Key: 
= Posted Today and Yesterday
'Theology Discussion Group'
Travel to the Highway home page and read our many fine articles and view the links to other sites by clicking on the blue The Highway logo in the upper right hand corner of this page.
« Forum Guidelines »
Total Messages Loaded: 679
a monitor -:- Perspective
-:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:02:39 (PST)
laz -:- Veneration
-:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:18:56 (PST)
Vernon -:- Take your Time and read -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:10:23 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Take your Time and read -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:32:00 (PST)
eikke -:- Early Protestants and the Orthodox -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:32:23 (PST)
eikke -:- For those who value sola scriptura -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:13:22 (PST)
eikke -:- How the Early Church Saw Itself -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:01:04 (PST)
Christopher -:- 'novelty' of concillar authority -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:12:28 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:02:48 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
'novelty' of concillar authority -:-
Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:07:43 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
'novelty' of concillar authority -:-
Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:38:15 (PST)
Sunshine -:- Double Predestination -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:19:33 (PST)
_ monitor -:- Re: Double Predestination -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:27:01 (PST)
Rod -:- God's 'mistake'
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 06:16:16 (PST)
_ Berean7 -:- Re: God's 'mistake'
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 18:53:16 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: God's 'mistake' -:- Thurs,
Mar 30, 2000 at 23:46:21 (PST)
Vernon -:- Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:16:15 (PST)
_ a monitor -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:03:38 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 05:23:28 (PST)
__ Eric -:- For
john -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:28:37
(PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
For john -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:14:14
(PST)
____ Eric -:- Re:
For john -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 14:33:58
(PST)
__ mary -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar
30, 2000 at 06:39:34 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 23:18:13 (PST)
____ mary -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Fri, Mar
31, 2000 at 05:12:22 (PST)
_____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 18:33:44 (PST)
______ mary -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Fri, Mar
31, 2000 at 20:22:58 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Sat, Apr
01, 2000 at 06:13:02 (PST)
_____ a monitor -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Fri, Mar
31, 2000 at 09:57:00 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Pilgrim's reply to Mary -:- Thurs, Mar
30, 2000 at 09:27:44 (PST)
___ Eric -:- You
are on the right track -:- Thurs, Mar
30, 2000 at 07:59:14 (PST)
____ a monitor -:- Re:
You are on the right track -:- Thurs,
Mar 30, 2000 at 10:06:33 (PST)
eikke -:- Holy Orthodoxy
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:16:27 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Holy Orthodoxy
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:31:39 (PST)
__ eikke -:- Re:
Holy Orthodoxy -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000
at 21:14:24 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Holy Orthodoxy -:- Thurs,
Mar 30, 2000 at 04:41:32 (PST)
____ Christopher -:- Eucharistic Scriptures -:-
Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:27:03 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 00:36:51 (PST)
______ Christopher -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:03:50 (PST)
_______ john hampshire -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:53:35 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri,
Mar 31, 2000 at 13:38:14 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 14:03:18 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 14:08:58 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 07:25:31 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re:
Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 13:50:33 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli... -:-
Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:35:43 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
Eucharistic Scriptures -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 13:37:18 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:34:29 (PST)
________ Christopher -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 15:21:12 (PST)
________ Christopher -:- Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:11:24 (PST)
_____ Christopher -:- The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:43:36 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 06:34:16 (PST)
_______ eikke -:- Re:
The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:09:35 (PST)
________ john hampshire -:- Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:28:31 (PST)
_________ eikke -:- Re:
The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:41:19 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:13:26 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Nestorian? -:- Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 09:54:50 (PST)
______ Christopher -:- The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:05:54 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 14:38:05 (PST)
________ eikke -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 18:32:04 (PST)
_________ a monitor -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:08:49 (PST)
__________ eikke -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:04:41 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:55:44 (PST)
____________ eikke -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:48:29 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:57:18 (PST)
__________ eikke -:- Re:
The belief in the One, Visible Church
-:- Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:59:47 (PST)
Christopher -:- An invitation
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 19:40:14 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: An invitation
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:27:36 (PST)
__ eikke -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at
12:23:48 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at
14:39:00 (PST)
____ eikke -:- Ah. -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 20:37:27 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000
at 22:06:30 (PST)
___ eikke -:- Re:
An invitation -:- Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at
21:21:05 (PST)
Vernon -:- A great and humble Calvinist -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 16:33:16 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: A great and humble Calvinist -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 23:30:44 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
A great and humble Calvinist -:- Tues,
Mar 28, 2000 at 19:55:42 (PST)
Berean7 -:- Talking Religion
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:32:21 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Talking Religion
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 17:46:01 (PST)
_ Eric -:- Re:
Talking Religion -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000
at 13:59:51 (PST)
__ Proginowsko -:- Re:
Talking Religion -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000
at 16:09:13 (PST)
Eric -:- Sheol/Geenna/Hades/Tartaroo -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:22:13 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Off the top of my head
-:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:10:19 (PST)
__ Eric -:- Thanks,
mebaser -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:37:37
(PST)
_ Christopher -:- For
Eric -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:54:58
(PST)
__ Eric -:- Thanks -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:21:36 (PST)
___ a monitor -:- just
curious -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 20:28:58
(PST)
____ Eric -:- Re:
just curious -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000
at 07:52:33 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
just curious -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000
at 17:09:24 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Re:
Thanks -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:31:46
(PST)
laz -:- Who's Authority?
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 14:13:02 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- Re: Who's Authority?
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 14:27:46 (PST)
freegrace -:- Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:33:43 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 22:26:19 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:-
Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:17:59 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Thorn in the flesh - water baptism -:-
Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:34:43 (PST)
Berean7 -:- What is mans Responsibility? -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:06:17 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: What is mans Responsibility?? -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:26:58 (PST)
_ Apostle Paul said: -:- Re: What is mans Responsibility??
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:34:12 (PST)
freegrace -:- God is to be praised..! -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:40:57 (PST)
TDT -:- Angels
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 19:48:30 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Angels -:-
Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:22:27 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Angels -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:49:02
(PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Angels -:- Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 23:39:54 (PST)
freegrace -:- The True Children of God -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 12:00:15 (PST)
Pilgrim -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:53:22 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:39:25 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 20:47:26 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:35:53 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:57:01 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 19:24:04 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist??? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 22:07:46 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 00:12:27 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist??? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 22:57:56 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:38:11 (PST)
Tom -:- Calvin on Baptism -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 23:35:57 (PST)
_ Shelly -:- Re: Calvin on Baptism
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 12:10:25 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 19:46:25 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 21:42:07 (PST)
_ Gene -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 03:42:17 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 17:01:46 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 20:47:37 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 21:52:29 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000
at 08:02:11 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Calvin on Baptism -books
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 04:46:25 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Calvin on Baptism -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 20:38:04 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: Calvin on Baptism -:- Mon,
Mar 27, 2000 at 00:27:30 (PST)
mary -:- grieved in spirit -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 13:11:06 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: grieved in spirit
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 22:24:07 (PST)
__ mary -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 09:56:28 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 10:30:52 (PST)
____ mary -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 11:25:38 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
grieved in spirit -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 14:34:48 (PST)
becky -:- isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:36:47 (PST)
_ Old Faith -:- Re: Yes, Grace is for everyone! -:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 06:52:00 (PST)
_ CMB 19 -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 21:02:07 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Mon, Mar
27, 2000 at 08:38:54 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 08:48:06 (PST)
_ David Teh -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 06:16:41 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 03:43:52 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 10:38:49 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 02:19:48 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 10:54:34 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:- Way
Off Base! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:04:40
(PST)
_____ laz -:- No,
right on target! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000
at 12:04:13 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:- Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:31:49 (PST)
_______ CMB 19 -:- Remember
this -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:10:08
(PST)
_______ Joel H -:- An
object with 'purpose' is not junk! -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 15:26:33 (PST)
________ ShowMe -:- Re:
An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 16:37:47 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re:
An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 08:52:20 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- Missed Your Point -:- Sun,
Mar 26, 2000 at 09:06:04 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re:
Missed Your Point -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000
at 13:33:17 (PST)
_________ Joel H -:- Re: An object with 'purpose' is not junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 18:43:51 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- No
Objections :o) -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000
at 19:24:27 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 15:17:29
(PST)
________ ShowMe -:- Re:
Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 16:39:53
(PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Junk! -:- Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 22:01:30 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- Re: Junk! -:- Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 09:08:01 (PST)
___________ CMB 19 -:- Re: Junk! -:- Tues, Mar 28,
2000 at 22:11:32 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Junk! -:- Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 09:55:49 (PST)
_______ kevin -:- all
junk goes to gehenna nt -:- Sat, Mar
25, 2000 at 14:40:29 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re:
isn't Grace for everyone? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 09:10:59 (PST)
ShowMe -:- Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:57:17 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 15:00:26 (PST)
__ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 17:25:52 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 18:52:22 (PST)
____ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 19:49:24 (PST)
_____ Gene -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 04:10:32 (PST)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:10:43 (PST)
______ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they?? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 09:48:54 (PST)
_______ CMB 19 -:- Think
about it -:- Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 22:51:53
(PST)
_______ kevin -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:51:06 (PST)
________ ShowMe -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:44:05 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 10:04:57 (PST)
__________ ShowMe -:- Another Dimension? -:- Sun,
Mar 26, 2000 at 12:45:18 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Another Dimension? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:02:08 (PST)
____________ ShowMe -:- What about His Body??? -:-
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:59:29 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- Re:
Heaven and Hell, where are they? -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 13:19:15 (PST)
laz -:- WELCOME BACK, ROD -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:01:12 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Indeed, yes! -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:45:03 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re:
WELCOME BACK, ROD -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000
at 08:43:17 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re:
WELCOME BACK, ROD -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000
at 17:10:30 (PST)
Vernon -:- What is The Reform View?? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 03:49:52 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:58:47 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 07:47:27 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 17:39:58 (PST)
____ Vernon -:- You
May Disagree,Pilgrim -:- Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 03:01:49 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Vernon:
Please answer the questions! -:- Sat,
Mar 25, 2000 at 08:58:37 (PST)
______ Vernon -:- Re:
Vernon: Please answer the questions!
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:09:12 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re:
Vernon: Please answer the questions!
-:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:53:19 (PST)
________ Vernon -:- Hey Tom -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000
at 17:30:54 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Hey Tom -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 19:18:21
(PST)
__________ Vernon -:- Re: Hey Laz -:- Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 04:42:41 (PST)
___________ laz -:- Re:
Hey Laz -:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 05:52:03
(PST)
____________ Vernon -:- Re: Hello Laz -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 10:07:55 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Hello? Vernon!! -:- Sun,
Mar 26, 2000 at 22:41:49 (PST)
______________ laz -:- Dear Vernon -:- Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 08:54:20 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Re: Hello Laz -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 13:11:31 (PST)
___ Vernon -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 17:13:20 (PST)
____ Vernon -:- Re:
What is The Reform View? -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 17:17:06 (PST)
Christopher -:- Fasting
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 22:40:15 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Fasting -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 02:04:20 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Fasting -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 09:34:20
(PST)
_ kevin -:- Re:
Fasting -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 15:08:44
(PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Fasting -:- Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 20:27:41
(PST)
_ Eric -:- Hey
Christopher -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at
07:30:13 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Hey Christopher -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000
at 08:23:51 (PST)
Christopher -:- laz
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 08:53:24 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: laz -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 08:58:48 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
laz -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:24:05
(PST)
Tom -:- Two Natures
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 19:05:09 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Two Natures
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:36:11 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Two Natures -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at
10:44:56 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Two Natures -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 15:13:04 (PST)
____ Christopher -:- Re: Two Natures -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 20:41:02 (PST)
Highway Monitor -:- Rudeness
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 18:28:19 (PST)
_ Vernon -:- Re: Rudeness -:-
Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:13:00 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Rudeness -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:28:07
(PST)
Pilgrim -:- Papal Pardon?
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 17:46:00 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Papal Pardon?
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:08:20 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- Re:
Papal Pardon? -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000
at 09:22:18 (PST)
Brother Bret -:- Pilgrim and Baptist Churches/Below -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:28:50 (PST)
john hampshire -:- Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 23:13:23 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 16:32:47 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Sat,
Mar 25, 2000 at 00:28:11 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Sat,
Mar 25, 2000 at 13:59:35 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 06:57:10 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Fri,
Mar 24, 2000 at 04:49:44 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 21:08:47 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 20:56:38 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Tues,
Mar 21, 2000 at 23:36:56 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 00:05:44 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 02:48:36 (PST)
____ Vernon -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/?? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 03:48:57 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 04:27:20 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 08:28:43 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 09:36:54 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 16:24:03 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 18:39:35 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 16:12:56 (PST)
______ a stuckee monitor -:- Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/????
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 13:39:03 (PST)
______ Joel H -:- Re:
Please use caution before judging ;)
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:56:40 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re:
Please use caution before judging ;)
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 18:44:27 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 12:34:53 (PST)
____ Chris -:- Re:
Mandate for Water Baptism/? -:- Wed,
Mar 22, 2000 at 06:54:30 (PST)
cousin Earl -:- Kingdom Theology
-:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 19:08:44 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Kingdom Theology
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 06:49:39 (PST)
freegrace -:- Not Guilty in Christ -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 17:21:16 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re: Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 07:50:18 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 08:31:15 (PST)
___ freegrace -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 10:15:08 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 13:36:10 (PST)
_____ freegrace -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Thurs, Mar 23,
2000 at 12:26:58 (PST)
______ Rod -:- Re:
Not Guilty in Christ -:- Fri, Mar 24,
2000 at 01:10:08 (PST)
_______ freegrace -:- Re: Not Guilty in Christ -:-
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:30:49 (PST)
Vernon -:- Who Are We
-:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 02:58:02 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Who Are We
-:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 05:22:21 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Re:
Who Are We -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at
09:12:22 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Who Are We -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at
13:11:18 (PST)
Delta Boy -:- Could Jesus sin?
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:48:54 (PST)
_ CMB 19 -:- For the Bible tells me so. -:- Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:50:45 (PST)
_ David Teh -:- Re:
Could Jesus sin? -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 05:23:27 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
Could Jesus sin? -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 22:28:33 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
Could Jesus sin? -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000
at 07:05:22 (PST)
Eric -:- A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 08:08:52 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:04:48 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 09:57:09 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Found Guilty in Him! -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 16:40:29 (PST)
__ Eric -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 13:52:35 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 20:29:21 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 05:01:21 (PST)
_____ Christopher -:- Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 11:14:29 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 13:17:54 (PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 13:59:50 (PST)
___ kevin -:- Re:
A response to Pilgrim, from below -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 16:41:43 (PST)
____ Eric -:- a
reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 08:08:04 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 13:47:09 (PST)
______ Eric -:- You
make my point -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at
08:10:45 (PST)
_______ laz -:- don't
flatter yourself, ;-) -:- Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 21:31:43 (PST)
________ Eric -:- What
could be plainer? -:- Thurs, Mar 23,
2000 at 09:30:23 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: What could be plainer?
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:10:41 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- Universalism-NO! -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:46:07 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
What could be plainer?? -:- Thurs, Mar
23, 2000 at 12:37:27 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- okay -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000
at 13:51:50 (PST)
_______ kevin -:- Re:
You make my point -:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000
at 19:33:16 (PST)
________ Eric -:- Answers
to kevin -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:15:56
(PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Answers to kevin -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 13:23:21 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- Last
Post -:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 05:13:07
(PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Last Post -:- Fri, Mar
24, 2000 at 07:44:42 (PST)
____________ Eric -:- Hopefully the last post -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 09:10:41 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- Re:
Answers to kevin -:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000
at 10:49:02 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- More
answers to kevin... -:- Thurs, Mar 23,
2000 at 13:12:32 (PST)
___________ kevin -:- Re: More answers to kevin...
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 19:42:29 (PST)
____________ Eric -:- Last post on the subject -:-
Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 05:01:52 (PST)
_____________ kevin -:- Re: Last post on the subject
-:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 14:48:41 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Last post on the subject
-:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:10:39 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Re: Last post on the subject
-:- Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:08:19 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 08:51:16 (PST)
______ Eric -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 09:56:17 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
a reply to kevin -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000
at 10:21:01 (PST)
Chris -:- Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 14:21:31 (PST)
_ Vernon -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:03:00 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 04:47:30 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 15:20:04 (PST)
__ PesterBrat -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 16:02:26 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 19:44:00 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 19:40:19 (PST)
__ Vern -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 03:07:35 (PST)
___ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 10:55:07 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 13:35:28 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 14:39:04 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 08:09:11 (PST)
____ PesterBrat -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 16:16:51 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 19:56:50 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 16:50:37 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 22:29:08 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 23:18:02 (PST)
_________ Brother Bret -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel -:-
Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:32:44 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel -:-
Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:17:24 (PST)
______ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 20:15:30 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 21:25:32 (PST)
____ Chris -:- Pilgrim -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:44:15 (PST)
____ Five Sola -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 10:32:49 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 15:30:17 (PST)
___ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 18:45:39 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: Sharing the Gospel -:-
Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 22:57:28 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Prestor
John -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 15:47:16
(PST)
____ Gene -:- Keep
preaching! -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 02:49:40
(PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 20:21:20 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 04:27:43 (PST)
______ Anne -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 06:33:08 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re:
Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 10:49:40 (PST)
________ Anne -:- I
love the book of Job! ;-> -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 13:20:20 (PST)
_________ Chris -:- Re: I love the book of Job! ;-> -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:37:10
(PST)
__________ Anne -:- Mea culpa! -:- Mon, Mar 20,
2000 at 15:15:23 (PST)
___________ Chris -:- Re: Mea culpa! -:- Mon, Mar
20, 2000 at 20:18:02 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: Mea culpa! -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 17:36:40 (PST)
_____________ Chris -:- Re: Mea culpa! -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 20:15:21 (PST)
Tom -:- Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 14:11:16 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:15:40 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Mon,
Mar 20, 2000 at 14:42:32 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 18:26:28 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re:
Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian? -:- Tues,
Mar 21, 2000 at 22:44:17 (PST)
_____ Christopher -:- Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
-:- Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:20:01 (PST)
Gary Griffith -:- John Brown Sermons -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:32:39 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: John Brown Sermons
-:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 18:14:00 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
John Brown Sermons -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000
at 18:18:46 (PST)
Chris -:- Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:14:26 (PST)
_ Vernon -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 11:10:29 (PST)
__ Vernon -:- Witnessing/John -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 19:10:44 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 21:10:12 (PST)
____ Vern -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 02:48:41 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 23:07:04 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 09:12:06 (PST)
______ Vernon -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 15:10:22 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Vernon -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 20:03:57 (PST)
________ Vernon -:- Re:
Vernon -:- Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 02:32:36
(PST)
_____ Vern -:- Re:
Witnessing/John -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 02:51:41 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sun, Mar 19,
2000 at 15:54:37 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 05:12:06 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 17:25:22 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 15:07:09 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:47:18 (PST)
____ Chris -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 04:26:48 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 09:16:14 (PST)
______ lindell -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 03:14:45 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 05:46:00 (PST)
________ lindell -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 05:22:58 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Thurs,
Mar 23, 2000 at 06:59:41 (PST)
__________ lindell -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:10:21 (PST)
___________ laz -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job,laz -:- Sun, Mar
26, 2000 at 17:44:23 (PST)
____________ Christopher -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:31:22 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Chris/Berean -:- Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 10:59:59 (PST)
______________ Christopher -:- Re: Chris/Berean -:- Mon, Mar
27, 2000 at 11:46:10 (PST)
____________ Berean7 -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
-:- Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:08:59 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 23:11:15 (PST)
_______ Brother Bret -:- Re: Witnessing on the Job -:-
Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 12:46:47 (PST)
_______ chris -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sun, Mar 19,
2000 at 06:25:54 (PST)
______ Chris -:- Re:
Witnessing on the Job -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 13:33:16 (PST)
Brother Bret/PesterBrat -:- Circumcision To Baptism -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 21:57:48 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Circumcision To Baptism -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 00:09:28 (PST)
__ Joel H -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Fri, Mar
17, 2000 at 07:25:45 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Circumcision To Baptism
-:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 04:43:33 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Sat, Mar
18, 2000 at 09:27:26 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Calling
all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000
at 08:07:27 (PST)
_____ Prestor John -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 16:13:23 (PST)
______ mebaser -:- Re:
Calling all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 22:51:24 (PST)
_______ Prestor John -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 06:18:34 (PST)
________ mebaser -:- i
see, thanks -:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at
22:17:35 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Calling all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sun, Mar
19, 2000 at 20:28:09 (PST)
_______ scott lewis -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:24:02 (PST)
________ Prestor John -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:40:25 (PST)
_________ scott lewis -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 12:46:29 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
-:- Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 15:47:18 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re:
Calling all BAPTISTS! :-) -:- Sat, Mar
18, 2000 at 15:28:05 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Fri, Mar
17, 2000 at 03:04:13 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Circumcision To Baptism
-:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:51:40 (PST)
_ Joel H -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Thurs, Mar
16, 2000 at 23:01:00 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 10:41:35 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 13:00:12 (PST)
____ freegrace -:- Re:
Circumcision To Baptism -:- Tues, Mar
21, 2000 at 17:31:32 (PST)
Brother Bret/PesterBrat -:- Christian Liberty (from below) -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 21:51:03 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Christian Liberty (from below) -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 13:45:45 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re:
Christian Liberty (from below) -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 00:03:01 (PST)
kevin -:- where do babies go when they die? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 17:58:13 (PST)
_ Eric -:- Why would a baby...
-:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 07:19:16 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Why would a baby... -:- Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 12:13:18 (PST)
__ Joel H -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 09:35:57 (PST)
___ Eric -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 12:35:52 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: Why? Original Sin That's Why!
-:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 05:27:57 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Sat,
Mar 18, 2000 at 09:05:11 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
Why? Original Sin That's Why! -:- Fri,
Mar 17, 2000 at 14:25:42 (PST)
_____ Eric -:- A
joint reply to laz and john -:- Sat,
Mar 18, 2000 at 09:20:54 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Questions to Eric -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000
at 11:19:18 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re:
A joint reply to laz and john -:- Sat,
Mar 18, 2000 at 09:46:46 (PST)
_ Gene -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:56:20 (PST)
__ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 14:52:55 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 17:29:24 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: where do babies go when they die? -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:03:01 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: where do babies go when they die? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:49:07 (PST)
__ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 15:04:01 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 00:20:08 (PST)
___ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:24:00 (PST)
____ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 15:07:54 (PST)
_____ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 17:57:20 (PST)
______ kevin -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:35:26 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 07:42:44 (PST)
_____ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 17:41:19 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 20:19:47 (PST)
_______ Hail -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 18:36:44 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die??????
-:- Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 05:53:40 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 20:28:34 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
where do babies go when they die? -:-
Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 18:56:08 (PST)
__ kevin -:- laz
& freegrace -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000
at 15:15:03 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
laz & freegrace -:- Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 11:33:18 (PST)
____ kevin -:- thank
you -:- Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:37:06
(PST)
Matthew Leroe -:- Need help understanding diff. verse -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:11:00 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Need help understanding diff. verse -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:56:50 (PST)
Tom -:- Re-Comments Please -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 11:48:10 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Re-Comments Please
-:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:44:09 (PST)
kevin -:- Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 09:03:04 (PST)
_ freegrace -:- Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
-:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:45:39 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 21:04:35 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 13:01:02 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 22:29:08 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000
at 07:20:15 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Dr. David Jeremiah -:- Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 23:40:12 (PST)
freegrace -:- Founding Fathers Christian? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:58:53 (PST)
freegrace -:- Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:29:04 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:36:39 (PST)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs,
Mar 16, 2000 at 20:37:35 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re:
Arianism still here today? -:- Thurs,
Mar 16, 2000 at 08:54:16 (PST)
Chris -:- Faith
-:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:56:09 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Faith -:-
Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 23:01:54 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Faith -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:17:21
(PST)
___ Chris -:- Re:
Faith -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:26:48
(PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Faith -:- Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 11:07:28
(PST)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Faith -:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 04:17:14
(PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Faith -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:56:47
(PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Faith -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:08:57
(PST)
Prestor John -:- Christian Liberty/Holy living -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 20:44:37 (PST)
Matthew Leroe -:- Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!! -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 19:57:39 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!! -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:07:15 (PST)
_ Anne -:- Re:
Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!! -:- Wed, Mar 15,
2000 at 06:12:21 (PST)
Matthew Leroe -:- Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3 -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 14:10:32 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3 -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 23:29:16 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3 -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 17:27:21 (PST)
laz -:- Corporate Worship -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 13:10:39 (PST)
_ wcf -:- ****izing a simple, sound/historic doctrine -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 17:37:51 (PST)
_ brakel -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 17:11:21 (PST)
_ Guess who -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 13:48:38 (PST)
__ lj -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 17:42:55 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 14:21:10 (PST)
___ Gene -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 14:32:47 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Corporate Worship -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 17:36:47 (PST)
Tom -:- Comments Please
-:- Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 16:56:29 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Comments Please
-:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 19:44:43 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Sun, Mar 12, 2000
at 21:30:15 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 11:06:00 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 18:22:19 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Mon,
Mar 13, 2000 at 18:45:08 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 09:17:15 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 14:38:28 (PST)
_______ mebaser -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Tues,
Mar 14, 2000 at 22:37:18 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 23:47:15 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 12:27:28 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000
at 23:17:16 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Thurs,
Mar 16, 2000 at 12:27:17 (PST)
__________ mebaser -:- Thanks -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000
at 18:29:42 (PST)
__________ laz -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000
at 14:03:15 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 17:39:24 (PST)
____________ mebaser -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 18:27:24 (PST)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments Please -:- Wed,
Mar 15, 2000 at 21:23:34 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Comments Please -:- Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 19:35:48 (PST)
Gene -:- Is there a difference? -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:10:08 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- semantics -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:33:00 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
semantics -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at
19:38:08 (PST)
___ Diaconeo -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Sat, Mar 11,
2000 at 07:45:29 (PST)
____ john hampshire -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 16:54:18 (PST)
_____ Diaconeo -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Sun, Mar 12,
2000 at 09:51:01 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Sun, Mar 12,
2000 at 07:29:04 (PST)
______ john hampshire -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:46:49 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Mon, Mar 13,
2000 at 07:08:08 (PST)
________ laz -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Mon, Mar 13,
2000 at 12:38:45 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 16:44:04 (PST)
_________ Brother Bret -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 15:20:46 (PST)
__________ laz -:- What
Defiles a Man? -:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 22:59:07 (PST)
___________ Brother Bret -:- Re: What Defiles a Man? -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 15:39:26 (PST)
____________ laz -:- Re: What Defiles a Man? -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 16:12:36 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re: What Defiles a Man? -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 23:30:39 (PST)
__________ laz -:- Re:
semantics (perhaps) -:- Mon, Mar 13,
2000 at 22:18:21 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: semantics (not likely)
-:- Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 21:03:06 (PST)
__________ Prestor John -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 19:33:42 (PST)
___________ Brother Bret -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 15:10:36 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 20:39:55 (PST)
___________ laz -:- Re: semantics (perhaps) -:-
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 21:25:42 (PST)
____________ john hampshire -:- Tiz amazing -:- Wed, Mar 15,
2000 at 06:34:18 (PST)
_____________ lj -:- Re:
Tiz amazing -:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at
07:19:50 (PST)
_____________ laz -:- Re: Tiz amazing -:- Wed, Mar
15, 2000 at 07:14:58 (PST)
______________ john hampshire -:- Re: Tiz amazing
-:- Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 22:44:19 (PST)
_______________ laz -:- Please enlighten me, John?
-:- Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:30:38 (PST)
OrthoPres -:- Spurgeon arminian? -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 12:00:54 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: KJV only also ...... -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 18:28:42 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000
at 16:30:47 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Thurs, Mar 09,
2000 at 04:40:33 (PST)
___ Prestor John -:- Re: Spurgeon arminian?? -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:50:51 (PST)
___ David Teh -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Thurs, Mar 09,
2000 at 08:25:40 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re:
Spurgeon arminian? -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000
at 14:41:34 (PST)
Anne -:- Rod
-:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 18:34:19 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Rod -:- Tues,
Mar 07, 2000 at 01:07:37 (PST)
Gene -:- True Worship
-:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 13:39:42 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re: True Worship
-:- Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:43:20 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
14:53:37 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
15:44:06 (PST)
___ mebaser -:- Pilgrim's
post is right on -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000
at 23:01:32 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re:
Pilgrim's post is right on -:- Wed, Mar
08, 2000 at 03:56:43 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
19:30:23 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at
05:00:17 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at
07:55:13 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at
18:49:51 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000
at 07:41:22 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000
at 13:07:48 (PST)
_________ monitor -:- yeah right -:- Thurs, Mar 09,
2000 at 18:56:05 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- religious? -:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:51:36 (PST)
___________ monitor -:- Re: religious? -:- Fri, Mar
10, 2000 at 17:42:44 (PST)
___________ kevin -:- 3 simple statements -:- Fri,
Mar 10, 2000 at 11:35:20 (PST)
____________ Gene -:- It should be 1! -:- Fri, Mar
10, 2000 at 11:56:43 (PST)
_____________ kevin -:- Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10, 2000
at 12:39:50 (PST)
______________ Gene -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 15:40:39 (PST)
_______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 21:32:09 (PST)
________________ Gene -:- I am not alone here. -:- Sat,
Mar 11, 2000 at 04:20:27 (PST)
______________ Tom -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 13:11:27 (PST)
_______________ Gene -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 15:44:30 (PST)
________________ kevin -:- Re: Reason -:- Fri, Mar 10,
2000 at 15:55:46 (PST)
_________________ john hampshire -:- Re: Reason -:-
Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 03:10:48 (PST)
__________________ Tom -:- Re: Reason -:- Sat, Mar 11,
2000 at 07:26:42 (PST)
__________________ kevin -:- Re: Reason -:- Sat, Mar 11,
2000 at 03:57:01 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
14:41:25 (PST)
__ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
15:24:44 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
17:17:15 (PST)
___ Linda -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
17:15:31 (PST)
____ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
17:57:16 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at
20:49:56 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
02:45:16 (PST)
_______ lazarus -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
11:18:56 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
12:34:20 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar 07,
2000 at 06:33:48 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 15:35:42
(PST)
___________ kevin -:- Re: HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar
07, 2000 at 16:13:33 (PST)
____________ Gene -:- Re: HEY GENE -:- Tues, Mar
07, 2000 at 19:14:23 (PST)
_____________ mebaser -:- Acts 2:42 again -:- Tues, Mar
07, 2000 at 23:26:58 (PST)
______________ Gene -:- Re: Acts 2:42 again -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 03:54:29 (PST)
_______________ mebaser -:- you missed my point -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 22:00:01 (PST)
________________ Gene -:- Re: you missed my point -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 03:37:12 (PST)
_________________ mebaser -:- Re: you missed my point -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:12:51 (PST)
__________________ mebsaer -:- another way of saying it -:-
Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:24:15 (PST)
___________________ Gene -:- Re: another way of saying it
-:- Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:35:36 (PST)
_________________ kevin -:- help me out here -:- Thurs,
Mar 09, 2000 at 09:55:16 (PST)
__________________ Gene -:- Re: help me out here -:- Thurs,
Mar 09, 2000 at 10:18:04 (PST)
_______________ kevin -:- a little light that goes with my other posting -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 05:37:49 (PST)
_______________ kevin -:- a word study for you -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 05:29:56 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Re: True Worship -:- Mon, Mar
06, 2000 at 12:40:43 (PST)
________ Christopher -:- Hi laz -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000
at 11:46:41 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
Hi laz -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:22:36
(PST)
__________ Christopher -:- Re: Hi laz -:- Mon, Mar 06,
2000 at 12:27:01 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
05:34:06 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
12:37:27 (PST)
_________ laz -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at
20:54:27 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
True Worship -:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at
03:30:41 (PST)
___________ Robert -:- Re: True Worship -:- Wed, Mar
08, 2000 at 08:22:41 (PST)
____________ Gene -:- My soul -:- Wed, Mar 08, 2000
at 13:59:57 (PST)
_____________ Prestor John -:- Re: My soul -:- Wed, Mar 08,
2000 at 16:19:48 (PST)
______________ Tom -:- Here is a thought -:- Wed,
Mar 08, 2000 at 23:46:13 (PST)
_______________ Gene -:- Re: Here is a thought -:- Thurs,
Mar 09, 2000 at 03:31:57 (PST)
______________ Gene -:- Re: My soul -:- Wed, Mar 08,
2000 at 18:41:24 (PST)
_______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 07:57:54 (PST)
________________ Gene -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 10:35:41 (PST)
_________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 12:46:26 (PST)
__________________ Gene -:- Re: My soul -:- Thurs, Mar
09, 2000 at 19:40:19 (PST)
Dean -:- Calvin and Nicaea -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 23:56:08 (PST)
Brother Bret -:- Covenant Theology -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 17:57:00 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Covenant Theology
-:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 21:23:50 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000
at 19:36:12 (PST)
__ Christopher -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000
at 22:01:33 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 08:25:11 (PST)
____ Christopher -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 15:23:20 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000
at 06:06:00 (PST)
______ Christopher -:- Thank you, laz. (nt) -:- Mon,
Mar 06, 2000 at 07:57:44 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 11:04:33 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Egalitarianisnism -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 21:56:03 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Egalitarianism -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000
at 07:23:28 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 14:19:18 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Covenant Theology -:- Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 17:06:58 (PST)
Kenneth -:- prophesy
-:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 15:58:53 (PST)
_ mebaser -:- Re: prophesy -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:50:12 (PST)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: prophesy -:- Sat, Mar 04,
2000 at 03:12:22 (PST)
___ Diaconeo -:- Re:
prophesy -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 10:20:20
(PST)
____ David McKay -:- Re: prophesy -:- Sun, Mar 05,
2000 at 03:17:08 (PST)
_____ Diaconeo -:- Re:
prophesy -:- Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:35:07
(PST)
AMOG -:- Third use of 'The Law' -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:53:55 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Third use of 'The Law' -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:30:54 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re:
Third use of 'The Law' -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 13:14:56 (PST)
laz -:- Interracial Dating/Marriage -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 09:17:49 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re: Interracial Dating/Marriage -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:49:32 (PST)
_ Christopher -:- From
their response -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000
at 10:40:33 (PST)
__ mebaser -:- Interracial
dating/marriage and the Bible -:- Fri,
Mar 03, 2000 at 16:30:49 (PST)
___ Gene -:- An
old Jewish story -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000
at 19:58:54 (PST)
___ Christopher -:- Most
definitely... -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at
17:24:08 (PST)
____ mebaser -:- AMEN!!
(nt) -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 01:05:16
(PST)
_____ Christoper -:- Be careful, mebaser... -:-
Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 08:04:50 (PST)
______ mebaser -:- Oh
Boy!! -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 12:19:32
(PST)
_______ Christopher -:- Re: Oh Boy!! -:- Sat, Mar 04,
2000 at 14:45:30 (PST)
__ kevin -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 10:54:08 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 12:40:47 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 14:19:32 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
From their response -:- Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 14:51:23 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- Re: From their response -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:21:25 (PST)
_______ kevin -:- such
false accusations should not be allowed
-:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 04:48:53 (PST)
________ Prestor John -:- Re: such false accusations should not be allowed -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 09:28:27 (PST)
_________ kevin -:- Re: such false accusations should not be allowed -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 14:56:11 (PST)
__________ Prestor John -:- Re: such false accusations should not be allowed -:- Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 23:06:12 (PST)
___________ kevin -:- you need to get over some things
-:- Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 05:55:32 (PST)
_______ stan -:- Re:
FYI -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:35:00
(PST)
________ kevin -:- Re:
FYI -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 04:54:22
(PST)
_________ stan -:- Re:
Just sharing info -- NT -:- Sat, Mar
04, 2000 at 14:54:41 (PST)
________ scott -:- BJU
Buckles -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 21:00:37
(PST)
_________ john hampshire -:- Re: BJU Buckles -:- Sat, Mar
04, 2000 at 03:34:47 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
BJU Buckles -:- Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at
17:36:44 (PST)
_________ Christopher -:- Ya got that right... -:- Fri,
Mar 03, 2000 at 22:44:56 (PST)
stan -:- AntiChrist identified. -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 18:47:18 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: AntiChrist identified. -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 20:16:24 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re:
-:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 21:05:58 (PST)
___ kevin -:- you
two have too much time on your hands n/t
-:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 11:00:07 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: you two have too much time on your hands n/t -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:25:29 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re:
AAAAGGGGGGGHHH!!!!!!! -:- Sat, Mar 04,
2000 at 15:00:02 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re:
That's the pure joy of ......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 14:08:43 (PST)
_____ kevin -:- Re:
That's the pure joy of ......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 14:52:53 (PST)
Lurker Jr. -:- Federal Headship and Animals -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:15:19 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:22:53 (PST)
__ lj -:- Re:
Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Wed, Mar
01, 2000 at 18:58:46 (PST)
___ Prestor John -:- Re:
Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Thurs,
Mar 02, 2000 at 10:24:41 (PST)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT
-:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 00:10:41 (PST)
____ lj -:- Re:
Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT -:- Thurs,
Mar 02, 2000 at 10:33:21 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re:
Well now ......... -:- Thurs, Mar 02,
2000 at 14:24:58 (PST)
______ Gene -:- Adam
cursed? -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 14:30:29
(PST)
_______ stan -:- Re:
SO SOLLY ...... -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000
at 14:34:10 (PST)
________ Gene -:- Re:
SO SOLLY ...... -:- Fri, Mar 03, 2000
at 15:07:47 (PST)
_________ stan -:- Re:
So sorry you are sorry .......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:24:58 (PST)
__________ Gene -:- Re:
So sorry you are sorry .......... -:-
Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 19:55:44 (PST)
Tom -:- Ministry to First Nations People -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 13:31:27 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Ministry to First Nations People -:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 22:16:11 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Ministry to First Nations People -:-
Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 00:35:30 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Ministry to First Nations People -:-
Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 07:19:40 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re:
Ministry to First Nations People -:-
Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 14:35:52 (PST)
Linda -:- Everett Harrison
-:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Everett Harrison
-:- Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:52:16 (PST)
__ Linda -:- Re:
Everett Harrison -:- Thurs, Mar 02, 2000
at 15:50:05 (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)
Pilgrim -:- The Highway UPDATE! -:- Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 10:15:18 (PST)
Powerforum Plus+
Paradise
Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998
Subject: Perspective
From: a monitor
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:02:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I think it's ironic how we are accused by our Messianic bretheren
of 'missing the mark' on account of our failure to understand the
second century temple mentality. We ain't Jewish enough. Now we
have some who say we lack a hellenistic perspective....we ain't
greek enough. I'd like to see our Messianic folks go toe to toe
with our Greek folks over which 'tradition' is the true tradition.
a monitor Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through
your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things
do ye. Ga 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past
in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the
church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion
above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly
zealous of the traditions of my fathers. No one ever regreted sticking
too closely to God's Word...but traditions on the otherhand....
|
Subject: Veneration
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:18:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Do we have any instances where the OT saints, prophets, etc ever
venerated the dearly departed? laz
|
Subject: Take your Time and read
From: Vernon
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:10:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello, Pilgrim,,,,,,You have painted me as being a heretical and
really unknowing of God's word. Well sir, I must agree in many ways
with you. I only claim that which I do understand as the truth of
God word and when I know it to be truth, I thank God for the Holy
Spirit who leads me into truth. Sir, You ask me one time why I 'cut
and paste' I suppose you have answered your question.....You have
said that I need to learn the deeper things of God and I agree....In
otherwords, I am telling you that I agree with you. I have learned
much from this site and I thank you and others who have spent hours
debating my faith...So, I paste with other views so that I in my
unknowing views can discuss with you and others with a view that
disagrees in an intelligent respectful way. It has never been my
notion to offend or make mad anyone. But I do not agree in all you
said to me and others. You have said we are far apart in our beliefs
and theology. This may be true,but I find the point that we disagree
...Is'Predestination and Election. I do have a different view than
the one you teach. However, I do believe in 'Predestionation and
Election.' Elect, Election. The elect are those called by God to
salvation. This election occurs before the foundation of the world
(Eph. 1:4) and is according to God's will not man's (Rom. 8:29-30;
9:6-23) because God is sovereign (Rom. 9:11-16). As for Predestination:
The doctrine that God has foreordained all things which will come
to pass yet He is not the author of sin. He does, however, use sinful
things for His glory and purpose. For example, the crucifixion was
brought about by sinful men who unrighteously put Jesus to death
(Acts 4:27); yet, in that death, we are reconciled to God (Rom.
5:10). Predestination maintains that God is the one who decides
who will be saved (Rom. 9:16) and that it is not up to the desire
of the person (John 1:13). God is the one who ordains the Christian
into forgiveness, '...and as many as had been appointed to eternal
life believed' (Acts 13:48). Also, 'For whom He foreknew, He also
predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He
might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined,
these He also called; and who He called, these He also justified;
and whom He justified, these He also glorified' (Rom. 8:29-30).
Further verses to examine are Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9. Sir, It really
hurt me when you told Mary that I was full of venom. I suppose we
both have been full of venom. Pilgrim more than once I have ask
that you forgive me for anything I have said that was personal and
offence to you. In all cases, you have never answered or replied
except in the ways of your reply to Mary. I am a "Born Again"
child of God and this makes me a Brother in Christ......"HOW
SHOULD WE BE TREATING EACH OTHER?" Thanks to Bro Bret in his
respect and the way he agrees or disgrees with me. "Thank You
Brother" Laz, Thank you." I know you do not agree in all
that I have said and this is ok.....If I am wrong, Then, pray for
me and allow God to bring into His truth. Regeneration ...is the
theological term for the Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth in
Christ. By definition, regeneration is the act of God by which He
imparts divine life to man upon the single condition of faith in
Jesus Christ as personal Savior. Several words and phrases in the
Bible express the concept of regeneration. The following passages
show how frequently the doctrine of regeneration is found in the
Bible. * In John 3:7 the words 'born again' express regeneration.
* In Eph. 2:5, the words 'made alive' refer to regeneration, the
new life * In 2 Cor. 5:17, the words 'new creation' speak of the
new birth * In 1 John 3:1,2, the expression 'children of God' refers
to regeneration. * In Titus 3:5, the word 'regeneration' itself
is used. There are several aspects about regeneration which are
important to give attention to. All People Need Regeneration Our
condition demands it. Eph. 2:1 declares us to be 'dead' in sins.
Death is a condition for which 'life' (regeneration) is the only
solution. Out family connection demands it. Rom. 5:12 indicates
that we are dead because of a family relationship. Therefore, we
need a new birth, a new family, a new Father, all of which are provided
by regeneration. The Author of Regeneration: GOD John 1:12 informs
us that we must be 'born of God.' The word 'of' points to the source
and origin of the new life - God is the origin and source of regeneration.
John 1:13 eliminates all human aspects of regeneration. The phrase
'not of blood' shows that regeneration cannot be inherited. The
phrase 'not of the will of the flesh' shows that God's life is not
the fruit of a man's search for God. 'Not of the will of man' -
man cannot generate eternal life. The Means of Regeneration - The
Word 1 Pet. 1:23 makes it clear that the written word of God is
the means of the new birth, because the written word is actually
the living Word (see also Heb. 4:12; John 6:63; Acts 7:38) Remember,
the gospel is preached after sin is made known. Because the sinner
cannot come to God on his own, he must be convicted of his sin,
and thus be made aware of his need for salvation. The conviction
of sin is beyond our control. It is the work of the Holy Spirit
(John 16:8). The Power of Regeneration - The Resurrection We are
'born again...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ', 1 Pet. 1:3.
This shows us the kind of power needed for regeneration. According
to Eph. 1:19,20 the power that raised Christ from the dead is the
greatest power ever displayed. This same power is applied in bringing
regeneration to us. The Instrument of Regeneration - Faith Gal.
3:26 explains that faith is the hand by which we receive the gift
of eternal life. The Basis of Regeneration - Blood Those who call
on the Father, 1 Pet. 1:1719, the family concept of regeneration.
It is the blood of Christ that makes this possible (v. 19). The
Agent of Regeneration - The Holy Spirit John 3:5,6, the necessity
of birth through the agency of the Holy Spirit. 'Flesh' begets 'flesh',
'spirit' begets 'spirit'. Divine life requires divine parents. John
1:12 '...to them gave He power to become the children of God' In
Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Take your Time and read
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:32:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon,
What I have at this point is pity
and sorrow for you are hard of head and hard of heart when it comes
to the Scriptures. Yes, I am totally aware that you are caught between
a rock and a hard place, where your personal convictions are constantly
being challenged here and if you should ever change your mind, then
all your friends, your position at church, etc., etc., would probably
all come crashing to the ground. Pride is a horrible thing to waste
eh? How many times have people answered the heresy posted in this
'cut/paste' repeat article of yours? three, four, five times? It
is your constant and repetitive posts which bring about the 'wrath'
of this forum. Either accept the Scriptural teaching set forth by
the apostles and prophets and taught by the Reformers and Puritans
and the vast majority of the Protestant Church or find some other
means of recreation other than coming in here and posting the same
old Arminian/Semi-Pelagian heresy and then crying 'foul' when someone
points out all your errors. Here's a great example:
You wrote: Regeneration ...is the theological term for the
Christian's 'new' or 'second' birth in Christ. By definition,
regeneration is the act of God by which He imparts divine life
to man upon the single condition
of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
Not only is that statement heretical,
it is irrational. John Hampshire recently dealt with this very same
statement in a reply to you. Not only is there not one statement
or even HINT that regeneration is the fruit/result of one's believing
on the Lord Christ. Secondly, the Bible says ALL MEN are born DEAD in trespasses and sins
and can't even 'see' the kingdom of God never mind recognize its
King and believe on Him. Vernon, DEAD MEN don't believe... they
are DEAD! They must first be MADE ALIVE! And God alone is capable
of calling men out of their spiritual tombs. And He does so, NOT
BECAUSE some dead person asks God to do it! Did Lazarus secretly
whisper in the Lord Jesus' ear that he believed on Him, trusted
in Him and wanted to live again? Which then moved the great Creator-Redeemer
to fulfill this lowly request and recognize the faith of a dead
man? GET SERIOUS!
Vernon, many of your beliefs ARE HERETICAL according to what the Protestant Church has believed
the Scriptures to teach and has itself taught for centuries. You
are not even a Protestant by strict definition, but a Roman Catholic
without all the trappings. You hold to a 'Faith-Works' gospel and
a 'Synergistic' salvation. The historic Protestant Church and the
Church of the first century apostles rejected this and Paul cursed
all those who held it as truth. Why should we today allow Vernon
or anyone else to teach and preach this heresy and further, extend
a right hand of fellowship to those whom Paul wished would castrate
themselves and pronounced ANATHEMA upon?? Unless Paul was unloving
to his 'brothers in Christ', I am in no wise guilty of chiding you
for your false gospel and man-centered theology. I rest my case
and will continue to do what God Himself requires of me and all
those who follow Him by faith. . . Expose the works of darkness
and to cast out heretics from among us, with the hope that God will
convict them of the seriousness of their error and give them repentance
unto life. This has been the churches' practice for a couple of
thousand years and I am not about to do otherwise because a bunch
of modern moronic 'flower children' say to do so is 'unloving'!
In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Early Protestants and the Orthodox
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:32:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
See? Protestant/Orthodox relations do have a long history. Luther
Had His Chance It was inevitable that, sooner or later, the Protestant
Churches, protesting against Roman autocracy, should seek to find
out about a Church which had made such a protest from the earliest
times. Martin Luther's chief interest in the Eastern Question lay
in the belief, which he shared with many of his evangelical contemporaries,
and with many of the Greeks themselves before the fall of Constantinople,
that the end of the world was near and that the Grand Turk was Antichrist:
though he had an alternative candidate in the person of the Pope
... Luther himself was a reactionary in temperament, disliking the
spirit of the Renaissance. But his leading disciples were children
of the Renaissance. The most distinguished of them, Philip Melanchthon,
had been professor of Greek at Wittenberg and was deeply interested
in Hellenism. His interest extended to the contemporary Greeks;
and he thought that it would be valuable to establish a friendly
understanding with the Greek Church.1 The difficulty was to find
out how to make contact with the Greeks. The only European powers
in diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire were Catholic: Venice,
France, and the Habsburg dominions. It was, he thought, through
Venice, with its colony of Greek scholars, its Greek possessions
and its lack of religious intolerance that an approach could best
be made, particularly if a Greek scholar could be found there who
was in touch with the East and had not joined the Roman faith ...
But rather more than a year earlier he had received at Wittenberg
an elderly cleric from Montenegro called Demetrius, who came with
an introduction from James Basilicus. Nothing is known of Demetrius'
early history. He was already an old man when he met James in Moldavia
in 1558. Demetrius made an excellent impression in Lutheran circles.
Melanchthon liked him; and Nicholas Hemmingius wrote in a letter
that he was an old man of exemplary piety and admirable morals,
whose claim to be a deacon was undoubtedly genuine, though the Lutherans
could not check up on this; he was certainly full of erudition about
his Church. Here was a heaven-sent agent for achieving the desired
contact with Constantinople. In order that the Orthodox might be
properly informed about the Reformed religion, the Confession of
Augsburg, which summarized Lutheran belief, was hastily but ably
translated into Greek by a learned Hellenist, Paul Dolscius of Plauen,
and a copy was given to Demetrius to deliver to the Patriarch together
with a personal letter from Melanchthon, which barely touched upon
doctrine but suggested that the Lutheran and Greek Churches had
much in common.2 Demetrius left on his journey late in 1559. Melanchthon
died before an answer could have easily been returned, but his fellow-divines
waited for many more months for news from Constantinople. At last
they decided that Demetrius could not have delivered the letter.
In fact he arrived at Constantinople at the end of 1559 and was
received by the Patriarch, but the documents that he brought embarrassed
Joasaph and the Holy Synod. A brief glance at the Confession of
Augsburg showed that much of its doctrine was frankly heretical,
but it would be undesirable to spoil relations with a potential
friend. The Patriarch and his advisers took refuge in the favorite
device of oriental diplomacy. They behaved as if they had never
received the communication, which they carefully mislaid.3 Demetrius
waited for two or three months for a reply to carry back to Wittenberg.
When none was forthcoming he did not venture to return to Germany.
He moved to Transylvania, where he spent three years trying to introduce
Lutheranism into its villages, encouraged by James Basilicus. After
James' fall he carried on his propaganda in the Slav dominions of
the Habsburg Emperor. The date of his death is unknown.4 The subsequent
events in Moldavia must have confirmed Joasaph in his suspicion
of the Lutherans. Some fifteen years later the atmosphere improved.
The Habsburg Emperors employed a number of Lutheran officials. In
about 1570 an Imperial Ambassador arrived at Constantinople who
was a Protestant, David von Ungnad; and he brought with him as chaplain
an eminent Lutheran scholar, Stephen Gerlach, who was in close touch
with the Lutheran universities in Germany. Gerlach soon made friends
with the learned Protonotary of the Great Church, Theodore Zygomalas,
who introduced him to the Patriarch Jeremias II, then in his first
term of office. In return he put Zygomalas into touch with the leading
professor of Greek in Germany, Martin Kraus, or Crusius, of Tubingen,
a man interested not only in Classical Greek but also in the Greek
world of his time. Through Zygomalas, Crucius entered into correspondence
with the Patriarch Jeremias, whom he greatly admired.5 When such
friendships were established it was natural for the Lutherans to
press again for closer ecclesiastical relations with the Greeks.
In 1574 Ungnad was prompted by Gerlach to write to Germany to ask
for fresh copies of the Confession of Augsburg. In reply six copies
were sent out by Crusius and Jacob Andreae, Chancellor of the University
of Tubingen. One was to be given to the Patriarch, one to Zygomalas,
one to Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Berrhoea, one to the scholar
Gabriel Severus, and one to the rich layman, Michael Cantacuzenus,
who had promised to have it translated into vernacular Greek. A
copy translated into Georgian was dispatched a little later, for
transmission to the Orthodox Church of Georgia in the Caucasus.
To the Patriarch's copy the Lutheran divines added a letter, in
which they said that, though because of the distance between their
countries there was some difference in their ceremonies, the Patriarch
would acknowledge that they had introduced no innovation into the
principal things necessary for salvation; and that they embraced
and preserved, as far as their understanding went, the faith that
had been taught to them by the Apostles, the Prophets and the Holy
Fathers, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Seven Councils
and the Holy Scriptures.6 What the Georgians thought of the Confession
of Augsburg, if their copy ever reached them, is unrecorded. To
the Greeks it was as embarrassing as it had been fifteen years previously.
Cantacuzenus did nothing about its translation into the vernacular.
But Jeremias could not ignore the Confession as Joasaph had done.
Von Ungnad and Gerlach were close at hand, pressing for an answer.
After a little hesitation Jeremias wrote a polite letter of thanks
to Tubingnen, promising to send a statement on doctrinal points
a little later. These delaying tactics were in vain; Gerlach continued
to ask for his views. At last, after consulting with the Holy Synod,
the Patriarch, with the help of Zygomalas and his father, John,
composed a full answer to the various points in the Confession.
The letter was dated 15 May 1576. The Confession of Augsburg contains
twenty-one articles. Jeremias replied to each in turn, stating wherein
he agreed or disagreed with the doctrines contained in them. His
comments are valuable, as they add up to a compendium of Orthodox
theology at this date. The first article states the Nicene Creed
to be the basis of the true faith. The Patriarch naturally concurred,
but pointed out that the Creed should be accepted in its correct
form, omitting the Dual Procession of the Holy Ghost, an addition
which, as he explains at length, was canonically illegal and doctrinally
unsound. In the original Confession the second article proclaims
original sin, the third is a summary of the Apostles' Creed and
the fourth declares that man is justified by faith alone. In the
Greek version the second and third articles change place; which
is more logical. The Patriarch's second chapter therefore deals
with the Creed. While approving of the Germans' summary he adds
for their benefit twelve amplifying articles which, he says, contain
the traditional doctrine of the Church. Three concern the Trinity,
six the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Redemption, and three
the life hereafter. He gives further glosses to these and appends
a list of the seven cardinal virtues-he actually gives eight-and
the seven deadly sins. On original sin, the Patriarch takes the
opportunity of pointing out that baptism should be by triple immersion
and not by aspersion, and should be followed by chrismation. The
baptismal practice of the Latins is, he says, incorrect. In his
fourth chapter, on justification by faith alone, the Patriarch points
out, quoting Basil, that grace will not be given to those who do
not live virtuous lives. He amplifies his views in his fifth and
sixth chapters. In the Confession, the fifth article says that faith
must be fed with the help of the Holy Scriptures and the Sacraments,
and the sixth that faith must bear fruit in good works, though it
repeats that good works alone will not bring salvation. Jeremias
takes for granted the doctrine given in the fifth article, and uses
the chapter to continue his previous argument. The Sermon on the
Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference
to faith. Faith without works is not true faith. In the sixth article
he warns the Germans not to presume on grace nor despair of it.
He makes it clear that he disapproves of anything that might suggest
predestined election. The seventh article of the Confession declares
that the Church is one and eternal, and the sign of its unity is
that the Gospel shall be rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly
administered. So long as this is fulfilled, differences in ritual
and ceremonial do not impair its unity. Jeremias agrees; but he
goes on to talk about the Sacraments. Suspecting that the Lutherans
held baptism and the Eucharist to be the only Sacraments, he insists
that there are at least seven Sacraments. Jeremias concurred with
the eighth and ninth articles in the Confession. The former says
that Sacraments do not lose their validity even when administered
by evil priests. The latter recommends infant baptism, so that the
child may be at once qualified to receive grace. The tenth article
was more controversial. It says that the body and blood of Christ
are truly present at the Lord's Supper and are distributed to those
who participate in it; and those who teach otherwise are condemned.
So far the Patriarch could agree. But he may have learned that the
original German version of the Confession added the words 'in the
form of the bread and the wine,' words omitted in the Latin and
Greek versions. He asks for further details, saying: 'for we have
heard of certain things about your views, of which it is impossible
for us to approve.' The doctrine of the Holy Church, he maintains,
is that at the Lord's Supper the bread is changed into the very
body of Christ and the wine into His very blood. He adds that the
bread must be leavened, not unleavened. He points out that Christ
did not say 'This is bread,' or even 'This is the figure of my body,'
but 'This is My body.' It would indeed be blasphemy to say that
the Lord gave to His disciples the flesh that He bore to eat or
the blood in His veins to drink, or that He descends physically
from heaven when the mysteries are celebrated. It is, he says, by
the grace and invocation of the Holy Spirit, which operates and
consummates the change, and by our sacred prayers and by the Lord's
own words that the bread and wine are transformed and transmuted
into the very flesh and blood of Christ. Jeremias is here making
three points. In two of them he considered that the Lutherans were
following the errors of the Latins. The Greeks, faithful to the
traditions of the early Church, had long disapproved of the Latin
use of unleavened bread, which seemed to them to mar the symbolism
of the Sacrament; for the leaven symbolizes the new dispensation.
Then Jeremias touches delicately on the Epiklesis, the invocation
of the Holy Ghost which to the Greeks completed the change in the
elements. They could not condone the Latin omission of the Epiklesis.
On the actual question of the change in the elements Jeremias is
cautious. He avoids the word which is the exact Greek translation
of 'transubstantiation.' The words that he uses do not necessarily
imply material change. He does not explain the exact nature of the
change, leaving it, rather, as a divine mystery. But the Lutheran
view that though Christ's body and blood were present at the Sacrament
there was no change in the elements seemed to him inadequate. The
eleventh article of the Confession advocates the use of private
confession, though it is not absolutely necessary; nor can one enumerate
all one's petty sins. The Patriarch agrees but thinks that more
should be said about the value of confession as spiritual medicine
and as leading to true acts of penitence. It must be remembered
that to him the act of penitence ranked as a sacrament. The twelfth
article teaches that sinners who have lapsed from grace can receive
it again if they repent. It disavows both the Anabaptist view that
the saved can never fall from grace and the Novatian view that the
lapsed can never recover it. The Patriarch concurs but adds that
repentance must be shown by works. The thirteenth article declares
the Sacraments to be proofs of God's love for men and should be
used to stimulate and confirm faith. This seems a little crude to
Jeremias, who stresses the need for the Liturgy as providing the
necessary framework for the Sacraments, the whole divine drama which
gives them their spiritual value. To the fourteenth, which states
that only ordained priests should preach or administer the Sacraments,
the Patriarch agrees, so long as the ordination has been correctly
performed and the hierarchy canonically organized. He clearly doubted
whether this was the case with the Lutheran Church. The fifteenth
article pleased him less. It approves of such rites and festivals
as are conducive to giving peace and order to the Church but denies
that any of them are necessary for salvation or provide the means
for acquiring grace. To the Greek Church, with its full calendar
of feasts and fasts, such teaching was distressing. The Patriarch,
quoting at length from the early Fathers, emphasizes that these
holy days and the ceremonies attached to them are lasting reminders
of the life of Christ on earth and of the witness of the saints.
To deny them any spiritual value is narrow-minded and wrong. He
concurs with the sixteenth article, which says that it is not contrary
to the Gospel to obey civil magistrates or to engage in warfare
if they should order it. He adds that one should remember, all the
same, that obedience to the laws of God and to His ministers is
a higher duty, and that no true Christian seeks for worldly power.
He concurs also with the seventeenth article, which foretells the
coming of Christ to judge the world and to reward the faithful with
eternal life and punish the wicked with eternal torment. He seems
to have been unperturbed by the implied denial of the doctrine of
Purgatory. The eighteenth article deals with free will. The Lutherans
maintained that, while a man may by the exercise of free will lead
a good life, it will avail him nothing unless God gives him grace.
This is too close to the doctrine of complete predestination for
the Patriarch, who points out, with long quotations from John Chrysostom,
that only those freely willing to be saved can be saved. Good deeds
conform with the grace of God, but that grace is withdrawn concurrently
with an evil deed. The nineteenth article, declaring that God is
not the cause of evil in this world, is perfectly acceptable. The
twentieth returns to the problem of faith and works, repeating that,
though good works are necessary and indispensable, and it is a libel
to say that the Lutherans ignore them, yet they cannot purchase
the remission of sins without faith and its accompanying grace.
The Patriarch agrees about the dual need for faith and works; but
why, he asks, if the Lutherans really value good works, do they
censure feasts and fasts, brotherhoods and monasteries? Are these
not good deeds done in honor of God and in obedience to His commands?
Is a fast not an act of self-discipline? Is not a monastic fraternity
an expression of fellowship? Above all, is not the taking of monastic
vows an attempt to carry out Christ's demand that we should rid
ourselves of our worldly entanglements? The Patriarch was especially
shocked by the twenty-first and last article, which says that, while
congregations should be told of the lives of the saints as examples
to be followed, it is contrary to the Scriptures to invoke the saints
as mediators before God. Jeremias, after citing the special powers
given by Christ to the disciples, answers that true worship should
indeed be given to God alone, but that the saints, and above all,
the Mother of God, who by their holiness have been raised to heaven,
may lawfully and helpfully be invoked. We can ask the Mother of
God, owing to her special relationship, to intercede for us and
the archangels and angels to pray for us; and all the saints may
be asked for their mediation. It is a sign of humility that we sinners
should be shy of making a direct approach to God and should seek
the intervention of mortal men and women who have earned salvation.
Jeremias ended his letter with a supplementary chapter, stressing
five points. First, he insists again that leavened bread should
be used at the Eucharist. Secondly, while he approves of the marriage
of secular clergy, the regular clergy should take vows of celibacy
and should keep to them. Thirdly, he emphasized once more the importance
of the Liturgy. Fourthly, he repeats that the remission of sin cannot
be attained except through confession and the act of penitence,
to which he attaches sacramental importance. Finally, and at great
length, he gives arguments in support of the institution of monasteries
and the taking of monastic vows. Many mortals, he admits, are unfitted
to bind themselves to a life of asceticism; and if they lead good
lives according to their abilities, they too can reach salvation.
But it is, he thinks, a better thing to be ready to forswear the
world and to devote one's life to the disciplined service of God;
and for this end monasticism provides the proper means. His final
paragraph is written in a mixture of humility and condescension.
'And so, most learned Germans,' he writes, 'most beloved sons in
Christ of Our Mediocrity, as you desire with wisdom and after great
counsel and with your whole minds to join yourselves with us to
what is the most holy Church of Christ, we, speaking like parents
who love their children, gladly receive your charity and humanity
into the bosom of our Mediocrity, if you are willing to follow with
us the apostolic and synodical traditions and to subject yourselves
to them. Then at last truly and sincerely one house will be built
with us ... and so out of two Churches God's benevolence will make
as it were one, and together we shall live until we are transferred
to the heavenly fatherland.'7 his reply reached Germany in the summer
of 1576. The German divines detected in it a certain lack of enthusiasm.
Crusius arranged a meeting with the theologian Lucius Osiander;
and together they composed an answer in which the points to which
the Patriarch seemed to object were elucidated and justified. They
confined themselves to doctrines mentioned in the Confession of
Augsburg and therefore did not touch on matters such as leavened
bread, the Liturgy or even monasticism. They attempted to show that
their view on justification by faith was not really so very different
from the Patriarch's; and they repeated at some length the Lutheran
view that, though Christ's flesh and blood were present at the Lord's
Supper, there was no material change in the elements. They made
it clear that they believed in only two Sacraments and that they
could not admit the propriety of invoking the saints. Their letter
was written in June 1577, but it probably only reached Constantinople
in the course of the following year. Once again Jeremias tried to
avoid sending an answer, but Gerlach was still in Constantinople,
pressing for one. Gerlach left to return to Germany in the spring
of 1579. In May, Jeremias sent off at last a further statement of
his views. His tone was now a little less conciliatory. He pointed
out clearly and at greater length the doctrines which the Orthodox
Church could not accept. It could not admit the Dual Procession
of the Holy Ghost. In spite of what the Lutherans claimed, their
views on free will and on justification by faith were not Orthodox
and were in the Patriarch's opinion too crude. While admitting that
the Sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist ranked above the others,
the Patriarch insisted that there were sacraments. He repeated that
it was correct to invoke the saints and added that respect should
be paid to holy images and relics. A committee of Lutheran divines,
including Crusius, Andreae, Osiander and Gerlach, met at Wurttemberg
to compose a further reply, which was dispatched in June 1580. Its
tone was very conciliatory. When not yielding on any points, it
tried to suggest that the doctrinal differences between the Churches
on justification by faith, on free will and on the change in the
elements at the Lord's Supper were only matters of terminology,
and that other differences could perhaps be treated as differences
in ritual and usage. The Germans had to wait for an answer. Jeremias
had been deposed in November 1579, and did not return to office
till September 1580. Some months elapsed before he could settle
down to compose an answer. It was eventually sent in the summer
of 1581. He briefly recapitulated the points of disagreement, then
begged for the correspondence to cease. 'Go your own way,' he wrote,
'and do not send us further letters on doctrine but only letters
written for the sake of friendship.' In spite of this, the Lutheran
committee sent one more letter, almost identical with their last.
The Patriarch did not reply to it. 1 For Melanchthon's attitude
towards the Greeks see E. Benz, Die Ostkirche im Lichte der Protestantischen
Geschichtsschreibung, pp. 17-20. 2 Benz, Wittenberg und Byzanz,
pp. 94ff., giving the text of Melanchthon's letter. 3 Ibid. pp.
71-2: J. N. Karmiris, GET TRANSLATION, p. 36. 4 Benz, Wittenberg
und Byzanz, pp. 73ff. 5 For Ungnad and Gerlach see E. Benz, Die
Ostkirche im Licht der Protestantischen Geschichtsschreibung , pp.
24-9. Gerlach's very discursive Tagebuch was not published until
after his death; but Crusius in his Turco-Graecia frequently cites
Gerlach as the sources of information. Jeremias II spoke no Western
European language. When Phillippe Du Fresne visited him in 1573,
Theodore Zygomalas and his father were present to act as interpreters.
P. du Fresne Canaye, Voyage du Levant (ed. M. H. Hauser). pp. 106-8.
6 Benz, Wittenberg und Byzanz, pp. 94ff. 7 It was this letter which
gives Jeremias II's fullest statement on doctrine together with
the Lutheran arguments that he was answering, that the Jesuit Sokolowski
published in 1582, thus obliging the Lutherans to publish the whole
correspondence. Taken from Stephen Runciman's The Great Church in
Captivity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968).
|
Subject: For those who value sola scriptura
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:13:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
...with some discussion of Reformed liturgy and thought. Let's take
the debate from another angle, shall we? Holy Tradition vs. Sola
Scriptura The Witness of the Liturgy by Pedro O. Vega Since the
Reformation, the polemics between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism
have centered on the role of the Bible as the only rule of faith
for the Church over and against any notion of Bible and Tradition
as being the normative rule of faith. In recent years, the debate
has taken the same popular note that it once had during the Reformation.
Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating (director of Catholic
Answers) and Patrick Madrid frequently square off against Reformed
Protestant apologist James White (director of Alpha & Omega
Ministries) in a battle for the mind, the heart, and, ultimately,
the soul of their listeners and readers. Orthodox Christians may
assume that Roman Catholic apologists represent the Orthodox position
in Western polemics. This is due, in part, to the absence of Orthodox
Christian apologists from this debate. The purpose of this article
is to provide an Orthodox perspective on the matter of Sola Scriptura,
that is, the Protestant tenet that the Bible alone is sufficient
as the rule of faith of the Church. At the same time, we will seek
to restate the Patristic framework Orthodoxy assumes when speaking
of Holy Tradition, which is not normally present within Roman Catholic
apologetics. This framework is provided by the Divine Liturgy of
the Church. This framework centers on the role of the Liturgy as
the 'container' of Tradition, as something that owes its very existence
to Tradition. In other words, the Liturgy—the Eucharist in its core
actions—is the proof for the existence of an extrabiblical Christian
belief that was binding for all the Churches which called themselves
Christian, Orthodox, and Catholic, and which assert a historical
continuity with the New Testament Church. We will discuss the important
implications the Liturgy has on the Protestant claims of the sufficiency
of the Bible. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi Lex orandi, lex credendi
is a tenet of the early Church that nowadays is often used as a
cliché. But what did it mean then? What does it mean to say
that the law (or rule) of prayer is the law (or rule) of belief?
The answer lies in what Orthodox Christians call the Divine Liturgy.
First, we will define what liturgy means, what is its origin, and
what its basic form, or shape, consists of. Once we organize and
briefly analyze the data, we will then proceed to formulate some
conclusions and, hopefully, state a definition of Holy Tradition
from the Orthodox perspective. From there we will examine the theological
implications of our findings upon doctrine and the notion of Sola
Scriptura. Liturgy Defined Etymology Liturgy is derived from the
Latin liturgia and the Greek leitourgia (a compound word: leitos
+ ergon), meaning 'public duty' or 'public worship.' The word and
its cognates can be found in the New Testament (cf. Acts 13:2).
Working Definition Dom Gregory Dix,1 perhaps the foremost liturgist
of this century, defines liturgy as follows: ‘Liturgy’ is the name
given ever since the days of the apostles (Acts 13:2) to the act
of taking part in the solemn corporate worship of God by the ‘priestly’
society (1 Peter 2:5) of Christians, who are ‘the Body of Christ,
the church’ (Ephesians 1: 22-23). ‘The Liturgy’ is the term which
covers generally all that worship which is officially organised
by the church, and which is open to and offered by, or in the name
of, all who are members of the church. It distinguishes this from
the personal prayers of the individual Christians who make up the
church, and even from the common prayer of selected or voluntary
groups within the church, e.g. guilds or societies. In the course
of time the term the Liturgy has come to be particularly applied
to the performance of that rite which was instituted by our Lord
Jesus Christ Himself to be the peculiar and distinctive worship
of those who should be ‘His own’ (John 13:1); and which has ever
since been the heart and core of Christian worship and Christian
living—the Eucharist or Breaking of Bread.2 Thus, whenever we speak
of liturgy and liturgical in this essay, we do so under the light
of the above definition. Nature of the Protestant Problem We all
participate in corporate prayer. Every Sunday we go to our respective
houses of worship to do just that: worship. Yet, very seldom do
we stop to think of the origin and the meaning of the actions we
perform within the context of public, corporate worship. This is
especially true of so-called low church Protestant Christians. There
is little or no connection between the way that these Christians
worship every Sunday (or every quarter) and the way the early Church
worshipped and prayed. If the question occurs to them at all, they
might answer that it is the spirit that matters in their current
worship circumstance. Ancient ritual can be safely dismissed, without
further thought, as dead letter and empty tradition. It is at this
spiritual and, ultimately, individual level, however, that Protestant
Christians experience their affinity with the worship of the early
Christians. John Calvin represented the faction of the Reformation
which most rapidly did away with Catholic liturgical trappings (cf.
The Second Helvetic Confession, chapter XXVII, Of Rites, Ceremonies,
and Things Indifferent). Calvin’s liturgy itself was a modification
of another Reformed order of worship previously created by Martin
Bucer. Calvin published his order of worship in French at Strasbourg.
He titled the work La Forme des Prières Ecclésiastiques.
It is said that Calvin’s Institutes created the most international
form of Protestantism; due credit should also be given to his order
of worship, which is essentially preserved in every low church Protestant
community to this day. It also heavily influenced other Protestant
traditions, particularly that of the Church of England. Much can
be said of the Protestant break with the Roman Catholic past. The
liturgical and moral excesses of the medieval Church are well known
and do not need to be revisited in this article. It can also be
argued that the medieval Roman innovations were themselves real
breaks from the faith and practice of the early Church. That is
another subject unto itself. Suffice to say that the Reformers felt
justified in making the changes they did to the order of Christian
worship. Influenced by the humanist battle cry Ad fontes! and permeated
with the spirit of Nominalism, the Reformers set out on a quest
to restore the authentic faith, worship, and practice of the early
Church. However, Protestant worship services have much in common
with the Latin Mass against which they reacted. Dix, in fact, sees
the Protestant worship services as a subdivision of the Western
Catholic liturgical rite. Dix writes: Elsewhere in the West, as
a consequence of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century,
there has arisen what from our point of view must be considered
the ‘fourth crop’ of local variants of the basic Western type, in
the rites of the Reformed bodies. It is true that those who use
them do not, as a rule, think of them in this way. Their compilers
were far more concerned to follow what they regarded as ‘scriptural
warrant’ than anything in the liturgical tradition against which
they were in revolt. But the Reformers themselves thought largely
in terms of the Western tradition within which they had been trained.
In consequence, their rites all reveal under technical analysis
not ‘primitive’ characteristics at all, nor anything akin to the
special Eastern tradition, but a marked dependence on the basic
Western liturgical tradition at a particular stage late in its development.3
The Reformed Protestant problem is this: Though the Reformers set
out to restructure their worship ritual according to what they perceived
had scriptural warrant, their final product resembled more a truncated
late medieval Latin Mass than anything else that could be called
primitive Christian corporate worship. Proof of this discrepancy
is found by way of contrasting the Reformed orders of worship with
the ancient texts of the earliest Christian liturgies available
to us. Low church evangelical Protestantism, especially that American
Protestantism still struggling to remain faithful to the insight
of the classical Reformers, faces a dilemma. The dilemma is, ironically,
the Reformers’ own creation. Let us not forget the Reformers lived
at the dawn of critical historiography as a scientific discipline.
Much of the Protestant critique was based upon the work of the Roman
Catholic philosopher and humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam. It was
he who advocated a full critical reading of the ancient sources.
He also produced the first critical Greek edition of the New Testament.
By using comparative analysis, he debunked the historicity of long
authoritative pro-papal documents such as the Gratian Decretals.
The Reformers used these developments to their advantage. Luther’s
discovery that the New Testament said, 'Repent, change your hearts,
change your ways!' versus the Latin Vulgate’s rendition 'Do Penance!'
is a classic example of the superior scholarship inaugurated by
Erasmus under the motto Ad Fontes! Yet, we fail to see a similar
Protestant advance in the field of Liturgics. This is due to four
things: (1) Protestantism’s lack of interest in ascertaining the
existence of the historical Liturgy; (2) the lack of manuscript
tradition in which to work at the time; (3) the belief that an appeal
to Sola Scriptura superseded any other appeal to Liturgy as a doctrinal
medium; and (4) just plain apathy. The Reformers felt free to recast
public worship according their particular view of scriptural warrant.
Curiously, when it came to the Liturgy, the Reformers fell short
of the Ad Fontes! ideal. This takes us back to the Protestant problem:
Their worship is, in one way or the other, a modified version of
the late medieval Latin Mass. Only the Quakers carried the Protestant
recasting of the Liturgy to its logical end: Their worship was devoid
of any outer form and relied solely on the illumination of the individual
worshipper. If the rest of Protestantism failed to reach this logical
end, they did so because of a vague feeling of the very human (and
Christian) need for communal worship. Ad Fontes! To say that the
Orthodox Church holds the Liturgy in the highest esteem is an understatement.
The Liturgy is the basis for Orthodox theologizing when it comes
to Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and almost every ancillary
-ology in the Church. Theology without Liturgy is falsely so-called,
according to Orthodox Christian teaching. Orthodox Christianity’s
high regard for the Liturgy does not derive from a merely antiquarian
interest. Nor is it an attempt by the Church to establish a historical
continuity with the past by mere imitation of ritual or gestures.
The Orthodox Church holds the Liturgy in the highest esteem because
the New Testament Church and the Church of the Fathers held the
Liturgy in the highest esteem. And the New Testament Church and
the Church of the Fathers held the Liturgy in the highest esteem
on account of its origin, its purpose, and its function. The Liturgy
in the Bible That the Christians in the New Testament Church worshipped
together, no one denies. Thus in Acts 2:42,46 we find: And they
devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to
the breaking of bread and the prayers…And day by day, attending
the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook
of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor
with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day
those who were being saved. (RSV) The verse does not tell us much
about the how of New Testament Christian worship, but it does give
us two tantalizing hints: (1) there is something Jewish about it
(Temple worship), and (2) there is something Christian about it
(the Breaking of the Bread).4 The closest that the New Testament
gets to talk about the actions involved during Christian worship
(and the earliest reference) is in St. Paul’s first letter to the
Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 23 to 26: 'For I received from the
Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night
when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he
broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in
remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper,
saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often
as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat
this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until
he comes.' C.P.M. Jones5 endeavored to sketch the Corinthian liturgy
from an in-depth study of St. Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians:
'It is a plenary session and may not begin until all are assembled.
It is a real meal, to which (or at least the well off) all contribute
food and drink. It opens with the customary Jewish blessing of God
over the bread, which is then broken in pieces and distributed to
all, probably with words of interpretation or distribution identifying
the bread as the Body of Christ.…By this the gathering is constituted
as the Body of Christ. The meal continues, and at the end the ‘cup
of the blessing’ is produced and thanksgiving is said before all
drink of it. It would seem that during that thanksgiving the death
of the Lord , the risen, victorious ever-present Lord of the community,
is proclaimed ‘until he come.’' Post-Apostolic Development Again,
it is not the purpose of this essay to provide a detailed narrative
of the development of the Orthodox Christian liturgy. Such a task
would be, of itself, a very lengthy one. Instead, we shall briefly
sketch the development of the liturgy up until the fourth century,
highlighting certain common themes constantly present during this
development. We will do so by looking at a few representative early
Church documents: • The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through
the Twelve Apostles, commonly known as The Didache. There are many
theories about the origin and purpose of this early work. Paragraphs
9 and 10 are relevant to our discussion. Their primitive character
is attested by their lack of the Words of Institution (Take , eat.
. . . Take, drink.) and by the wording of its Thanksgiving prayer,
which is very close to that of Jewish forms of grace at table. •
The Letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. St. Clement
deals with issues of order and procedure (cf. paragraphs 40 and
41). He already models the Eucharist on the pattern of Temple worship.
• The Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans. St. Ignatius’s
reference to the Eucharist as the body,6 or flesh,7 of our Savior
may indicate that the Words of Institution, as they are known in
the Gospels, were already in use (cf. paragraphs 7 and 8). • The
Apostolic Tradition of Hyppolitus, a third-century document, is
the most important source of information we possess on the liturgy
of the pre-Nicene church.8 It contains an undeveloped form of the
Eucharistic prayer and reflects the liturgical tradition of the
local Church of Rome. It makes direct use of the Words of Institution.
• The Mystagogical Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catecheses
were instructional lectures, first delivered orally but written
down in shorthand. The form we have today is that of a transcript
made by someone in the audience, and it is not St. Cyril’s original
manuscript.9 These lectures were delivered to Christians in various
states of instruction. It contains a full description of the Liturgy
in Jerusalem in the fourth century. The Form of the Early Liturgy
Several other liturgical traditions existed at the time; for example,
that of the Churches at Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Edessa. Though
the petitions and emphases of these early liturgies varied somewhat,
they all shared in common a central core, or form. This form, or
shape, is distinguished by a four-step scheme in the Eucharistic
action: (1) The Offertory. Bread and wine are taken and placed on
the table together; (2) The Thanksgiving or Eucharistic Prayer.
The president, or celebrant, gives thanks to God over the bread
and wine together; (3) The Fraction. The Bread is broken; (4) Communion.
The Bread and Wine are distributed together.10 This four-step action
is somewhat different from the scheme we find in the New Testament.
There we find a seven-step scheme within the inauguration narrative.
There we read that Our Lord: (1) took bread; (2) gave thanks over
it; (3) broke it; (4) and distributed it, saying certain words.
Later, He: (5) took a cup; (6) gave thanks over it; (7) and handed
it to His disciples, saying certain words.11 The central question
facing us is: why? Why is there a discrepancy between the actions
of Jesus, as narrated in the Synoptic Gospels, and in St. Paul’s
letter to the Corinthians and the Liturgical actions of the early
Church? The answers lies, paradoxically, at the origin of the Eucharist
itself: the Last Supper. The Last Supper, the Eucharist, and the
Jewish Milieu The obvious answer to our question is this: The last
supper of our Lord with His disciples is the source of the Liturgical
Eucharist, but not the model for its performance.12 Let us refocus
our answer: The actions which transpired during the Last Supper
and preserved in the canonical Gospels and in the First Letter of
St. Paul to the Corinthians are not the model for the performance
of the historical Eucharist. As it will be demonstrated, the New
Testament narratives influenced the Liturgy at a relatively late
period of its development. The traditions from which the New Testament
and the Eucharist developed had a common origin. They progressively
influenced each other’s growth and canonicity up until the doctrinal
settlement of the fourth century. To arrive at this conclusion we
examine the source of the Liturgical Eucharist: the Last Supper.
The Jewish Chabûrah Meal The Last Supper should be seen within
the historical context from which both the New Testament narratives
and the Liturgical Eucharist evolved. To do that, the following
hypothesis is in order: According to St. John’s Gospel, our Lord
instituted the Eucharist at a supper with His disciples, which was
probably not the Passover supper of that year but the evening meal
twenty-four hours before the actual Passover.13 The Last Supper,
then, belonged to another formal category of meals for which there
were also exacting preparations and rituals known as chabûrah
(from Heb. chaber=friend).14 Dix uses quite a bit of ink to support
his claim that the Last Supper was a chabûrah meal. We will
limit ourselves to reading one of Dix’s conclusions that is relevant
to our inquiry. Reconstructing the primitive Eucharist, Dix finds
the origin of the four-action shape of the Liturgy in this meal:
(1) The Offertory. Each communicant brings for himself or herself
a little bread and wine, and also frequently, other small offerings
in kind of different sorts, oil, cheese. . . . This is simply a
survival of the custom or providing the chabûrah supper out
of the contributions in kind by its members, though in the case
of the bread and wine, another meaning was given to the offering
by the church before the end of the first century. (2) The prayer.
The long Thanksgiving at the end of the meal was always regarded
as and called in Jewish practice ‘the Blessing’ for all that had
preceded it. It was also specifically the blessing of the ‘cup of
blessing’ itself (which did not receive the ordinary wine blessing).
Accordingly, it now becomes 'the Blessing' or 'the Prayer' of the
Eucharist, said over the bread and wine together. . . . That this
was so can be seen from its special name. 'The Eucharist' (-ic Prayer),
he eucharistia, 'The Thanksgiving,' which is simply the direct translation
into Greek of its ordinary rabbinic name, berakah. (3) The fraction.
The bread was originally—at the chabûrah meal and the Last
Supper—broken simply for distribution and not for symbolic purposes
immediately after it had been blessed. So, in the liturgical 'four-action'
shape of the rite, it is broken at once after the blessing (by the
eucharistia, along with the wine) for Communion, which follows immediately.
(4) The Communion. It appears to have been the universal tradition
in the pre-Nicene Church that all should receive Communion standing.
This was the posture in which the cup of blessing was received at
the chabûrah meal, though the broken bread was received sitting
or reclining at table. Presumably the change in posture for receiving
the bread was made when the meal was separated from the Eucharist.
The Jews stood for the recitation of the berakah and to receive
the cup of blessing, and this affected the bread, too, when its
distribution came to be placed between the end of the berakah and
the handing of the cup.15 The Liturgy as Oral Tradition Thus far,
we have seen how the four-action shape of the Liturgy differs in
form with the series of actions narrated and preserved in the Institution
narratives contained in the New Testament. We have also seen how
this shape had as its origins the Jewish ritual meal called chabûrah.
Once again, the question we now face is: why? Why has a nonscriptural,
Jewish religious meal provided the framework for Christian worship
for over 1500 years? Before we attempt to answer this question,
we will backtrack a little to the period preceding the writing of
the canonical Gospels. We should agree, as a matter of principle,
to the following tenets: • Jesus wrote no book; He taught by word
of mouth and personal example. • Some of his followers taught in
writing as well as orally. • Often, indeed, their writing was a
second-best substitute for the spoken word.16 There is nothing unlikely
about this fact. In an era when reading and writing were skills
mastered by a relative few, oral tradition was the necessary vehicle
to preserve and hand down practical and religious knowledge from
father to son, and from teacher to student. Nor were the Jews unique
in this respect, either at this time, or in that region of the world.
Most, if not all, of the cultures in the world at that time were,
fundamentally, oral cultures. The scholarly consensus is that the
Synoptic Gospels were written near or before 70 A.D. This is also
true of the Pauline corpus. It would take some years before they
would become authoritative and, as a result of this, canonical.
Yet, even before St. Paul put in writing 'that which [he had] received'
(cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-24), the shape of the Liturgy already existed.
For now, we will refer to this tradition as the liturgical tradition.
The evidence also warrants the following conclusion: this liturgical
tradition existed independently from, yet shared a common origin
with, the oral tradition from which the New Testament evolved. That
it was held in the highest esteem is proven by the fact that the
four-action shape of the Liturgy was not affected by the Gospels
or First Corinthians. Apparently, the Church had very grave reasons
to hold to the shape even if it meant ignoring the New Testament
in this one point. Let us also remember that the first written hint
of the New Testament having an effect on the prayers of the Liturgy
is found in the letters of St. Ignatius.17 By that time, the Church
had been celebrating the chabûrah of the Lord for about 80
years. Again, in a culture such as the Jewish one, where oral tradition
was held in the highest esteem, the staying power of the shape is
not unexpected. What is unexpected and relevant to the Sola Scriptura
controversy is that it had such an authority, such a binding power
over and beyond the New Testament through subsequent generations
of Christians, most of them not even Jewish. The Liturgy As Foundational,
Binding Tradition Once again, Dix seems to say it best: 'It is important
for the understanding of the whole future history of the Liturgy
to grasp the fact that the Eucharistic worship from the outset was
not based on Scripture at all, Old or New Testament, but solely
on tradition. The authority for its celebration was the historical
tradition that it had been instituted by Jesus, cited incidentally
by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, and attested in the second Christian generation
by the written Gospels.'18 Thus, the Liturgy is: • An oral tradition,
originating with Jesus Himself; • Parallel to the traditions that
originated the New Testament; • Handed down, as it were, in the
very act of its celebration; • Handed down from one generation of
Christians to the next by those who participate in it in different
capacities. We can then speak of the Liturgical tradition as a foundational
tradition, as one of the traditions that established the Church
as a chabûrah of the Lord, as a community of Thanksgiving,
and as something upon which the subsequent doctrinal and disciplinary
structure of the Church was to be built. For Christians, a foundational
tradition is a binding tradition. The concept of binding was one
that the Apostles and the first Jewish-Christian generation were
familiar with. The celebrated verses in Matthew 16, for example,
use the terms binding and loosing, no doubt, because its intended
recipients, converts from Judaism, were familiar with the terminology.
To bind is, in fact, a legal term often used by the rabbis to define
who belongs to the Elect (i.e. Israel) and who does not. What is
bound is the believer’s conscience, who must respond in love and
obedience to the authority of the God who reveals Himself. The Liturgical
tradition, being foundational and binding, is then considered holy.
It is holy on account of its founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself.
The very fact that the liturgical tradition is foundational makes
it holy. It is holy on account of its purpose, which is to define
the identity of the Christian Church against the unbelieving world,
to set the Church apart (i.e., to sanctify her, to make her holy)
from the world and for God as His chabûrah.19 The liturgical
tradition is also holy on account of its end, the glorification
of God in the Person of His Anointed Son, whose saving deeds are
made present anew within the worshipping community. It is also within
this community, joined in holy Liturgy, where the hope of His coming
again in glory is preserved. Though we can now speak of the Liturgy
as a holy tradition, we cannot still refer to it as Holy Tradition,
in capital letters, as a proper name. We will refrain from doing
so until we define the Liturgy’s pedagogical character, its relationship
with the New Testament, and its ultimate scope. Once again, we return
to the period before the writing of the New Testament. The Liturgy
as Pedagogical Tradition The Liturgy preserves Apostolic, Christian
teaching that predates the writing of the canonical New Testament
and parallels the foundational, binding, oral traditions that originated
the New Testament. This teaching communicates real, historical knowledge
about the Person, the deeds, and the teachings of Jesus. What is
this teaching? The teaching is the kerygma: the proclamation of
Jesus as crucified and risen Lord, who was, is, and is to come;
the teaching and retention of the idea of monotheism, a tenet not
contradicted by the proclamation of Jesus as Lord. Another object
of teaching is about the nature of God and the anamnesis (a memorial
in the sense of re-actualization) of His saving deeds contained
in the berakah, the Jewish prayer of thanksgiving. This prayer will
retain its basic structure in the Christian Liturgies. It becomes
now a prayer to the Father of Jesus, 'King of All Creation.' But
most important for our inquiry is the fact that the Liturgy probably
served as the crucible for the New Testament’s formation, its trigger
and preserver. The Liturgical Tradition and the Formation of the
New Testament20 As the Church developed from the day of Pentecost,
so did her public worship. The Church borrowed many things from
Judaism: the usage of reading from the Scriptures and singing of
psalms being one of many. This carryover became the Synaxis (Gr.
meeting). The Synaxis became fixed in Christian worship in the decade
after the Passion.21 The Christian Synaxis had its own unchanging
outline everywhere. It is as follows: (1) Opening greeting by the
officiant, and the reply of the Church; (2) Lesson; (3) Psalmody;
(4) Lesson (or Lessons, separated by psalmody); (5) Dismissal of
those who did not belong to the Church; (6) Prayers; (7) Dismissal
of the Church.22 The Lessons, or readings, were at first from the
Old Testament, as this was the immediate Jewish custom that the
first generations of Christians gave to the Church. It is within
this context of worship that the words and deeds of Jesus were first
remembered. First, quite informally, the Apostles or the surviving
witnesses would relate the words of Jesus, his sayings, his actions,
or the main events in the life of the Savior. This possibly took
place after the reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, to which the
given pre-Gospel narrative would be related in some way. The faithful
remembered these words with varied degrees of clarity. Other hearers
would take notes of these extemporaneous, kerygmatic narratives,
centered on the words and deeds of Christ. As the Apostles and the
first Christian generation started to pass on, the attempts to preserve
the Memories of the Apostles became more and more formal, culminating
in the writing of the canonical New Testament. Clues to this scenario
can be found in the New Testament itself. The Gospel according to
St. Mark, for example, preserves the simplicity and the directness
of something that was primarily proclaimed orally, rather than in
a written form. We can also find another clue in the existence of
hymns in the New Testament, which were later adