah, just in His sight? The question is how did God find eight people, Noah and his family, just in His sight, does this mean that Noah was born without a 'sin nature' and thatís why he was able to obey God? You wrote: 'In all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God...which means that everyone WILL sin...why, the fallen nature inherited from Adam.' I notice that Calvinists place a lot of emphasis on Rom. 3:10, but if you really dig into that section of Scripture you will find that it does not mean what you want it to mean. Romans 3:10-12 'There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.' You suppose this to be speaking of a literal condition in which all human beings are born, a proof that we are born with an inherited sin nature that makes us sin. Paul is not speaking of some inherited sin nature that absolves us from any moral responsibility. His point is clearly set forth in verse 9: Jews and Gentiles alike are 'under sin.' Sin is not peculiar to lowly Gentiles, but also afflicts the favored Jews. He proves his point by quoting Psalm 14, which at the very beginning tells the readers it is dealing with 'the fool.' See Psalm 14:1 :o) As a poet, the Psalmist frequently bursts into hyperbole. David is teaching the sinfulness of men, but he does so with an exorbitant Hebrew idiom to get the point across more powerfully. This is a common Hebrew poetic device. In verse 4, he says evildoers 'devour my people as men eat bread.' That, of course, is not literal. Or do you think that David is giving us a doctrine that all men enter this world with a propensity for cannibalism? You ask:'Why else do we sin now but won't in heaven? A couple of reasons that come to mind are, new bodies, bodies without the needs of these bodies. No tempter. A state above that of Adam. The doctrine of an inherited sin nature is simply not necessary and it does more harm than good. It does away with moral responsibility and in doing that it does away with sin itself. We are without excuse, we cannot blame our actions of some inherited sin nature. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: no tempter?
From: Five sola
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:55:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Showme, This reply is really not to the substance of your post for I do not have the time to come here as often as it seems necessary to show you what scripture says. There are also many others more skilled then I that are doing a great job at it. My point is to something you brought up in this post near the end (probably just an aside) but it is something I think alot of people over look. you said: 'A couple of reasons that come to mind are, new bodies, bodies without the needs of these bodies. No tempter. A state above that of Adam.' While I do believe that we will be in a glorified body much better than Adam possesed, and I do believe we will be made unable to sin, in the same way that we are born unable to do good currently. But to the point of Adam having a tempter is a factor in why he sinned... Adam was not tempted by satan, Eve was. (ladies please perservere through what I say) :-) Eve was fooled by the serpent, but there is no mention of Satan confronting Adam. Adam of his own 'decision', without cohersion, sinned. We cannot say the reasons why for scripture does not reveal. Some may want to romanticize it and say it was because he didn't want his wife to recieve death alone, or it may be just that he choose to openly rebel against his creator. Also a good point is that Rom chap 1-3 is often considered the 'magnus opus' on sinfulness of humanity and sin itself, take note that no where is satan ever mentioned. Our sin is never due to satan. Why is that? Because of the heart of man is evil, every intention, every thought of the heart is evil. We don't need satan's help to make us sin we do a good enough job on our own :-) unless God recreates our heart with a willingness to love and obey His laws. by the way that also answers your comment on ...'The question is how did God find eight people, Noah and his family, just in His sight, does this mean that Noah was born without a 'sin nature' and thatís why he was able to obey God? ' Because they were saved/regenerated. Their dead hearts were made alive by the holy spirit, now they possessed the ability to obey God. Amen Five Sola


Subject: Re: no tempter?
From: Gene
To: Five sola
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:35:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
5, Adam was not tempted by satan, Eve was. (ladies please perservere through what I say) :-) Eve was fooled by the serpent, but there is no mention of Satan confronting Adam. Adam of his own 'decision', without cohersion, sinned. We cannot say the reasons why for scripture does not reveal. Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Notice: '...who was with her...' Adam was with Eve the whole time she was talking with the serpent. You are right, he did not confront Adam BUT, he was there!


Subject: your point?
From: Five Sola
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 21:42:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene, yes I know he (serpent) was there, Your point??? When Adam decided to sin it was not with the serpent trying to convince him. five sola


Subject: Re: your point?
From: Gene
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:02:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
5, I guess my point is that Adam was right next to Eve when she was having the conversation with the serpent. That is all! :)


Subject: oh ok!
From: Five Sola
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 18:43:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
gene, Oh, I just thought you were trying to make a point in contradicting what I said or showing where I was wrong. Since it doesn't apply to what I said then I guess it was just a random qoute of scripture. sorry I thought you were trying to reply to my post. Five Sola


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:19:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The point about Enoch is interesting. hmm As for Noah, now was a sinner and preached repentence. He was justified as all men are...by grace thru faith in the promises of God. God being a covenantal God, allowed his family to join him in the ark. Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Sounds like original and imputed sin to me... The sin nature does not absolve us of responsibility..that's just a pretext of yours. The doctrine of original sin may or may not be necessary depending upon what you deem necessary. I say it's biblically derived and has been at the core of essential christian doctrine since day one. that's good enough for me. As for hyperbole, Paul in Romans was very direct in his imperative TEACHINGS.... laz


Subject: Cain, Cainan, and Kenan
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:12:49 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, laz, As a careful student, you didn't swallow the suppositions of SM about 'Cain' and 'Cainan' being the same person. But, being true to the Word of God, you were open to the truth on the subject. Good for you, my friend and brother! A close look at the Scripture reveals that the name 'Cainan' is a differnt word/name from 'Cain,' both in the OT and the New, though they are very similar. God makes it clear in his Word that these two men are not the same. In my translation of the Genesis account, 'Cainan' is designatied 'Kenan' in Gen. 5:1-13. But it is the same person, the word apparently being 'anglicized' by the translators (possibly to make this very distinction). When the ungodly 'Cain,' the son of Adam who sinned willfully, is mentioned in the NT, it is always, 'Cain,' not 'Cainan.' Again the words are close, but not the same. The context of Gen. 5 makes it clear and indisputable that what is being considered is Adam's third mentioned son, Seth, and his lineage, not Cain's. Otherwise, God has a big problem when he describes the men of verses 6-27 where He presents an unbroken line from Seth (not Cain, whose lineage was disposed of in the previous chapter) through Methuselah and down to Noah and his sons in verse 32. There is no question at all that these two men, 'Cain,' and 'Cainan' are different men with different ancestors, expect for Adam.


Subject: Re: Cain, Cainan, and Kenan
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:23:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi, laz, As a careful student, you didn't swallow the suppositions of SM about 'Cain' and 'Cainan' being the same person. But, being true to the Word of God, you were open to the truth on the subject. Good for you, my friend and brother! A close look at the Scripture reveals that the name 'Cainan' is a differnt word/name 'Cain,' both in the OT and the New, though they are very similar. God makes it clear in his Word that these two men are not the same. In my translation of the Genesis account, 'Cainan' is designatied 'Kenan' in Gen. 5:1-13. But it is the same person, the word apparently being 'anglicized' by the translators (possibly to make this very distinction). When the ungodly 'Cain,' the son of Adam who sinned willfully, is mentioned in the NT, it is always, 'Cain,' not 'Cainan.' Again the words are close, but not the same. The context of Gen. 5 makes it clear and indisputable that what is being considered is Adam's third mention son, Seth, and his lineage, not Cain's. Otherwise, God has a big problem when he describes the men of verses 6-27 where He presents an unbroken line from Seth (not Cain, whose lineage was disposed of in the previous chapter) through Methuselah and down to Noah and his sons in verse 32. There is no question at all that these two men, 'Cain,' and 'Cainan' are different men with different ancestors, expect for Adam.
---
I could see that the two were different...but on first glance, it did appear that a 'prob' existed. I need to search the matter out further. No Show has yet to explain Eph 2 where we are shown to have a sin nature....clearly!! Eph 2:1 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. blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Cain, Cainan, and Kenan
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:09:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, I really donít know why you refer to me as 'No Show' if I have missed some of what you have posted Iím sorry but it was not my intention to dodge any of your points. Please forgive me if I have done so. I assume that your argument from Ephesians 2:1 goes like this: 1.Paul says that we were 'dead in transgressions and sins.' 2.Therefore man are born with an inherited sin nature? But Paul is not necessarily speaking of 'spiritual death' in Ephesians 2:1 or of some inherited sin nature. I certainly donít dispute that there is a figure in the Scripture use of the term the dead. But the question is: Are we to trace the figure in the tense, or in the radical signification of the terms? I believe that the figure is in the tense. The unregenerate men are described as the dead, and dead in sins, because they are certain to die, because they are under sentence of destruction. That the way the figure of prolepsis is employed in Gen. 20:3: 'God said to Abimelech, Thou art a dead man, for Sarah, Abraham's wife.' 'The Egyptians said, We be all dead men' (Exod. 12:33). 'All my father's house were dead men before the king' (2 Sam.19:28). The figure in each of these instances is that of using the present instead of the future tense. The unregenerate are 'as good as dead.'' Today we the same thing is used in our prison system for those under the death sentence, whenever they are out of their cells they are proclaimed to be 'dead men walking.' Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Cain, Cainan, and Kenan
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 00:45:30 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
ShowMe Judging from your responce that you gave Laz, you didn't actually read the scripture passage he gave. In Eph 2:3 you missed the words '; and WERE BY NATURE the children of wrath, even as others.' A good dictionary will tell you that the word 'nature' means a person's or thing's essential qualities and characteristics that are innate to them. Now use a dictionary's defination of the word 'nature' and use it is context of Eph.2:3, and get back to us. Tom


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:16:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, If mankind is not predisposed to sin (on account of being sinners at conception as I believe the psalmist declared)...why did God only find one man, Noah, just in His sight? Must be that mankind is infact predisposed in Adam to sin, sin, sin. For all have sinned (and WILL sin) and fallen short of the glory of God. Why else do we sin now but won't in heaven? Genesis 6:9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. Notice: Blameless 'in his time...' Noah was the 'best one of the bunch.' Compared to everyone else, he was good! Also, I am assuming you are referring to Psm 51:5; but the text says 'I' (David) but does not say mankind!


Subject: works salvation?
From: Five Sola
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:00:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'Noah was the 'best one of the bunch.' Compared to everyone else, he was good!' Oh my! So we just have to have more good then bad. Become the better then society and we will make it? WOW! so I guess all those good hindus will make it, eh? Your theology is just slipping lower and lower. Five Sola


Subject: Re: Sin Without Free Will? Continued
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:21:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, If mankind is not predisposed to sin (on account of being sinners at conception as I believe the psalmist declared)...why did God only find one man, Noah, just in His sight? Must be that mankind is infact predisposed in Adam to sin, sin, sin. For all have sinned (and WILL sin) and fallen short of the glory of God. Why else do we sin now but won't in heaven? Genesis 6:9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. Notice: Blameless 'in his time...' Noah was the 'best one of the bunch.' Compared to everyone else, he was good! Also, I am assuming you are referring to Psm 51:5; but the text says 'I' (David) but does not say mankind!
---
Good but NOT good enough....he was saved by Jesus' future atonement by grace thru faith as all the elect are...unless you are RC and believe Mary was sinless. The truth is that a believers are PERFECT, being IN CHRIST...so, like Enoch and Noah, we TOO are 'good' in the most important sense (justified)....yet not without sin of our own...lest we prove ourselves to be liars (1 Jn1:8). As for David, the man after God's own heart, the prototypical King of Kings....give me a break. We are all conceived in sin.... laz


Subject: Psalm 22:6
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:18:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, I agree we are all sinners like Noah, Enoch, etc. BUT, Psm 51:5 does not say 'all men' it just says, 'I' (David).... Are you also going to take Psm 22:6 literally (as you 'try' with 51:5)? 'But I (David) am a worm, and not a man...' I guess this means ALL of mankind are worms?!


Subject: Re: Psalm 22:6
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:59:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, I agree we are all sinners like Noah, Enoch, etc. BUT, Psm 51:5 does not say 'all men' it just says, 'I' (David).... Are you also going to take Psm 22:6 literally (as you 'try' with 51:5)? 'But I (David) am a worm, and not a man...' I guess this means ALL of mankind are worms?!
---
gee, Gene... I guess that means that David was really NOT a man either, eh? laz p.s.I think I can safely imply that David was identifying with every person who is born of a woman....yeeesh man....besides, it all fits so well with the rest of scripture...which by the way, interprets itself.


Subject: Re: Psalm 22:6
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:17:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, If you take 51:5 literally you have to do the same for 22:6 (both are poetry). You cannot get your 'Calvinist' doctrine from this verse! This 'kindergarden' evidence shows how silly it is to take one poetic verse literally and the other figurativly. Geeee laz! Romans, is another story....


Subject: Re: Psalm 22:6
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:32:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, If you take 51:5 literally you have to do the same for 22:6 (both are poetry). You cannot get your 'Calvinist' doctrine from this verse! This 'kindergarden' evidence shows how silly it is to take one poetic verse literally and the other figurativly. Geeee laz! Romans, is another story....
---
******** Excuse me but this 'poetry' is revealing simple truths....even prophetic truths...to be understood and believed in their intended form and meaning in light of the whole counsel of God. Jesus spoke figuratively as well as literally...but only an Elect person was privy to tell the difference...those given eyes to see and ears to hear. Sorry, your novel interpretations (like Gen 3:15) renders scripture and the redemptive history it reveals to no avail. Besides, I take neither literally for how on earth is one 'shapened in iniquity'? Don't make me break out you know which verse! hahaha! laz


Subject: Re: Psalm 22:6
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:12:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any verse but 1 Cor 2:14!!!!!!!!!!!!


Subject: Sinless Mary
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 13:09:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, In your post to Gene you mention Mary, that brings up another problem with the doctrine of an inherited sin nature. Augustine realized this when he used the argument of an inherited sin nature against Pelagius. Augustine said:
'We must except the holy Virgin Mary. Out of respect for the Lord, I do not intend to raise a single question of the subject of sin. After all, how do we know what abundance of grace was granted to her who had the merit to conceive and bring forth Him who was unquestionably without sin?' Council of Trent, decreed in 1546 AD, 'The doctrine of the conception of all men in sin was not intended to include the Virgin.' Do you see the problem with an inherited sin nature? Since Mary is the source of the humanity of Jesus then if Mary had an inherited sin nature she would pass that sin nature on to Jesus. The Bible teaches that Jesus became one of us: Gal.4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, MADE OF A WOMAN, made under the law. He was born of a woman. He was the seed of Abraham, the offspring of David, DESCENDED from Adam. Matt. 1:1, Rom.1:3, Heb.2:16, Rev.22:16. Jesus Christ the God/Man derived His humanity from Adam through Mary and this doctrine of an inherited sin nature is the reason that the Roman Catholics teach that Mary was sinless, without a sin nature. What other choice do they have? Heb.2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of THE SAME; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb.2:16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the SEED OF ABRAHAM. Heb.2:17 Wherefore IN ALL THINGS it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest . . . Heb.4:15. For we have not an high priest which can not be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was IN ALL POINTS tempted like as we, yet without sin. How could it be true that he was tempted in all points like we are if He did not have the same nature as we? And is it not true that the word 'yet' in the statement 'yet without sin' would lose all its force and meaning if Christ had not been tempted in the same human nature as we have, yet without sin? The doctrine that teaches that we have an inherited sin nature is not Scriptural, and it causes contradictions where there are no contradictions. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Unwarrented assumptions
From: Rod
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:02:33 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
SM, So does your post above denote that you are, in fact, RCC? Your words: 'Since Mary is the source of the humanity of Jesus then if Mary had an inherited sin nature she would pass that sin nature on to Jesus.' Please note that the Lord Jesus is to be the 'seed of the woman' in Gen. 3:15, specifically not Adam's seed. Very important. His Father, from whom the indications and implications of the Bible are that one receives his nature, was God. Please note very carefully the lineage in Luke 3 you mentioned in another post. The Bible always emphasizes that the Lord Jesus was God's Son, not Adam's. Luke indentifies that by noting that Joseph, His 'supposed father,' actually wasn't involved at all. The lineage here is that of Mary, as I'm sure you know. It goes back to Adam, who sinned and sinned for all his offspring, including Mary. In verse 38, this Adam ('man') is identified as the created 'son of God.' But there was another, 'Son,' the eternal Son, Who wasn't created, but Who was always God. He is, God's Son in every sense, and Mary was the chosen 'vessel' by which God brought forth His Son in human form, making Him truly man in every sense of the Word. But the emphasis is that He,
and He alone, was sinless and perfect: 'And the angel answered, and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:36). 'The Son of God,' not 'the son of Jopseph,' nor the 'son of Mary.' He had no human father, and thus, no inherited sin nature, no curse from Adam's sin. God was His Father and His whole purpose, when Scripture is compared to Scripture, is to show that He, while being human and fully so, was not sinful, nor was He capable of it, as was the 'created son,' the 'first Adam.' He was the Word of John 1:1, Who was God and was with God. He was the 'Word made ['become,' become of His own choice, as God] flesh' to 'tabernacle among us' of John 1:14. It is significant that you cited Galations in this regard: 'Gal.4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, MADE OF A WOMAN, made under the law. He was born of a woman. He was the seed of Abraham, the offspring of David, DESCENDED from Adam.' But, you didn't actually quote the verse. The verse definitely says, before it says, 'made of a woman,' that 'In the fullness of time, God sent forth his son [whose? not Mary's], made of a woman, made under the law....' And again, the word 'made' is the same word as 'made' in John 1:14. It is an action of 'becoming' what He choses, a decisive action on the part of God. Compare Heb. 10:5, where the Spirit of God has the writer say, 'A body thou hast prepared me.' The 'preparation' of that body wasn't Mary's, though she was the instrument God used, but it was God's, so that He could be a Lamb, without spot or blemish. 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh [of sinful man], God sending forth his own Son, in the likeness of [a similarity, a resemblance, not the same] sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh' (Rom. 8:3). Thus, God sent His Son, who by the teaching of the Scripture was His Son prior to His having been sent, His eternal Son, God, the Second Person of the Trinity, to accomplish His will as the second and 'last Adam.' God 'made him [in the causative sense] who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might be made the rightousness of God in him' (2 Cor. 5:21). The words 'knew no sin' are very significant. He actually and in fact knew more about sin than any other human ever could, being joined with the divine nature into One complete Person, but, because He was so intimately associtated in unity with that divine Nature and was God Who had chosen to 'become' fliesh in a specially prepared body, He was free from knowing sin in Himself, except by imputation by the Father, by prior counsel in eternity. In that sense, He completed the perfect plan of God, His own plan in reality. He came as a vastly different 'Adam,' from the first, who resulted in the problem, because he could and did sin. He came to redeem His own (see Matt. 1:21 and Gal. 4:5), bringing them to ultimate 'glorification' (see Rom. 8:30) by making possible our adoption by God, as purified from sin through Himself, as adult 'sons' into glory with the Father with Him (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:5). Paul outlines it all very clearly in 1 Cor. 15:20-57). Thank God for His marvelous, sovereign grace!


Subject: Re: Unwarrented assumptions
From: clark
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:58:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod-- You said 'Please note that the Lord Jesus is to be the 'seed of the woman' in Gen. 3:15, specifically not Adam's seed. Very important.' Is the sin nature then passed only through the father, and not the mother? The mother doesn't pass on HER sin nature, the children only get their fathers sin nature? Sound pretty good to me--it's all their father's fault. (ha ha, couldn't resist)


Subject: Re: Unwarrented assumptions
From: Rod
To: clark
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 11:25:37 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, clark, When I was preaching and teaching, I usually avoided jokes and asides about the issue of 'men/women, better/worse.' Even though meant in good fun, every time I did it or observed someone else doing it, someone got upset. It detracted from the prupose of the message: to glorify God in Christ. Some people really have a 'burr under their saddle' about this. :>) I'm not one of those. Yes, the way I understand the Scripture, the woman passes on her attributes and characteristics in the offspring, but isn't responsible for the curse of sin and its consequences being passed on, as Pilgrim explained below. 'In Adam,' our representative, 'all die.' According to the NT, Eve was 'deceived' (1 Tim. 2:14); Adam was deliberately rebellious. Neither man, nor woman, comes off looking very well! :>)


Subject: Re: Unwarrented assumptions
From: Pilgrim
To: clark
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:37:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod-- You said 'Please note that the Lord Jesus is to be the 'seed of the woman' in Gen. 3:15, specifically not Adam's seed. Very important.' Is the sin nature then passed only through the father, and not the mother? The mother doesn't pass on HER sin nature, the children only get their fathers sin nature? Sound pretty good to me--it's all their father's fault. (ha ha, couldn't resist)
---
Clark, The sin nature and the guilt which our first father Adam merited for himself and all his progeny is IMPUTED. Eve was not the Federal Head of the human race, but under Adam's authority as per God's original institution of both the corporate solidarity of mankind and marriage. So as men are still the God-ordained 'head', it is through them that the corruption comes. Let's not forget, that although Adam was indeed responsible for the corruption and damnation of the race, Eve was the initial transgressor and was the proximate cause for Adam's horrid transgression. :-) In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Unwarrented assumptions
From: ShowMe
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:13:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I am most certainly NOT Roman Catholic but I have, of course, studied that religion and I have given the reason for there necessity to teach the sinlessness of Mary. The rest of your post, if taken seriously, would require one to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, because it does away with any real sense of His having become Man, and it does away with Jesus as our substitute because you have Him becoming something other than what we are. The doctrine of an inherited sin nature is, as far as I can ascertain, simply not Scriptural and it does a great deal of harm to Christianity. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Another unwarranted assumption
From: Rod
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:43:23 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
SM--'The rest of your post, if taken seriously, would require one to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, because it does away with any real sense of His having become Man, and it does away with Jesus as our substitute because you have Him becoming something other than what we are.' Here's another great mystery about your logic: how One born of a human female isn't come 'in the flesh!' It is
impossible for a Person not to be flesh, if He is born of a human mother! The Lord Jesus was born of a human mother; He was flesh, human, but not 'sinful flesh,' which is 'weak' toward the righteousness of God (Rom. 8:3). He was in no way 'weak' toward God, being god Himself come into the world, in order to 'save his people from their sins' (Matt. 1:21, note the specificity fo that statement). That same Rom. 8:3 declares that He was in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh, but not, of course, exactly like it, because He 'condemned sin in the flesh.' He did that because He 'became flesh and tabernacled among us,' but He was much more than 'us.' We don't need any more of 'us,' any more sinners, we need Someone Who could, in the flesh, rescue us from sin. The Lord Jesus did that. It brings the Lord of the universe down to our level to say that He was exactly like us in respect to association with sin, when God says the opposite. That is abomination.


Subject: John 1:14...again!
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:11:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, That same Rom. 8:3 declares that He was in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh, but not, of course, exactly like it, because He 'condemned sin in the flesh.' John 1:14 says he was flesh. Not 'as' or 'like' but SARX! Oops...does this mean you are about to leave again? Sorry!


Subject: Wrong assumption...again!
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 15:43:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
But, Gene, again you miss the point. I just pointed out in the previous post that He was flesh--I went to great lenghts to point it out. He is flesh, human flesh, yet He is not 'sinful' flesh, but only in the likeness of that. That's why John 1:14 points out that the Word (God) became flesh. It is real, actual, human flesh being spoken of, which, as Adam's sinless state in the Garden proved, doesn't
have to be sinful! It is only 'sinful flesh' if it is descended from Adam after his sin. Adam was created in God's image, but he "begot a son in his own likeness, after his image," as are all his descendants (see Gen. 5:1-3). This is a simple concept, Gene, and the reason that, in John 1:14, the actual 'flesh' is spoken of, and why in Rom. 8:3 that actual flesh is spoken of in elaboration as 'in the LIKENESS OF,' not the actuality of, 'SINFUL flesh.' He was Man, but He was not exactly the same as other men because He had no sin nature. If He had been the same as we are, there could have been no perfect offering. This is the whole point of God's going to such great lengths in the Scriptures to prove that the Lord Jesus wasn't descended from Adam (see Luke 3). He was God's Son, God come in the flesh, 'for sin, [and He] condemned sin in the flesh.' Anyone grasping the salvation of God through a sinless substitutionary Sacrifice must realize that.


Subject: Re: Unwarrented assumptions
From: Rod
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 02:50:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
SM--'The doctrine of an inherited sin nature is, as far as I can ascertain, simply not Scriptural and it does a great deal of harm to Christianity. ' On the contrary, it is the
cause of Christianity, man's helplessness dictating the need for a sinless Savior to accomplish what man's weak sinful 'flesh' (his nature) made it impossible for the creature to do.


Subject: Context, context, context
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 11:35:38 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene, In the previous verse, eight, in Genesis, God made grace available to Noah; hence Noah 'found' it when no one else did. We know from Rom. 3:24 and Eph. 2:5,8 that it is grace which saves. Noah was saved in the same way everyone else who is saved is saved: by grace and through resultant faith, 'the gift of God.' Then in verse 9, because God saved Noah by grace, he was 'blameless,' or 'perfect.' The word used leaves no doubt that he alone was so gifted among all the people of the earth at that time. This is amply proved by his being brought safely through the awesome judgment of God by His marvelous provision. You've placed the emphasis on the wrong phrase, as the immediate and general context reveals.


Subject: Re: Context, context, context
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 14:29:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I guess if he was 'perfect' he would not have had a drinking problem. He was blameless 'among the people of his time'(NIV). He chose Noah because of his conduct UNLIKE Abraham. No such epithet was ascribed to him! No doubt, grace was there because God should have destroyed everyone!


Subject: Re: Context, context, context
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:25:04 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene, You're again not considering the context, but making it fit your own conception of 'righteousness.' You simply must compare Scripture to Scripture and must understand '
imputed righteousness' as God's Word decalres it. It is the only righteousness God will accept or which man can obtain. Man can 'obtain' that only by it's being gifted to him, 'by grace...through faith.' "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark, for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation" (Gen. 7:1). How could God have seen a sinful man "righteous?" God's Word makes it clear that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). But God "viewed" Noah as righteous because He had imputed righteousness to the man. He was "positionally sanctified," one of God's "saints," being "justified freely by grace" (Rom. 3:24) resulting the the "justification by his faith" (Rom. 3:26). The fact that Noah wasn't actually 'righteous' in himself and, therefore, 'blameless' in all his acts illustrates precisely the point you're missing, 'there is none righteous, no not one,' in and of himself. As Romans 3-4 (I implore you, please read this, asking God to show you the truth) demonstrates, man must receive, as Abraham, Noah, and everyone else ever saved by God was gifted with righteousness imputed to him, as did Abraham, who certainly sinned after the imputation, as the Bible makes clear. If you're going to believe the Bible, you must take and believe it all, Gene. May God open your eyes to His grace and give you saving faith.


Subject: For 'Don't Show Me'
From: Rod
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:16:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
SM, I won't answer for Pilgrim, but I'd like to make a couple of observations. The first is this: Your handle, Show Me, is indicative of an agressive and militant attitude which can't be shown anything, as I've mentioned before. Your mind is made up and all you want to do is to debate. Second, there have been people here previously who consider themselves, 'missionaries to the Calvinists.' One wonders if you're one of those returned? Third, one wonders why you feel this compulsion to come on a board such as this to argue the membership out of their carefully arrived at beliefs? Have you read the purpose of this board, investigating the site before you came in with both guns blazing? The final observation is a piece of advice, which I thoroughly expect you to ignore. For your own sake, you should be very wary of speaking so disparagingly of the precepts of the Lord God, plainly given through His Apostles.


Subject: Re: For 'Don't Show Me'
From: ShowMe
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 10:47:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, You wrote:
'The first is this: Your handle, Show Me, is indicative of an agressive and militant attitude which can't be shown anything, as I've mentioned before. Your mind is made up and all you want to do is to debate. ' You are simply wrong in your accusation. The handle I chose was one that was suppose to weed out posts like yours. 'Empty rhetoric,' apparently it did not work. I notice that people tend to accuse others of those faults that they have in themselves. Iím not the one with the aggressive and militant attitude, I think that anyone reading your posts will see that that description fits you much better. You seem to have the need to pick a fight with anyone that does not conform to your system of theology. You wrote: 'Second, there have been people here previously who consider themselves, 'missionaries to the Calvinists.' One wonders if you're one of those returned?' I certainly do not consider myself a missionary to Calvinists or to anyone else for that matter. You apparently believe that this forum is for you to preach your message, while I thought that it was a place for the discussion of theology. Thereís a lot that I do not understand in all the systems of theology that are used to divide Christians one from another. I donít know of any of them that hold all the truth so I must study each in order to find my way. You wrote: 'Third, one wonders why you feel this compulsion to come on a board such as this to argue the membership out of their carefully arrived at beliefs? Have you read the purpose of this board, investigating the site before you came in with both guns blazing?' I really have no interest at all in arguing anyone 'out of their carefully arrived at beliefs.' It really doesnít matter much at all to me what others believe. Iím more interested in testing and confirming my own beliefs and I can think of no better place right now than on forums like this to do that. You wrote: 'The final observation is a piece of advice, which I thoroughly expect you to ignore. For your own sake, you should be very wary of speaking so disparagingly of the precepts of the Lord God, plainly given through His Apostles.' If they are so 'plainly given' then why are Christians so divided over doctrine? I have done nothing wrong here, you are simply way out of line. God does not expect me to blindly accept what you or anyone else says, Iíll continue to search the Scripture to see if these things are true. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Dear Senior 'Show Me'
From: Hesed
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:35:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Senior Show Me, I agree with you that this should be a place to discuss our differences and hopefuly learn. I think some however are feeling frustrated that you do not seem to be finding satisfaction? Perhaps no one has answered your objection??? I don't know about that exact term 'sin nature' but scripture does seem to speak of a tendency towards sin that when followed by one's free uncoherced will leads one to sin and bondage. I think the biblical view is that when a person is born again of the Holy Spirit that one has a new tendency introduced by which one may escape the call of the sin tendency to do God's righteous will (freely uncoherced). Until this 'new tendency' is introduced man of his own freewill uncoherced by anything or anyone external to himself opts for the sin tendency! He does so because sin is a powerful motivational force which entices man to follow its ways. But the Holy Spirit is a greater motivational force and therefore we may overcome evil by his leadingship, is we freely choose him over the sin tendency. 'Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either sin, which leads to death, or obedience which leads to righteousness. But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness' Ro. 6:16-17. To Yield and obey are acts of choice. It is man himself not sin that is doing these.One is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness, however to be a slave of righteousness is to be free from sin which is true freedom. To choose contrary to God's standard of teaching is called death not freedom in scripture, Gen.2:16-17. Man who chooses death is in a state of death until resurrected by the power of God's Spirit. Then and only then may it be said that he is free to eat the fruit of God's fellowship unto eternal life! 'Sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you but you must master it' Gen.4:7. Is this text, an offer of grace to Cain so that he may master sin or is it infering that Cain has the ability to go either way (a choice similar to Adam?) In His Sovereign love, Hesed


Subject: Dear Senior 'Show Me'
From: laz
To: No Show
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 15:46:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
CLearly the call, no COMMAND, to repent applies to every person alive...yet, only those infallibly drawn CAN come. John 6:44 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. No Show... If Adam's sin has not been imputed to all mankind ... why do babies die? And what DID happen to Adam the day he sinned? Wasn't he supposed to die? laz Eph 2:1 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.


Subject: Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me'
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 16:31:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, You Ask:
'If Adam's sin has not been imputed to all mankind ... why do babies die?' I have never said that Adamís sin was not imputed to us! But that certainly does not mean that Adam or anyone else received a so-called 'sin nature' that forces people to sin. In one of my early posts I explained that all die because of Adam's sin, that post is still available. You Ask: 'And what DID happen to Adam the day he sinned? Wasn't he supposed to die? ' I believe the Scriptures say 'dying you shall die.' That very day Adam was separated from the Tree of Life, God even set Cherubims at the entrance to keep them out 'Dying ye shall die' death was certain. Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Gen. 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Gen. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. I have already answered your question on Eph.2:1 in another post. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me'
From: Gene
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:08:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Good post! Adam was made mortal. The scriptures show that the only way they could live forever is if they ate from the tree of life. Even in their sinful state they could have eaten and lived forever, BUT, God did not want them to so he 'posted the guard.' Excellent post.


Subject: Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me'
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:46:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene, You are presuming much which has not been proven. Who is to say that Adam and Eve were not partakers of the 'Tree of Life' while they habitated the Garden on a regular basis? What warrant is there to presume that 'eternal life' would be realized if they ate of the 'Tree of Life'; specifically one time and one time only? You seem to be implying that to eat of the 'Tree of Life' is analogous to taking a 'magic pill'! Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Dear Senior 'Show Me'
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 14:07:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I am presuming they did not partake of the tree of life BECAUSE it does not say they did. The text in question says that God kicked them out of the garden so that they would not eat of the tree and live forever. Whether it had to be continuous or just one time the text does not say. Bottom line: God did not want them to live forever so he cast them out of the garden which would have cut off their access to the tree of life. Which also means physical death did not come from eating of the tree of knowledge. Even in their sinful state they could have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever. It's all there in the text.


Subject: The Highway UPDATE!
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:15:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

As some of you might know, I have been absorbed in a very important project over the past couple of months. It has been my desire to republish a now out of print book that I feel is sorely needed to be made available once again to the children of God. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, through the auspices of the L.D.O.S. (Lord's Day Observance Society) published a momentous work [one of his doctrinal dissertations] back in 1965. It was entitled, The Covenantal Sabbath. It is my personal conviction that this work is to the subject of the Christian Sabbath as John Owen's work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is to the doctrine of the atonement. I believe it is a definitive work which has never heretofore been rivaled. Doubtless, it will require the reader's utmost attention as it is quite long and detailed. However, those of you whose true desire is to gain knowledge for the purpose of growing in Christ will 'endure to the end.' Due to the limitations which unfortunately is inherent in the medium of the Internet, as compared to having a hard copy of a book, I have striven to make the publication of this work as 'reader friendly' as possible. You will notice that the voluminous amount of footnotes have all been linked to the text, so that one can simply click on the superscripted footnote notation and bring up the relevant reference, so that the information in the footnotes can be consulted immediately without having to scroll down to end of the chapter to read it. One need only to then click the 'Back' button to return to the text proper. Further, the format is 'printer friendly' for those of you who wish to have a hard copy. May the LORD, by His Holy Spirit bless each of you unto your edification through this marvelous work, as much as He has blessed me personally. You may find this book from The Highway home page in the 'Calvinism and the Reformed Faith' section under the 'Praxis' heading and/or by clicking here: The Covenantal Sabbath

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: FYI
From: stan
To: ALL
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 15:08:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just ran across this today and thought some might be interested. http://www.ageslibrary.com/gill.html


Subject: extra info
From: kevin
To: everyone
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 19:07:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Also look for Joh Owen and Arthur Pink there as well. In Him, kevin sdg


Subject: clarification
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 16:48:52 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
mebaser (and possibly others) seems to think that I have some 'sinister' agenda in regard to Gene and that I deliberately try to provoke him. Allow me to clear the air. My sole purpose is to alert Gene to his errors, which are all based on the undeniable fact of his unbelief, his not being saved. Is it 'evil,' mebaser, to do so? Apparently that's your interpretation. I think that's the right thing to do. It involves no personal vendetta, or mean feelings. I would treat any false professor the same, particularly if he continually ridiculed the truth of God. I'm very 'democratic' in that regard. Gene represents no personal threat to me, and my ego isn't involved in my responses to him. mebaser, you have said that I made a 'false accusation' against Gene. The only thing I've said which I can think of which you might be referencing is that he couldn't understand Pilgrim's response below. Now, mebaser, surely you didn't think that I was insulting his intelligence or ability to read ordinary words. The reference was to his inability to understand the Scriptures generally because of the fact that he isn't saved and enabled to do so by God's Spirit. That point should have been crystal clear to anyone really reading the post. Do you believe that unsaved people can understand on the same level as we Christians? Surely not! Does Gene understand the Scriptures with the same level of appreciation of Christians? Surely not! Those are facts. And I think it's a fact that Gene never really recognized before that his question revealed his disrespect for God. I think he needs to be alerted to his error. I'm not 'goading him unnecessary' and 'bullying him,' as you seem to suspect. I was trying to tell him that that sort of question involves answers beyond his understanding because he is lost, a fact he denies, even as he denies the true nature of the Savior. I personally don't believe it's 'cruel' to point out the truth to Gene, or any other lost person. He is headed for a certain eternity of torment unspeakable. He can only be saved by God's truth, that's my motive in showing him the Scriptures, though you ascribe others to me by inference and implication. That, mebaser, is a false accusation.


Subject: Re: clarification
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 08:18:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Rod, Thank you for the clarification, and the opportunity for me to clarify myself as well. First off, I don't believe that you have a sinister agenda in regards to Gene, I just think you are bringing down the hammer of rebuke on Gene a little harder than it needs to (and I DO belive it needs to be done). Second, it is not evil to alert Gene to his error, but being the fact that we are all imperfect humans, it is possible that doing a good thing like alerting Gene to his error can be done in a bad way. Third, the 'false accusation' that I refer to came from the first thread in which you engaged Gene, about the inspiratin of Leviticus. I still hold to that the 'gist' of his query does not indicate, as you say it does, a denial of the plenary inspiration of the book of Leviticus. Surely I know that a non-saved person is not able to discern spritual truth (as Genes favorite verse explains, 1 Corinthians 2:14). But I am not trying to show that Gene can. I agree with you on that point. As to whether or not your demeanor is cruel to Gene, I believe its less than gracious (but remember, I do believe it needs to be done), and goes against 1 Peter 3:15's command to do so with gentleness and reverence. I do not believe that Gene has been dealt with to the point that Jesus did with the religious rulers of His day. There is a time and place for direct and harsh confrontation, but I think you've jumped the gun on Gene. There's my bit, thanks for reading. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Concerning the 'false accusation.'
From: Rod
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:42:40 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Mebaser, dear friend in Christ and brother in the Lord, Thank you for your honest reply. :>) If I had made the judgment about Gene's statement on Leviticus based solely on that statement, it would have been flimsy, indeed. But, knowing his feelings on inspiration, the Triune God, Moses' role in Leviticus and the writing of it, it was pretty apparent to me what his views were and where he was going. Based on his own testimony and track record, I don't think I made an unfair judgment in any sense of the word. Actually, I'm convinced that it was both accurate and fair. I am not Gene's enemy. Actually, if he comes to Christ, whether through my witness being used by God positively, or negatively to spur him to study and the positive witness of someone else being the immediate means, I would have been Gene's 'friend' all along in either case, having presented him the truth of God which God sovereignly used to his ultimate benefit. He would be, in Christ, a beloved brother, as you are. I pray it will be so that he becomes a brother. I repeat, I'm not Gene's enemy, but the conflict arises because, as Romans 8 teaches, he is the non-believing enemy of God at this point. Being more than merely an avowed non-believer, he is a professed believer in a false Christ, 'another gospel,' which God pronounces as 'cursed of God' (Gal. 1:8; 1 Cor. 16:22). This is very serious stuff and not to be taken lightly. Gene should be aware of the consequences, as the Word of God is his only means of salvation, humanly speaking. He must know and believe that truth.


Subject: Thanks
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 18:50:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mebaser, dear friend in Christ and brother in the Lord, Thank you for your honest reply. :>) If I had made the judgment about Gene's statement on Leviticus based solely on that statement, it would have been flimsy, indeed. But, knowing his feelings on inspiration, the Triune God, Moses' role in Leviticus and the writing of it, it was pretty apparent to me what his views were and where he was going. Based on his own testimony and track record, I don't think I made an unfair judgment in any sense of the word. Actually, I'm convinced that it was both accurate and fair. I am not Gene's enemy. Actually, if he comes to Christ, whether through my witness being used by God positively, or negatively to spur him to study and the positive witness of someone else being the immediate means, I would have been Gene's 'friend' all along in either case, having presented him the truth of God which God sovereignly used to his ultimate benefit. He would be, in Christ, a beloved brother, as you are. I pray it will be so that he becomes a brother. I repeat, I'm not Gene's enemy, but the conflict arises because, as Romans 8 teaches, he is the non-believing enemy of God at this point. Being more than merely an avowed non-believer, he is a professed believer in a false Christ, 'another gospel,' which God pronounces as 'cursed of God' (Gal. 1:8; 1 Cor. 16:22). This is very serious stuff and not to be taken lightly. Gene should be aware of the consequences, as the Word of God is his only means of salvation, humanly speaking. He must know and believe that truth.
---
Dear Rod, I too want to be frank when I say that I count you as a dear brother in the Lord. I agree completely with your post above and I hope that God would bring Gene to saving faith. I feel that I said my piece, and I hope you take it as a friendly gist as to what I saw. But as I see the response you gave to Gene today, I feel that I need not say more. You are more than able to deal with this man, and I see that your effort is seriously directed with confronting Gene with his need to humble himself in the sight of the Lord. I say amen to your post to him, and your effort to bring the light of the gospel. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: How do you know?
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 18:48:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, How do you know I am not saved? I could be one of the elect. Does an elect person have to think like you? Can you say for sure my name is not written in the book of life? Based on your posts (not knowing your lifestyle)I would have no problem thinking yours is. Being an elect has no bearing on what I do or say or believe. Is it not all God's call?


Subject: Christians believe, first and foremost
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 19:41:10 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the full meaning of the title and all its implications--you know our stance by now. Christ is God. Christians are Trinitarian. You have stated on this forum that the Lord Jesus isn't God and you evidently hate the concept of the Trinity. In short, you are known from your testimony.


Subject: Re: Christians believe, first and foremost
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 02:47:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
But Calvinism teaches my salvation is not up to me. It does not depend on what I do, say, or believe. If I am the elect then there is nothing I can do to become the 'non-elect' and vis versa. Is this not what Calvin taught and believed? Surely man is not saved by what they believe?


Subject: Re: Christians believe, first and foremost
From: Brother Bret
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 14:44:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene: No it's not what Calvin 'completely' taught and believed. The word of God teaches God's sovereignty in salvation (Jn. 6:37;Ph.2:12,13; Acts 2:23)as well as the human responsibility. Me thinks that some have tried to explain this to you :^ ). If you are of the elect, you will believe, repent, not practice sin, and have the proper biblical understanding of God, Christ and the holy Spirit. A person is not saved when God elects them or calls them. One of God's sheep/elect is saved when they embrace Christ and the cross and subsequent resurrection. The rest that I mentioned above is 'evidence' that the sheep is saved. Just out of curiosity Gene...And I don't know if this question was asked of you already. If it was, please indulge me. Do you believe that those who claim to be JW's and believe that organization's doctrine, can be saved? BB


Subject: Gene, this is a perfect example of your inability to see...
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:31:11 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
...actual Bible truth and the grace of God, due to your lack of spiritual life. That is a statement of fact, not malice, BTW. If you were elect, you'd be saved now, as I understand the concept. An elect person, such as mebaser, is one who was predestined to salvation and who has been 'effectually called' as he explained it below. He has been drawn by and saved by 'irresistible grace' from God, the result of God's having 'predestined' him to ultimate conformation to the image of His Son, the Lord Jesus (Rom. 8:29). He will be carried safely on to the ultimate step, 'glorification' (Rom. 8:30) and that is 'conformation to the image of the Son,' the Second Person of the One God, the One Who took on a perfect human nature in order to pay our penalty. You may, indeed, be 'predestined' by God. In which case, one day you will respond to the presentation of Scriptural truth and be saved by God's Spirit acting in conjunction with His Word--that is, you'll be 'elect.' When Spurgeon was asked, 'If you believe in election, why do you preach to everyone?' (These aren't exact quotes, incidentally.) He replied, 'If all the elect had yellow stripes painted on their backs, I'd go around town lifting up shirts and preaching to those.' God has made it incumbent on us to 'preach the word; be diligent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine' (2 Tim. 4:2). By that means will the predestined/elect be found out and the lost be convicted and confirmed. Are you elect, Gene? If so, God is calling you right now. You may come to Christ, if you want, for that is what an elect person wants, and that he wants fervently.


Subject: Re: Christians believe, first and foremost
From: mebaser
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 08:01:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
But Calvinism teaches my salvation is not up to me. It does not depend on what I do, say, or believe. If I am the elect then there is nothing I can do to become the 'non-elect' and vis versa. Is this not what Calvin taught and believed? Surely man is not saved by what they believe?
---
Okay Gene, Now your being unreasonable. If you have studied Calvinism, then you should know that God's election is efficacious. That means a few things. First, if someone is elect, then you have to consider their spiritual state before and after their salvation. Before they are saved, they are just as spiritually dead as any who are not saved (Ephesians 2:1-3; Titus 3:3). Once one is saved, God EFFECTS change in their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. So within a biblical framework, which Calvinism is, it DOES depend on what you do, say, or believe. Not that what you say, do, or believe will earn you salvation, rather it evidences the efficacious change wrought by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Unity, when there is none.
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 11:21:04 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: I took a look at the RCC/Lutherian justification document and was prompted to make a few remarks, not about that statement, which is extremely detailed and would need more analysis than I'm inclined to give and which is too long to analyze properly on a forum like this. But it got me to thinking about why there can be no unity between true Christians and the RCC cult. And I actually and sincerely believe that statement just made about its being a cult. I know that many of the leaders in Christian circles have justly denounced this movement toward unifying with the RCC, but I'm not certain that the vast majority of us realize the actual and core issue separating us who are real worshippers of the Lord Jesus Christ from the RCC religious organization. I hope you noted that last designation, 'religious organization.' That is key to the problem. We're not dealing with a 'chruch,' when considering the RCC, but a system, an organization which has 'evolved' over the years into the false and corrupt perversion of Christianity which exists today. (I must parenthetically note that this is not an attack on individuals who are RCC, but on the organization and its non-Christian, anti-Christian basis. I believe that there are saved RCC members, but that they are saved
in spite of the RCC, not because of it. They should immediately come out of its falsehoods.) The RCC's one foundational and all-pervasive error, throughout its existence, is this: THERE IS NO SALVATION APART FROM THAT BODY. Think about that for a moment. It goes deeper than just the 'one true church' issue, which afflicts many non-Catholic bodies. It goes all the way to the heart of the Christian faith itself, that Christ Jesus, our Lord, is the way, the truth, and the life. Without the administration of the 'seven sacraments' of the RCC, by the invocations of the heirarchy of the priesthood of the RCC, there is no salvation in the Lord Jesus. That is the essence of the RCC doctrine in a nutshell. The situation is much too complicated to explain here, but that is a sweeping statement of flat and concise truth. No matter what statements are made, no matter how many compromises are acceded to, there remains the fact that the One Way to the Lord Jesus Christ, the 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' is so blocked and obscured by the RCC teaching and intercessory priesthood, that one can't get to their heaven without first jumping through the necessary religious 'hoops' and passing through the many layers of works salvation interposed by the priests and traditions. Even then, they deny actual entrance into the RCC heaven. Everyone, including the popes, has to work off his sins after death, which haven't been completely and finally covered by the blood of Christ, of course, in their prugatory. Their purgatory, like all their falsehoods, flies in the face of the true God and Savior of authentic Christianity. Someone, in referring to the exquisite truth of Heb. 1:1-3, especially verse 3: '...when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,' rightly identified that as, 'The only PURGATORY in the Bible!' Thus denying the completed and purposeful work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the RCC interposes the need of its mediation and its sanctification for its deceived members, placing an extradordinary and abominable barrier between itself and people who are looking, not to the Christ of the Bible, but to the organization, for salvation. The Lord Jesus said this, provoking the anger of the Jewish religious leaders of His day, and inciting their desire to execute Him: 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work' (John 5:17) and He pronounced subsequently, 'For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth them life, even so the Son giveth life to whom he will' (verse 21, see the entire context of the chapter). But the RCC interposes itself and says, effectively, 'The Son doesn't give life, as He claims, but it is necessary that one obtain it from this vast religious organization and its principles and requirments." Then is the work of Jesus Christ complete. And only then! There can be no unity between actual Christians and any body or person who teaches and adheres to such heresy. _____________________________ It's been all I could do in writing what's above to stop from launching into a description of actual and real practices of the RCC, details of the organization which prove my point. I simply can't do that, they're too numerous and far-reaching. The foundational and fundamental error of the organization is this: The RCC steadfastly and irrevocably, from Matthew 16:13-20, specifically verse18, builds itself upon the principle of 'Apostolic Succession,' and the fact that entrance into Heaven rests upon Peter and his successor 'popes' who have been given the actual 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' (verse 19) and can admit/deny entry into glorification with the Lord Jesus Christ to those of their choosing, on the basis of the RCC teaching and supposed intercessory power. This is the primary error, which gives birth to compounded error, which leads to the obscuring of the truth of salvation as contained in the Bible, which has, in many ways, become secondary to the traditions of the RCC and the 'pronouncements' of its leadership in the priesthood. Each Christian should, in light of the pervasiveness of the RCC, and in light of the fact that it is perceived as 'Christian,' not only by itself, but by the world at large, and even by many who sincerely name the Name above all names which can bring salvation to His people (see Phil. 2:9-11); each Christian should review the RCC documents and teaching to be familiar with the basic falsehoods. A good place for those not aware of the RCC teaching is the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' which is online and easily found by search. There the 'easiness' ends, for the volume is ponderous, tedious, and greatly disturbing to a Bible reader who is a believer in the Christ of the Bible and is, therefore, led by God's Spirit. But those who would know the doctrine of the most vast organization opposed to Christ in the Americas, and probably in 'Christendom,' owe it to themselves to read some of the things they teach. Starting with the word 'sacraments,' or 'baptism' will be very revealing. Be certain to look at the 'sacraments of death' and the 'sacraments of life.' I urge everyone who has little or no knowledge of the teaching of this body to examine that document. It is, for a real Christian, both chilling and energizing. Chilling for its falsehood and heresy, energizing for its tendency to goad a real believer into action against false teaching. May God guide us as we stand for His truth.


Subject: Re: Unity, when there is none.
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:04:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, Your post reminded me of a question you asked some time ago, when we were discussing the subject of Peter and the keys. In contrast to the RC's, Orthodox believe that Christ's statements to Peter rested on the faith of the man, not some magical final authority held by every bishop who succeeded him. While there are a variety of other substantial things which keep east and west apart, this one is the biggie. Just FYI... Christopher


Subject: Thanks, Christopher. n/t
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:08:10 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: Apostolic succession
From: hESED
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 20:48:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
It seems like apostolic sucession was necessary until the canon could be established otherwise there would have been no way to verify which writting were handed down from the apostles!


Subject: Re: Apostolic succession
From: Prestor John
To: hESED
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 21:48:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No, the canon could have been established by one apostle like John. Especially since I believe the canon was complete before the fall of Jerusalem. But even if that had not happened, the Word of God is unique enough to be recognized for what it is. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Apostolic succession
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 22:21:17 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Prestor John, It seems to me that these are very true words: 'the Word of God is unique enough to be recognized for what it is.' The councils which recognized the canon were not creating the Bible, they were saying that God had already done so and that His people knew it by the guidance of His Spirit. Incidentally, this is another RCC error, that, in essence, the Bible proceeds from the Church (i.e., their organization) instead of creating it.


Subject: Re:Holy Spirit & successors
From: Hesed
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 23:33:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You guys are right by saying that the Holy Spirit's guidance established the canon, but what your overlooking is the fact that he did so through the instrumentality of the church. Especially through those who were the disciples of the original apostles who could give a credible witness to what writting were recognized in the first centuries. It is precisely because of the lack of a strong witness of these successors that certain books took longer to include in the Canon. A better understanding of the church and the heresies it faced in the first and second centuries will help prove the above!


Subject: Re: Re:Holy Spirit & successors
From: Pilgrim
To: Hesed
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 12:33:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hesed,

That's an excellent point. The Canon wasn't formed in a vacuum! Today, because of the 'Deformed Church' and its long history even before the Medieval period and the incipient individualism that has infected the modern church, to make mention of the church's role in the formation of the Canon brings strong negative reaction from many. Although the church in its infancy was still growing and thus its dogma took time to be developed, as the Holy Spirit led and gifted men as leaders, this is no reason to reject its findings. Look at the momentous foundational Creeds, eg., the Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian. God knew what was needed to lay the 'brick work' upon the foundation of the 'prophets and apostles' to build His church. Providentially, heretics were raised up as an impetus so as to put into writing what was beforehand, surely believed, but held mainly by universal consent without benefit of codified documents. It is a shame and shameful how little professing Christians know about the history of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. If they were more informed, I would like to believe that there would be far less heresy allowed to be embraced and taught in seminaries, from pulpits and in the homes of believers. However, my confidence does not lie with what might have been, or what might happen if 'such and such' were true. It rests in the promise of the Lord Christ who said, 'I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Therefore, lot us do that which is required of us mainly 1) To preach the truth as it is found in God's infallible Word, 2) Expose the works of darkness and all the gross heretical teachings as well as those subtle and seemingly insignificant errors which work to bring down the true members of the Body of Christ.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Re:Holy Spirit & successors
From: Hesed
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 20:59:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Greetings! You said.... 'It is a shame and shameful how little professing Christians know about the history of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. If they were more informed, I would like to believe that there would be far less heresy allowed to be embraced and taught in seminaries, from pulpits and in the homes of believers.' It helps to be acquainted with history, it give us understanding and balance if listened to. In the presence of many counselors one finds wisdom. But many who know alot end up being the worse heretics! They try to figure out more than what has been revealed in God's word, treaspassing into the 'hidden' counsels of God and speculating on darkness. Or else they try to satisfy the carnal fancies of man instead of trying to please the Holy One of Israel. They are like the fallen angels 'that did not keep their own position' Jude, 'in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious one,' Jude. Whenever one, whether angel or man exalts his own wisdom above that of God he becomes a damnable fool! But even God choses fools! 1 Cor. 1 May he convert many of these enemies of the cross and build his Church! Hesed


Subject: Re: Apostolic succession
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 11:06:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John, It seems to me that these are very true words: 'the Word of God is unique enough to be recognized for what it is.' The councils which recognized the canon were not creating the Bible, they were saying that God had already done so and that His people knew it by the guidance of His Spirit. Incidentally, this is another RCC error, that, in essence, the Bible proceeds from the Church (i.e., their organization) instead of creating it.
---
Rod - that's been my understanding as well. The Church did not determine the canon of Scripture, but merely discovered it by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. laz


Subject: laz, AMEN! n/t
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:28:25 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: Apostolic succession
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:17:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Should you have the time and inclination, I'd like your further thoughts on the subject. I've been researching the development of the canons, both OT and NT, from a variety of perspectives, and have found that while a majority of the NT was accepted quite early, there were a few books that took until the fourth century to be accepted by both the eastern and western churches. Hebrews, for example, was not widely accepted as canonical in the west (apparently because of the Montanist heresies) and Revelation was not widely accepted in the east, due to a general avoidance of apocalyptic writings in general. It appears that the drive for a complete canon was prompted intially by heretics, claiming that their spurious books were actually inspired. Christopher


Subject: Christopher, my thoughts on this are pretty simple and direct.
From: Rod
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:03:57 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
My info is that there was an almost complete NT recognized by the Church at large well before A. D. 200 (thirty years or so). Hebrews seems to have been a part of that body of accepted writings early on. I think your statement, 'It appears that the drive for a complete canon was prompted intially by heretics, claiming that their spurious books were actually inspired,' illustrates perfectly the principle of God stated in 1 Cor. 11:19: 'For there must be also heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.' Look at what happens on this board by comparison: When a believer, and one who is in harmony with the basic beliefs of this board, posts something on say, 'grace,' there is little reaction, until and unless, someone who is not a 'sovereign gracer' or who is unsaved blasts the belief. Then people come out to defend their views. It just seems to be a human characteristic (fault?) that agreement doesn't appeal to us, but disagreement? Now there's something zesty! God knows and uses that trait within us all. I am not an expert on Church History by any means. (Or on any other subject, for that matter.)


Subject: Re: Christopher, my thoughts on this are pretty simple and direct.
From: Christopher
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 11:01:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>>I think your statement, 'It appears that the drive for a complete canon was prompted intially by heretics, claiming that their spurious books were actually inspired,' illustrates perfectly the principle of God stated in 1 Cor. 11:19: 'For there must be also heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.' <<<<< Couldn't agree with you more! Thanks for taking the time to respond. Christopher


Subject: Justification
From: Kent W
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 09:06:17 (PST)
Email Address: ibq645i@tninet.se

Message:
The Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification. Questions to be considered. 1) How do we stand on this very imported doctrine now? 2) Do you think the document in itself express a real joint view or do you not think so? 3) If you're critical towards it, on what grounds are you critical? 4) Since many of you participating here on Gospelcom are Reformed, how would you have changed this document? How would it have been different from what it is now if some Reformed theologians were involved? The Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification www.justification.org/joint_eng.htm


Subject: Pharaoh's heart
From: Gene
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 03:44:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi all, I will try and keep a civil tongue. :) Here is my question: If God hardened Pharaoh's heart and then brought upon him and the Egyptians all this grief then why could he not soften his heart and spare everyone the grief?


Subject: Re: Pharaoh's heart
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 13:03:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi all, I will try and keep a civil tongue. :) Here is my question: If God hardened Pharaoh's heart and then brought upon him and the Egyptians all this grief then why could he not soften his heart and spare everyone the grief?
---
Gene,

God could have 'softened Pharaoh's heart', either in a temporal sense or in a permanent and spiritual sense. But since all God's works are perfect (Deut 32:4; Ps 18:30; Eccl 3:14). Therefore, looking back we could assuredly say that for God to have softened Pharaoh's heart would have been imperfect. Pharaoh hardened his own heart as well! :-) But as for God hardening Pharaoh's heart, it is not as if Pharaoh had a 'good heart' and God turned it into an evil heart. God simply rendered the inevitable judgment upon him at that particular time for a special purpose, which Paul makes clear here:

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

God's sovereign right to save whom He will is firmly established here with the repetitive phrase, 'but of God that shewth mercy'. Pharaoh only got what he deserved and much more. He was given riches, fame, worldly glory, power and much more; all which he desired most.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Pharaoh's heart
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 14:02:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I think your quote of Rom 9:17 gives us some indication as to why God hardened instead of softened Pharaoh's heart. It appears the whole purpose for the plagues was to (1) Show God's Power and (2) Make His name great among the nations. Hardening Pharaoh's heart guaranteed the success of purpose #1. Just think, if God softened his heart God could not have said this. Exodus 10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them, 2 and that you may tell in the hearing of your son, and of your grandson, how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I performed My signs among them, that you may know that I am the LORD.'


Subject: The actual question asked...
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 13:43:40 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene, now that Pilgrim has given you the excellent answer he has, from the Scriptures, and now that you, if you haven't since become a believer, have misunderstood it, as you inevitably must, please consider this: Your question, far from keeping a 'civil tongue,' is a direct insult to the Almighty God. Your words: ' then why could he not soften his heart and spare everyone the grief?' There is unbelief in the God of the Bible succinctly stated. It is the utmost in disrespect toward God, by one who professes to be a Christian. Actually, if you were a Christian, an Arminian say, and hadn't continually proved yourself to be a mocker and scoffer, I'm certain you'd have had numerous answers by now. I would certainly have answered along the lines of Pilgrim's response. The sad and plain fact is that you cannot see the truth of the Bible, simply and plainly because you are not a Christian. You are among those lost people described in Rom. 8. Here's what it says about you and why you cannot see this truth about God's character in your unbelief: First, your mind is totally 'enmity against God' (verse 7). There is no other description of your unbelieving mind in that verse. You are, at your core, 'God's enemy.' Second, the succeeding verses demonstrate that you and all unbelievers are not subject to God's law (verse 7, second half). Then, it states that you are, because of your unbelief unable to please God in verse 8. That inability to please God comes directly from the fact of your unbelief: 'Without faith it is impossible to please him' (Heb. 11:6). Moving on to Rom. 8:9, we come to the crux of the issue (the reference was intentional). Read that verse for yourself. See that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are identical. See that His indwelling Presence is necessary to salvation (the being 'born again'). Without out that indwelling Presence, the lost person is 'none of his.' It's not possible for a lost person to understand the nature and truth of God in an unregenerate condition: 'There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:11). 'Marvel not that I said unto thee,
Ye must be born again' (John 3:7). You regard all this as an attack and personal. It isn't. It's the only response Christians have for you: the truth of God. May He enable you to come to Christ.


Subject: Re: The actual question asked...
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 13:55:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, You wrote: Gene, now that Pilgrim has given you the excellent answer he has, from the Scriptures, and now that you, if you haven't since become a believer, have misunderstood it, as you inevitably must, please consider this: How about I let you respond to all the posts that I want because you seem to think you know what I am going to say! Before I even respond one word to Pilgrim you try and put words in my mouth! This tells me you have your mind made up as to what I will say BEFORE I know what I will say! OK, try this...I am thinking of a color.... Since when did you read minds?


Subject: Gene, I wonder what you'd have said to Pilgrim,
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 14:23:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
If you hadn't seen my reply first? I note that you answered it prior to answering his. No, I don't read your mind, but your total posting over the time I've been here reveals your heart, which God describes in Romans 8, as I have quoted and directed you to. Again, you haven't understood my intent. Gal. 4:16 summarizes it nicely.


Subject: Re: Gene, I wonder what you'd have said to Pilgrim,
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 14:46:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Why even respond to my posts? Why not 'shake the dust off your feet' and ignore me? You seem to think there is an (evil) agenda behind every question. Of course, you did say you were not going to ever respond to me a while back (just like you said you would leave this forum) and both statements turned out to be less than true. So even if you say you will not respond to me anymore, I won't believe you. So, I guess the bottom line is...deal with it!


Subject: Gene, here's a better question.
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:03:44 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Why bother to come to a Christian forum and expect not to get Christian responses? Actually, I often respond to you and others to speak to the larger group. Yes, I followed a course of not answering you previously. You have shown that God, and your own unsaved nature, have hardened your heart so that it is, at this point, 'bullet proof' as far as the gospel is concerned. That's all I'm giving you, Gene, an opportunity to be saved. When I didn't answer you, you frequently tried to 'call me out' with challenges. You remind me of the ones the Lord Jesus described in Matt. 11:16-17, that is, you aren't satisfied when one doesn't play your game.


Subject: Re: Gene, here's a better question.
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 16:02:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Rod, At this point, there really is no point for you to continue to engage Gene. You have provoked him to anger, with a rather unfair accusation leveled at him, and you are merely provoking him to further anger by which many on this board will then accuse him of being uncivil and ill-tempered. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: What unfair accusation would that be? n/t
From: Rod
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 16:11:28 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Gene
From: Tom
To: Monitor
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 13:31:13 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Monitor I think it should be obvious to all by now, that Gene is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He has proven himself to be more interested in getting people's goat, than actually learning and growing in our Lord Jesus Christ. An example of a post that proves this is as followed: Rod, You have your work cut out for you. You have a lot of postings to 'correct' because since you were gone we got so far off track. What would the 'Highway' do without you coming in to correct everyone and 'saving the day'? But not all is lost...there will be a time someone will correct you and you will be gone AGAIN(with your tail between your legs as before) , promising never to return, and then 'BOOM' back to save the forum from 'false teachings.' Make sure you go through ALL the posts, we would not want any 'false teachings' to creep in without Rod knowing about them. This kind of talk, proves my case. The more people react to this kind of talk, the more it gives him his jolies. I have stopped posting to him a long time ago, but I can see that some have not done so. How long do we have to put up with him? Tom


Subject: Re: Gene
From: Five Sola
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 19:25:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, This is so true. Gene has yet to behave in a christian manner since his first post here. Of course, after exposing his theology he has proven that he is not a christian. I think maybe the monitors have not disposed of him before because his exegesis is never of any substance to cause a christian to believe it so no threat :-) Of course, now that he has continually become insulting and demeaning in his post, may cause him to have caused his dismissal. Five Sola


Subject: Re: Gene
From: Tom
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 11:58:42 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Five Sola You said: I think maybe the monitors have not disposed of him before because his exegesis is never of any substance to cause a christian to believe it so no threat :-) Actually I do not believe that is true, it might not have been of any substance to you, but he has a little knowledge of the Greek. Just enough to be dangerous, an example of this was his exegesis on John 1:1. To someone who is searching for the truth, they could possibly read his view on this matter or others, and begin to wonder if he is right. (No Gene, I am not one of those who are wondering this) Tom


Subject: Re: Gene
From: Gene
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 04:48:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now thats an interisting perspective! :)


Subject: Re: Gene
From: Gene
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 14:09:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, I would say the monitors are showing a lot of grace...wouldn't you? :) Continue to ignore me if you like. I enjoy being challenged, don't you? :)


Subject: Re: Gene
From: Brother Bret
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 15:25:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Showing alot of grace is good Gene/? for that right reasons and attitude. The words you spoke that Tom shared with us is uncalled for. When did you become a mindreader to know Rod's motives for leaving and coming back, and responding to the various posts? BTW, is your church ready to hear the real 'you' yet? They might cast you on out, even for the CoC :^). Take care my friend, and be ye reasonable...BB


Subject: Re: Gene
From: Gene
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 18:58:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret, Of course I am no mind reader! Nor do I play one on TV.:) Rod stated his reason for leaving and it is quite clear from his posting that he is getting a running start at making sure people know what is 'right.' Now, tell me what your last statement has to do with this or any post on this forum? Out of the blue you bring this up! A totally different subject! A subject I shared with YOU, not with anyone on this forum!! What I can see from your last statement is that you share info that someone told you in confidence!


Subject: Re: Gene
From: Brother Bret
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 17, 2000 at 15:37:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret, Of course I am no mind reader! Nor do I play one on TV.:) Rod stated his reason for leaving and it is quite clear from his posting that he is getting a running start at making sure people know what is 'right.' Now, tell me what your last statement has to do with this or any post on this forum? Out of the blue you bring this up! A totally different subject! A subject I shared with YOU, not with anyone on this forum!! What I can see from your last statement is that you share info that someone told you in confidence! Dear Gene: First let me apologize for sharing that info publicly. I just wasn't thinking properly regarding that(of couse some might think that I don't think properly at all...hehe)and I think that I was thinking that it was okay for a reason that I can't share here, or I will end up doing the same thing again :^(. People in general, you, and I do bring up other subjects within the same post or e-mail at times. For me to bring that up was tantamont me asking you about your baby's health. But Tom was discussing false teachings too, which made me think of that. But again, I do apologize and hope you will forgive me!!! As far as the stuff with you and Rod? I do not agree with your explanation, but hey, that wouldn't be the first time would it? We may believe you are a false teacher and by the word of God point that out to you. You may think we don't know what we are talking about because most of us do not 'allegedly' know Greek and Hebrew as well as you. But to respond sarcastically or to judge someone's motives is not the way to deal with it. If you'd like, we can continue this discussion by e-mail. And by the way, I do hope your baby son is doing okay! Brother Bret


Subject: 'Wicket Gate'
From: george
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 16:50:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All, I am reading 'Pilgrims Progress', and would like some insight on what you all believe the 'Wicket Gate' to represent. I remember awhile back (maybe it was on another board?), that someone posed the question, but I wasn't interested then. IHG, george


Subject: An explanation of my return
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:49:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: When I announced I was leaving this board, that was my complete intention. And I did, returning a couple of days ago to read the article by Pink (most excelelnt, BTW) on The Atonement, as I had been severely challenged on another board on this (and a multitude of other issues), even being called, as a 'Calvinist,' a non-Christian, since 'Calvinists' were anti-Christian at the core. This by the board owner. It was my 'dismissal' notice from that board. I have to admit that, when someone calls me an unbeliever as I am confessing and honoring my Lord Jesus Christ, it doesn't shake my confidence in my belief and ultimate salvation, but it does do these things: First, it makes me extremely sad that those people don't even understand the foundation of Christianity, 'that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved' (Rom. 10: 9). And this from people constantly spouting 'John 3:16.' Next, it causes me to seek out good, sound expositers of the Word of God to see if my stance is all it could be in terms of truth and accuracy. I was humbled to see how inadequate I was in the face of Pink's proofs of the Limited Atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. Following that, I dropped by this board and was lured into posting, with a facetious handle, but one of the fine monitors recognized me right off, it seems, and very graciously spoke to me. (Thank you!) With the permission of Pilgrim and the monitors, I would like the privilege of posting. I don't intend (the Lord willing) to get into as deep an involvement as previously, because of time and other considerations. I posted just now on the Leviticus thread because, after a couple of days, no one had answered what I saw as an erroneous conclusion about the nature and attributes of God. That's my story. Thanks for listening.


Subject: Glad you're back, Rod!!! We missed you. EOM
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:12:39 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:


Subject: Re: An explanation of my return
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:09:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

I, as the owner of this board welcome you with open arms. Despite your personal convictions over the previous discussion concerning the subject matter that influenced your departure, I consider you a dear brother in the Lord Christ. You need not my permission to participate here as I found nothing whatsoever that would disqualify you from doing so. I was saddened over your decision, but respect your right to have made it. So, once again, I bid you welcome and I look forward to your sharing what wisdom God has imparted to you for the edification of the saints and detractors alike, ultimately to the glory of the name of the LORD God and Christ Jesus our Saviour.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: An explanation of my return
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:15:18 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Thank you, dear brother! Your words: 'ultimately to the glory of the name of the LORD God and Christ Jesus our Saviour.' Those are the words of the goal of every true Christian operating in the Spirit of God's leadership. I look forward tp pressing toward that goal with you and the membership. May God enable us to do so, as He has enabled us to be saved by His grace.


Subject: Re: An explanation of my return
From: David Teh
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:09:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey Rod, Glad you're staying. Enjoyed whatever exchanges we had in the past but for the most part, it's the commitment to honour God with all our strength....and all our mind. Okay, back to lurking mode. Swimming/drowning in my work! :P


Subject: leviticus
From: danny
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 12:50:43 (PST)
Email Address: team@paceteam.freeserve.co.uk

Message:
Why are women considerably less in value than men in leviticus chapter 27 verses 1-7. I understand that this is a redemption price and possibly cultural, but i wanted to know why. any ideas? Thankyou


Subject: Re: leviticus
From: Anne
To: danny
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 17:30:55 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Ha! Another POV. Why do we automatically assume that having the 'fee' for the dedication be higher is a plus, huh? Perhaps God is showing partiality for the very young and the older folks by graciously agreeing to accept a minimal fee for their dedication, but when it comes to those men, . . . . well, that's gonna cost you 50 big ones, guy. Females, naturally, also are dedicated for a much more reasonable amount. Hee hee hee. Ho ho ho. ;-> Works for
me! Anne


Subject: A few considerations
From: Rod
To: danny
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:23:45 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Danny, I'm not an expert on these things, but here are a few things of note, I think. The first thing is that God is sensitive to the realities of physical limitations and abilities to pay. In vese 8: 'But if he be poorer than thy valuation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him, according to his ability [to pay]....' That means, the prescribed amounts the Lord God has set can be adjusted on ability to pay. It seems that the valuations of the various ages and genders of the people involved in this 'special' (and apparently voluntary vow) are set up by God also basically on earning potential and abilities to produce income, males being the ones who directly produced income and females having a necessary supportive role which ordinarily didn't produce income, but who indirectly, by their roles, supported the males who made the livelihood possible. It can't be forgotten that the God-given role of the sexes is that God determined the headship of the male and produced Eve to 'help' Adam, the female role being designated from God as subordinate (not 'inferior') as was necessary in God's plan. Eve was a 'correspondent,' that is, she was dependent for her existence and actions on Adm's prior existence and needs. She was to complete him, so that he wouldn't be 'alone,' which made the situation of Adam, '
not good' : And the LORD God said, it is not good that the man should be alone [and by implication, incomplete], I will make him an helper [who shall be] fit for him' (Gen. 2:18). These directions from the mind and heart of the holy, just, merciful, and righteous God in Lev. 27 are reflective of His will and His decisions. It is men and women who err in applying incorrect interpretations to them, denying God's ability to do as He will, and making Him appear to be unwise and unrighteous. I think it's wise to let God say what He will and to look for His perfection in it rather than His flaws. We are promised the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit, if we are believers, and we should ask Him to show us the majesty of God.


Subject: Re: A few considerations
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:32:40 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
I think you are correct in noting that it was the 'potential earning power' that was being considered, since presumably God is fond of children ('Suffer the little children to come unto Me.'), yet the offering for the dedication was a measly five shekels of silver for a two year old boy, which zoomed to fifty when the kid reached twenty. It seems to have been a general, no-more-than-this-amount guideline, subject to change, depending upon individual circumstances. Well, we've always carried more life insurance on Don than on me, since he is the breadwinner. I am valuable to the home and family, but there is no denying that I don't rake in the bucks like he does! Doesn't mean I'm worth less than he is, though. And I've never felt undervalued by God when reading Leviticus, for the same reason. Anne


Subject: Re: A few considerations
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:06:41 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, Good insight, thank you. And I'm glad you realize that God, Who is immutable, pronounces that, in His eyes, you are 'an adult son' set for inheritance jointly (which I personally find amazing for all of us!) with the Lord Jesus in 'glorification' (Gal. 3:28-29; Rom. 8; many others).


Subject: Re: leviticus
From: Gene
To: danny
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:00:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Danny, I do not know why women are 'worth less' but it is clearly cultural and what we see is a God who works within the culture. To God male and female are equal (Gen 1:26-7). But to man...well that is a different story.


Subject: Re: leviticus
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:08:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene--'To God male and female are equal (Gen 1:26-7). But to man...well that is a different story.' Gene, I don't wish to be insulting, but, as you so often do, not being a believer in the Christ as presented in the Scriptures, but another christ (hence, another gospel), who isn't actually God, you have made a basic, and grave error of assumption and misinterpretation. I can only assume that you don't think these words of Moses are inspired of God (another sign of a non-believer). that's very intesresting, most interesting, in fact, in view of the statement that you make immediately subsequent to that, 'To God male and female are equal (Gen 1:26-7). But to man...well that is a different story.' This is a most amazing inference you've drawn: Moses words in
Genesis 1 are inspired of God, but his words in Leviticus aren't! Only a mind not attuned to the Word of God and not led by the Spirit of God could conclude that. I say that to, once again, point you to your lost condition and need of the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, God come in the flesh, as another inspired passage (and the intent of the Bible) declares: 'And the Word was with God and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth' (John 1:1, 14). BTW, do you realize that, every time you deny the Godhood of the Lord Jesus, you are guaranteeing that hell will be a little 'hotter' for yourself? I think that's regrettable and infinitely sad.


Subject: Whoah! wait a minute
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 15:10:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene--'To God male and female are equal (Gen 1:26-7). But to man...well that is a different story.' (cut) I can only assume that you don't think these words of Moses are inspired of God (another sign of a non-believer). that's very intesresting, most interesting, in fact, in view of the statement that you make immediately subsequent to that, 'To God male and female are equal (Gen 1:26-7). But to man...well that is a different story.' This is a most amazing inference you've drawn: Moses words in
Genesis 1 are inspired of God, but his words in Leviticus aren't! Only a mind not attuned to the Word of God and not led by the Spirit of God could conclude that.
---
Hold on a second brother, I know that in our overall evaluation, Gene is not counted as a regenerate brother in the faith due to his denial of the deity of Christ. But let's at least examine what he says with an attitude of examination rather than out-right rejection. Gene said, 'To God male and female are equal (Gen 1:26-7). But to man...well that is a different story.' But Rod, you automatically assume that Gene's problem in this instance is an apparent rejection of inspiration in Leviticus. Instead, look at the sentance, vague as it is, and admit that with respect to salvation there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for the elect are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Who knows? Could it be that Gene was approaching it from that perspectve? In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: Whoah! wait a minute
From: laz
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 20:19:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mebaser - it's possible but I took GEne's post as an expression of disbelief....at least a questioning of the infallibility of the bible. I fully realize that the bible was written by men used by God in the circumstances they found themselves in, BUT, only the MEANS are cultural, and NOT the message of scripture. NO? GEne - if I have jumped to conclusions, pls accept my apology. ;-) laz


Subject: Amen
From: mebaser
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 00:16:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mebaser - it's possible but I took GEne's post as an expression of disbelief....at least a questioning of the infallibility of the bible. I fully realize that the bible was written by men used by God in the circumstances they found themselves in, BUT, only the MEANS are cultural, and NOT the message of scripture. NO? GEne - if I have jumped to conclusions, pls accept my apology. ;-) laz
---
Hi Laz, Now we see eye to eye. Amen to your post! In Christ, mebaser


Subject: mebaser, have you really read the thread?
From: Rod
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 16:02:11 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Your charity and generosity toward Gene is obvious, but misplaced. (Have you read my reply above to Anne, where I cite the Gal. verse? And that prior to your post here.) Being misunderstood is often worse than being wrong, but Gene's own words, as always, make him wrong and refuting him is, consequently, a 'slam dunk,' because the Spirit of God has already done it. Here is your statement: 'Who knows? Could it be that Gene was approaching it from that perspectve?' Gene's words: 'I do not know why women are 'worth less' but it is clearly cultural and what we see is a God who works within the culture.' That statement is very revealing for what it implies and doesn't say about God and His view of humanity. By that statement, Gene seems to me to undeniably affirm what He always affirms in his unbelief. (He has repeatedly denied that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, in spite of the fact that the title itself, with no other evidence offered by additional Scripture, which is overwhelming, proves that He is. He has also said recently that he doesn't accept the Mosaic authorship of all the content of the books of Moses.) Gene doesn't believe the Bible literally; he rejects the diety of the Lord Jesus; and he errs about the character, nature, and work of God. He does so because he is admittedly not a believer in the Christ of the Bible and, consequently, hasn't the Spirit of God within, Who guides His own into all truth, enabling them to recognize the truth of God. May God see fit to bring him into that condition is my prayer for him. It should be dazzlingly obvious that, if we believe that God gave the Law of Moses and inspired the Scriptures, God doesn't merely,
'work within the culture,' as Gene says. That's what the unbeliever sees. The Christian sees, in the inspired Word of the whole of the Bible, that GOD CREATED THE CULTURE OF ISRAEL AND GAVE IT TO MOSES TO GIVE TO THE NATION BY THE LAW! Of course, He "works in it." That was the entire purpose of His giving it.


Subject: It is so nice...
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:54:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, It is so nice that you come back to this board to protect others against me! It is so nice to have the police/jude/jury back on duty. What did the board do without you?


Subject: Gene, I'm pretty sure that several share your sentiments
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:28:40 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
in this matter, but for different reasons. However, I'm not out to protect the board against you or anyone else. My job is to get out the Word of God. Period. What He does with it is entirely in His hands. It is nice to know that the presentation of His Word causes you, an unbeliever in the Christ of the Bible, so much consternation. It reveals that God is dealing with you. Will you come to Christ, God come in the flesh, the Second Person of the Triune God, or will you continue to deny and thereby reap hotter flames?


Subject: Re: Gene, I'm pretty sure that several share your sentiments
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 07:55:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yah, and when the other members on this board do not agree with you (i.e., Christ's ability to sin) you leave...but only for a while! Lets not talk about 'consternation.' So much for 'getting out the Word of God.'


Subject: Re: Gene, I'm pretty sure that several share your sentiments
From: monitor
To: Gene/Rod/All
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 21:12:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That is enough. Civility shall be maintained and that applies to all who post here. Petty sniping is not going to be the norm. Stick to the subject matter, and maintain the rules of the forum.


Subject: Did you read MY post?
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 00:24:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, So it is entirely impossible that Gene could have been referring to the Galatians 3:28 sense of equality between men and women? If you say yes, then you must have either a special revelation beyond the rest of us, or you are quick to assume the worst of Gene before asking him to clarify his answer. It is possible for an unsaved man to recognize the equality issue in Gal. 3:28, no? In his post, Gene said that he did not know why women were "worth less" money in answer to the original post. You know what? I myself also do not know WHY women are "worth less" (not that they are worthless, but have a lower amount of money assigned to them) in that Leviticus passage. Gene also said that the issue is most definitely a cultural one, and you yourself give a answer that reflects the issue as being a cultural one. So where you see a difference in what Gene said (a cultural issue) and how you explain it (a cultural issue), I see no difference. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Why, yes, I read and understood your point
From: Rod
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 01:58:54 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
very well. I also understood Gene's intent as he stated it. First of all, he could have clearly indicated that this was part of the culture that God gave the nation Israel, but the gist of his statement, as written, indicates that he considered this as extraneous from God's gift to Israel to set them apart to Himself as a unique people, a witness for Himself. It seems to be the indication that he views this as 'man-made,' not God-made and commanded as part of His inspired Word and Law of Moses. Instead of speculating about what Gene did say, let's just ask him straightforwardly. Gene: please note and answer the entire question I'm about to ask. Do you believe that this section in Leviticus 27 is part of the inspired Word of the Lord God Almighty, given expressly and infallibly to Moses himself, directly by God Himself, and that it was God's express will that the various catagories mentioned here of 'valuation' are God's, not man's? mebaser, I know that you know that God made Israel to come under the Law for multiple reasons, but that ultimately it was so that the nation could be a 'peculiar treasure unto me' (Ex.19:5; cp. Deut.14:2; 26:18; Ps. 135:4). God wanted them to expressly possess and honor God with the culture He dictated in His law. And that to honor and glorify Himself, pointing the way toward the Lord Jesus by the types of the Law and paving the way for the eventual birth of the Church of Jesus Christ at Pentecost, which makes all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible, 'an holy nation [of 'royal priests'], a people of his own [KJV--'a peculiar people'], that ye should show forth the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light' (1 Peter 2:9). All very reminiscent of His calling His people out of the bondage of Egypt to be His special witness by their very dedication to and dependence on Him for their livelihood as a nation, apart from the other nations of the world, the 'Gentile dogs.' Compare Titus 2:14. They were designated and called to be a holy nation. Why were they holy and set apart to God? Because He willed that they be so and told them so and laid out exactly how to do His will in the teachings of the Law of Moses, God's law. He created their unique culture for that reason, every part of it, including Lev. 27:1-7. Do you think it's unfair to tell Gene the truth? Do you think it's unfair and against God's will to warn Gene of his serious errors and give him the Word of God, by which faith comes, if God wills it to come to him? I say, instead, that it's the right thing to do, in the will of God, to point out his multiple errors and warn him of the 'wrath to come' (see Matt. 3:7; Eph. 2:1-3), a wrath he inevitably faces if he remains as he is, in denial and rejection of the Christ of the Bible. It's the means by which he can be saved, if God so wills that he be saved. I make no apologies for that. I don't think I should be called upon to. I do find it curious that you feel compelled to answer for Gene.


Subject: Answering for Gene
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 18:11:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I do find it curious that you feel compelled to answer for Gene.
---
Rod, I am not answering for Gene, but I guess I am somewhat defending him. The reason being is that I do not see this 'gist' you speak of in Gene's post that supposedly points to a denial of the inspiration of Leviticus. My thinking was that in order to be fair to Gene, not to give him leverage, but to be honest to his post, I cannot agree that he plainly denies inspiration by what he wrote in his post. I see though that you do, in your honest evaluation, see this problem in Gene's post. So, now that you have engages Gene himself, i'll leave this discussion (or at least this point of it, maybe i'll join in at a different point) for the time being. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: Why, yes, I read and understood your point
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:50:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Gene: please note and answer the entire question I'm about to ask. Do you believe that this section in Leviticus 27 is part of the inspired Word of the Lord God Almighty, given expressly and infallibly to Moses himself, directly by God Himself, and that it was God's express will that the various catagories mentioned here of 'valuation' are God's, not man's? ABSOLUTELY!


Subject: Gene, I'm very pleased to hear that!
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:20:34 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Gene, Please humor me one more time. :>) Having answered the previous question in the affirmative, do you also believe that God's law, given directly by inspiration of the Spirit of God infallibly to Moses, caused the culture of Israel, or did God merely 'work within' the existing culture which men 'created' or 'evolved?' And finally, since you've stated previously that you believe that Moses not only didn't write, but actually
couldn't have written, all the Pentateuch personally, but others added to his work, it being impossible for Almighty God to have enabled Moses to describe his own death prior to its occurrence, for one example, how do you know that Moses himself received this direct and infallibly inspired Word from God's Spirit?


Subject: Re: Gene, I'm very pleased to hear that!
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 07:50:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, No question about it; God worked within mans culture. He does not hate culture but works within it to serve His purposes.


Subject: Gene, that doesn't answer either question, but
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 08:50:40 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
the fact that you've evaded both direct questions asked here does tell us where you stand, doesn't it? Also, I have to point this out: Nowhere in my posts have I suggested that the LORD God 'hated' the culture of Israel. He couldn't hate it, since He created it to serve His purposes and used the law, which is 'pure' (Ps. 19:8; cp. 119:140) and 'holy, just, and good' (Rom. 7:12) to demonstrate to Israel how far short of God's ideal man was by measuring him with God's yardstick. The law was to utterly prove that man was incapable of goodness from within himself, teaching him that substitutionary sacrifice of innocent blood was required: 'Wherefore, the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith' (Gal. 3:24). Once one is taught by God, that he can't 'measure up' to God's standard of absolute holiness, being shown the absolute necessity of sinless blood being shed in his stead, he is ready at last to receive the gospel, which, as you know is 'good news' for 'all ye who labor and are heavy laden [with the guilt of sin and the burden of observance of a holy law], and I will give you rest...and ye shall find rest unto your souls' (Matt. 11:28-29). Peter gave a direct comment on this very aspect of the law, when he said, 'Now, therefore, why put God to the test, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they' (Acts 15:10-11). Now, did you notice, Gene, what the Word said, 'the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ?' In Eph. 2:5,8-10, the Apostle Paul says that salvation, 'by grace' is 'the gift of God.' And Peter says that 'grace' (the thing which saves men) is 'of the Lord Jesus Christ.' The fact that grace is 'of' Him, as well as the title Peter assigns Him by inspiration, 'the Lord Jesus Christ,' doubly affirms that He is God.


Subject: Re: Gene, that doesn't answer either question, but
From: Gene
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:01:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I have no clue why you are bringing up this 'trinity' discussion again! What does that have to do with God and culture? You have a right to form your own conclusions concerning my posts if you want.


Subject: What does it have to do with God and culture?
From: Rod
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:47:27 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Would you like to reconsider that question, Gene? What does the Triunity of God (His very nature) have to do with God and the type of culture based on His Word He creates for His people? You can't be serious!


Subject: Re: leviticus
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:51:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene - are you suggesting that if it were up to God in establishing the OT legal framwork, He would have been more egalitarian ... but was forced otherwise on account of the humanly-devised paternalistic culture of that day? In otherwords, He works with what we give him? When was God stripped of His power and authority? laz hmmm, if God 'works within the culture'...are you suggesting that you embrace open theology...whereby God is moved by time and space...i.e., He's not really immutable but subject to the whims of man?


Subject: C'mon Laz
From: mebaser
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 15:34:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene - are you suggesting that if it were up to God in establishing the OT legal framwork, He would have been more egalitarian ... but was forced otherwise on account of the humanly-devised paternalistic culture of that day? In otherwords, He works with what we give him? When was God stripped of His power and authority? laz hmmm, if God 'works within the culture'...are you suggesting that you embrace open theology...whereby God is moved by time and space...i.e., He's not really immutable but subject to the whims of man?
---
Laz bro, C'mon now, God totally works within the framework of the culture which He has ordained. I know that Gene hasn't exactly shown himself to be a true bother in the faith, but what he said regarding how God work within cultire is not off base. What about Ephesians 6:5 (Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ)? This verse applies not only to household servants who were actually paid for their labor, but to full custody slaves in which their masters were their owners as well (like Onesimus was a slave to Philemon). Unless you think that God approves of slavery, God works His will within the evil cultural institution of slavery to bring glory and honor to His name. Besides, the answer given by Rod to danny's original post depicts the Leviticus 27 passage as an issue where God works within the culture. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Sin without free will?
From: ShowMe
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 09:21:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In reading the Westminister Confession, on this site, I was confused by the apparent negation of sin that is the logical conclusion that I draw from its argument for Total Depravity due to an inherited sin nature, hereís the section:
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal. Perhaps Iím incorrect, but from this I assume that Calvinists believe that one is compelled to sin because of an inherited nature. That a person is born with a 'sin nature' that forces them to sin. They cannot refrain from sinning. They must sin. Am I understanding your position correctly, do you believe that sin is something that we have no more control over than the color of our skin, or our eyes, or any other of our physical or mental traits? Would you please explain to me how you come to the conclusion that a person can sin and yet not have a 'free will.' I do not see how anyone can be morally responsible unless they have a free will. This idea of a 'sin nature' that makes a person sin, to my mind actually does away with any moral responsibility, and in doing away with moral responsibility it actually does away with sin! How can we be held accountable to be morally responsible unless we have the ability to do that which is moral? If you relegate human beings to an animal level whereby they can only do that which is according to an inherited necessity to sin, then they are relieved of any and all moral responsibility and are no more guilty than any other animal that lives according to its animal nature, its instincts. How can there be sin without free will? ShowMe


Subject: Both are true!
From: Hesed
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:03:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'How can there be sin without free will?' Scripture teaches that man confronted by TRUTH is 'without excuse' Ro. 1. Now if he is without excuse then he 'must' be responsible. Are calvinists denying this when they speak of a sin nature? Are they saying that the man who sins cannot be accused. Not in the least! Man is both 'inclined towards sin' and without excuse, both at the same time! If you want everything to be 'logical' then I'm afraid your in the wrong field of studies! God is incomprehensible and his ways are past finding out. If we could figure everything, then we would be God!


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 21:48:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe,

Let's turn this around for a second and look at the other side, as it were. God requires that we all live our lives PERFECTLY (Matt 5:48). Perfect not in a relative sense, but as God Himself is PERFECT! Again, God requires that we all be HOLY (Lev 11:44; 19:2; 20:4; 1Pet 1:16). Give these two commandments, which are among many others I could reference, is it your contention, that IF you so willed to do so, you could fulfill these requirements due to the fact that you have a 'free-will'? And if not, are you saying that God is unjust in that He requires you to be PERFECT and HOLY, when you are unable to do so? Please remember, a good effort doesn't count in God's eyes, ONLY to do ALL that He requires is acceptable (Jam 2:10).

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:09:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, You wrote:
'Let's turn this around for a second and look at the other side, as it were. God requires that we all live our lives PERFECTLY (Matt 5:48). Perfect not in a relative sense, but as God Himself is PERFECT!' I do not understand how you can say that 'perfect' is not to be understood in a 'relative sense' you seem to be applying an absolute attribute to man! Only God is Perfect, and only God is absolutely Holy, we will never reach a state of perfection equal to God. We can only gain that perfection in Jesus Christ, we will never have it in and of ourselves. Like everything else our 'perfection' is a blood bought gift I certainly do not claim to be blameless, my sins are many, and great, but that does not seem to have been the case with Zacharias and Elisabeth. Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Paul says that he kept the law: Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Again, I do not argue against the idea that all people sin but I do argue against the notion that all are forced to sin because of heredity. If that is the case then sin is no longer sin. You wrote: 'And if not, are you saying that God is unjust in that He requires you to be PERFECT and HOLY, when you are unable to do so? Please remember, a good effort doesn't count in God's eyes, ONLY to do ALL that He requires is acceptable (Jam 2:10).' God is not 'unjust' because He has supplied our perfection and our holiness, He has supplied the perfection and the holiness that He has demanded. God supplies that which He demands. We will never be perfect as God is Perfect and we will never be holy as God is Holy outside of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our Perfection and Jesus Christ is our Holiness. My answer to your question is YES, I am perfect as God is Perfect so long as I am in Jesus Christ. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 13:07:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe,

You have ineffectively tried to avoid the issue I posed to you. There is no qualification whatsoever in God's requirement that all men be HOLY and PERFECT. The Lord Christ, being the legal and actual substitute for those whom the Father gave Him, was under full obligation to do that which WE ourselves are required, but fail to do. There is no RELATIVE to be sought in His commandments. Yes, those you mentioned were 'blameless' in that they OUTWARDLY performed the required ceremonial laws of which the Jews were under obligation. However, their hearts were not 'blameless' else they would never had sought the Messiah and the redemption He would bring. David sometimes declared that he too kept the law (Ps 18:32; 101:2; 119:55), yet it is the overwhelming testimony of the Scriptural record that 'no one does good' (Ps 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Job 15:14-16; 25:4-6; Eccl 7:20; Gen 6:5; Rom 3:10f; et al). The problem with your reply is that you 'jumped' to Christ who is alone 'righteous' in the FULL SENSE of what is perfect and holy to find true holiness an perfection for yourself. Indeed, this is a truism, for only in Him is one found righteous, for through faith, Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to the believer. Further, the Lord Christ, speaking of man's ABILITY to come to Him in faith eliminates any self-effort on the part of man: Joh 6:44 '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.' Paul expands on the condition of all men in Ephesians 2:1-5 and Colossians 3:10, clearly stating that all men are born 'DEAD in trespasses and sins' and thus what they need is not to reach inside themselves and pull out faith, but what they need prerequisitely is a NEW NATURE, which God alone is able to create. Your contention is one that is all too common, and it wasn't Calvin or the Reformation that brought forth the doctrine of Total Depravity as you have asserted. One of the first 'formal' attacks on the Church and its doctrine of the total depravity of the soul came by Pelagius in the fourth century, which was refuted by Augustine of Hippo. This can be justified historically by the 'Council of Orange' (529), wherein this entire line of argumentation was soundly rejected. In fact, it is said that it was a prayer of Augustine that infuriated Pelagius and to launch his attack upon this doctrine. For Augustine prayed, 'Lord! Commandest what Thou wilt. And grant what Thou has commandest.', thus implying, and rightly so, that God has the sovereign right to command what He chooses and to require of His creation whatsoever He wills. Further, that which He does command may not be within the ability of the creature to do; postlapsarian. The fact is that all men are born with a corruption of nature; inherited from the judgment placed upon Adam after his fall. Further, his guilt is also imputed to us for his transgression as well, so that we are all under the judgment of God and without hope, unless God sovereignly and graciously imparts to us that new nature (regeneration), thus 'making us willing' (Ps 110:3) to seek Him by a true and living faith. Unfortunately, I am out of time. But I think that a detailed exegetical discussion concerning Romans 5:12-18 would be profitable to the end that we might resolve the biblical answer to your personal consternation. And thus I will return, D.v. to do just that. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim 'The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will!' - Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 16:44:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I truly have not 'tried to avoid the issue' that you posed. I really believe that we are only perfect and holy so long as we are in Christ and that God supplies that which He demands. You wrote:
'The problem with your reply is that you 'jumped' to Christ who is alone 'righteous' in the FULL SENSE of what is perfect and holy to find true holiness an perfection for yourself. I honestly do not know where else to 'jump' there is no righteousness outside of Jesus Christ. You bring up the 'Council Of Orange' and I have already answered to that in my post to Laz, I hope that you can find it, if not, I will re-post it here if you like. As I said in that post to Laz, I do not believe that a person has any part at all in their own salvation. Free will cannot be separated from ability. We do not have the ability to save ourselves, thatís why we need a Saviour. We cannot save ourselves, therefore free will has no place in our salvation. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 17:47:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
ShowMe,

Again, it appears that you have tried to avoid that which I have offered you by way of reason, logic and more importantly, the Scriptures. Men are BORN DEAD, and thus have no moral or spiritual ability to do those things which God requires. Yet, they are accountable to do just those things. All men were judged by way of 'trial' in Adam and thus when he rebelled and acted in disobedience, the consequences fell not only upon him, but upon all those whom he represented, i.e., the entire human race. The truth is that you had your 'chance' in Adam, whom God appointed as your Federal Head. The consequence of your depravity is your just reward and thus you have been rendered unable to do those things which God STILL requires. Ability and respons(ability) are not inseparable attributes as you contend at all. As Creator, God is entitled to total subservience and obedience by His creatures, regardless of ability or lack thereof. Man, in Adam was given the opportunity to live perfectly and in holiness but failed. Man has been cursed/punished and you don't like the judgment cast upon you. God is justified in His works, but you are not in your indictment of Him and it. You wrote: 'I do not believe that a person has any part at all in their own salvation.' QUESTION: Do you really believe this? REALLY? that man has no part whatsoever? I am in full agreement with this statement for as the Lord Christ tersely said it, 'No man CAN come to me, UNLESS the Father who sent Me draw him!' (Jh 6:44). And Paul, in full agreement echoed this truth when he said, '. . . there is none that seeketh after God.' (Rom 3:10). Since no one CAN or DOES even seek after God, i.e., for the purpose of obtaining salvation in Christ, then how could a person who hypothetically had 'free-will' have any advantage over one, who according to the biblical truth that men are bondservants to sin and only do that which their corrupt natures dictate? I am sure you comprehend the dilemma! What man can argue that he sins out of a compulsion that overwhelms his will? Do not men sin willfully? It is in this sense that men are 'free'; they only do that which they desire to do most at any given moment. Men do indeed perform acts of 'relative good', which Augustine called, 'the splendid vices of the heathen.', but these 'good works' which most all men do to one degree or another fail miserably to qualify as 'good works' before God; 'there is none that doeth good, no, not one.', says Paul. And describing the state of men he also said, '. . . Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.' (Eph 4:17-19). God holds you, me and all men responsible even though we are unable to do those things which He requires. This includes trusting in the Lord Christ for that righteousness which is so necessary for a right standing before the LORD. We are all, by nature, unwilling AND unable to do ANYTHING good, including coming to Christ for the remission of sins.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 13:05:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Lunch time! Iíll try to reply to your post, food for the mind as well as the body :o) I was expecting your commentary on Romans 5:12-21. I suppose that this is the heart of your argument from that passage of Scripture? You wrote:
All men were judged by way of 'trial' in Adam and thus when he rebelled and acted in disobedience, the consequences fell not only upon him, but upon all those whom he represented, i.e., the entire human race. The truth is that you had your 'chance' in Adam, whom God appointed as your Federal Head. The consequence of your depravity is your just reward and thus you have been rendered unable to do those things which God STILL requires.' Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 'Öand so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinnedÖ' rather, 'all sinned,' the meaning is that Adamís sin is accounted to all men. And because of that death comes to every individual. Death does not come to the individual because of their personal sin but because of Adamís sin. This passage of Scripture does not support the doctrine of a 'sin nature' that forces people to sin. As human beings we have needs, legitimate needs. Primary needs and secondary needs. Primary need consist of air, water, food, clothing, shelter. We also have many secondary needs, the need to procreate, the need to communicate, the need to belong, etc., etc., etc. These needs are not sinful but the way in which we decide to meet our needs can be sinful. Sin is the meeting of our needs in an unlawful way. For instance, the need to procreate is to be satisfied in 'marriage', to satisfy that need outside of 'marriage' is sin. The desire to procreate is 'natural' and not sinful, the means by which we satisfy that desire can be sinful. We do not have a 'sin nature' that forces us to meet our legitimate desires in an unlawful way. You continued: 'As Creator, God is entitled to total subservience and obedience by His creatures, regardless of ability or lack thereof. Man, in Adam was given the opportunity to live perfectly and in holiness but failed. Man has been cursed/punished and you don't like the judgment cast upon you. God is justified in His works, but you are not in your indictment of Him and it. Here you turn personal and I really donít mind but it does seem a bit presumptuous on your part. I have no indictment against God at all. Your doctrine that teaches that I sin because it is my nature to sin and that I cannot help but sin would be rather comforting and I can see why you want to hold to it, it removes any moral responsibility. Instead of 'the devil made me do it' you have 'my sin nature made me do it' the first 'the devil made me do it' is more Scriptural than the notion that we must sin because we cannot help but sin. That simply removes any and all moral responsibility, it makes sin meaningless. Sin without free will is not sin it is 'necessity.' I wrote: 'I do not believe that a person has any part at all in their own salvation.' You ask: 'Do you really believe this? REALLY? that man has no part whatsoever? YES, I REALLY believe that man has NO PART WHATSOEVER in his salvation. Truly that is what I believe. Jesus Christ is the Saviour, He saves, we have no part in it, that is His work and His work alone. We can take nothing away from it and we can add nothing to it. Jesus Saves, He certainly does not need our permission to do so! Free will has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. You refer to Rom. 3:10 and say that 'Öno one CAN or DOES even seek after GodÖ' But this passage of Scripture does not say that no one CAN seek after God, it is simply saying that no one or was seeking after God and when Paul says 'it is written' he is referring to certain and various Old Testament passages of Scripture and if we take the context, using verses 2 and 9 we could even come to the conclusion that Paul is here speaking of the Jew in proof that they do not have an advantage over the Gentiles. Showing that even though the Jews had the advantage of the Scriptures it gave them no advantage over the Gentiles. YOU WROTE: 'What man can argue that he sins out of a compulsion that overwhelms his will? Do not men sin willfully? It is in this sense that men are 'free'; they only do that which they desire to do most at any given moment.' Again, our desires are legitimate. Yes, people willfully sin, but they also willfully resist temptation, they do not have to sin. At any 'given moment' we are seeking to meet some need or other, how we meet that need determines whether we are sinning or not. We choose, and in choosing we are responsible. I do not understand how you can hold to your doctrine of an 'inherited sin nature' that forces people to sin 'naturally' and makes it so that they cannot not sin without doing away with sin itself! And if the sin nature makes us sin 'naturally' would not the 'new nature' the 'righteous nature' cause us to 'naturally' be righteous, not sin? Is the 'sin nature' so much more powerful than the 'new nature' that we cannot live righteously, naturally? This whole concept of an inherited sin nature does damage to Godís Word, it is not a Scriptural doctrine. If you remove free will then you remove any and all responsibility. We are no more than animals living by our inborn natures. We only do that which is 'natural' and since sin is 'natural' all we can do is sin. If thatís the case then there simply is no such thing as moral responsibility, the law is meaningless, sin does not exist, we are not accountable. I would really like to know how you reconcile this, I cannot understand how you can have sin without free will, I really canít. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 13:38:31 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
ShowMe I only have a minute, so I will not try to give you a complete answer. Perhaps someone else will do so. You seem to think we have a free will. But really we don't, we have free agency to do what our nature's desire. But the sin nature will not choose what is contrary to it, because it is at emnity against God. This does not mean that because of the sin nature the unsaved will nessasarily become a Hitler or a Charles Manson. Indeed, many people who are not saved, do things that are commendable. However, only those whom God chooses and saves, have a new nature that although still fights against the old nature, will do the things of the Spirit, and therefore will not habitually sin, because we now want to please our God, rather than our flesh (sin nature). Tom Tom


Subject: Re: Sin without free will?
From: ShowMe
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 17:03:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, You wrote:
'But really we don't, we have free agency to do what our nature's desire. But the sin nature will not choose what is contrary to it, because it is at emnity against God.' From your post I do not think that you understand the problem, or my question. Here you introduce the term 'free agency' as a replacement for 'free will.' Apparently you define this 'free agency' as the freedom to act according to oneís nature and then teach that since people only have a 'sin nature' then they are only free to sin. You really have done nothing to solve the problem. You are still left with an inherited 'sin nature' that is passed on to man that makes it impossible for him to not sin. That means that he is not morally responsible for his actions, he is still just doing what comes naturally. If a person must sin and cannot not sin then they cannot be held accountable, they are not morally responsible, they are no more than an animal living my their natural instincts. 'Free Agency' is a theological term introduced in order to try and hide this very real problem, without the ability to not sin you do away with moral responsibility and thereby do away with sin itself, or at the very least make it meaningless. Since, as you say 'Öthe sin nature will not choose what is contrary to itÖ' then, since all choice is necessitated by an inherited sin nature, a 'totally depraved' nature, its difficult for me to understand why you call this 'free' agency. I guess that your reasoning is that itís 'free' agency because the person is 'free' to choose what he or she desires, but in reality the person is not 'free' to choose differently than their desires, and are not 'free' to desire differently. All is necessitated by inherited nature before any choice is actually made, and so they are not 'free' at all. If you blame sin on a inherited sin nature then the person that chooses to steal, or chooses to practice homosexuality, has no alternative but to so choose. The choice was necessitated by the desire, and the desire was necessitated by their inherited sin nature. It might just as well be a sin to have blue eyes as to commit the most evil act since both are just a result of ones heredity. You wrote: 'This does not mean that because of the sin nature the unsaved will nessasarily become a Hitler or a Charles Manson. Indeed, many people who are not saved, do things that are commendable.' Here you introduce a different problem, you now have degrees of sin, are you saying that Hitler and Charles Manson inherited a stronger sin nature than the rest of us? That there are varying degrees of 'sin natures'? Is that how you explain the fact that some donít sin as greatly as others? This simply is not Scriptural, we sin when we make wrong choices, we are responsible for our actions, we have no excuse. We canít excuse ourselves by proclaiming that we are sinners because we were born with a sin nature and cannot help but sin. This whole idea does away with sin, or makes it so that only those that, as you say; 'Ö only those whom God chooses and saves, have a new nature that although still fights against the old nature, will do the things of the Spirit, and therefore will not habitually sin,Ö' your statement would mean that only those that have a 'new nature' can choose not to sin, therefore that would make them the only ones that can sin. Under this doctrine only Christians, only those with a 'new nature,' can sin. Sincerely, ShowMe


Subject: It seems you should change your handle to...
From: Rod
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 19:44:07 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
'I'm too stubborn to be shown!' It's a very curious thing that you always write, quoting the author of the post, ignoring that Scripture is being cited. Please show us how God erred in writing these things: Rom.6:20: 'For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.' (NASB) When I quoted that verse for you in the KJV above in the post, 'Sin is from a will free from righteousness,' you said this: Show me--'You really have done nothing to solve the problem. You are still left with an inherited 'sin nature' that is passed on to man that makes it impossible for him to not sin. That means that he is not morally responsible for his actions, he is still just doing what comes naturally. If a person must sin and cannot not sin then they cannot be held accountable, they are not morally responsible, they are no more than an animal living my their natural instincts.' It would seem from that statement that you don't believe God or His Word. You attributed to me what God said and then said He erred! God said these things and He says them definitely, the word translated 'servants' in the KJV, being translated more properly 'slaves' in the NASB. The word 'free' signifies 'liberty,' the person being at 'liberty' or 'free' from the effects or influence of righteousness. But, you audaciously proclaim that God is not only mistaken in saying that, but you actually assign Him moral responsibility for man's sin! If you believe the Bible is God's Word and that He is absolutely righteous, you cannot find fault for His 'conclud[ing] all under sin' (Rom. 11:32), which is underscored by God's Spirit in Gal. 3:22: 'But the scripture hath concluded all under sin,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.' That verse not only says God did it, but He did it in order that He might save people and show them, not 'fairness,' not 'justice' (justice would send all to hell), but mercy in His bountiful grace to believers. Paul, under inspiration of God, writes to you, 'Show Me,' in Rom. 9:18-24. In effect, you are questioning the Potter, saying, 'Why hast thou made [us] thus?' You have ignored the truth in the above verses and in Rom. 8:6-9, as well as 1 Cor. 2:14. May I request that you deal, not with my 'opinions,' as you perceive my quotation of God's Word, but specifically and exclusively with the Scritpures cited. I'd be very interested in how you answer Him.


Subject: Sin without free will???
From: ShowMe
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 15, 2000 at 21:07:43 (PST)
Email Address: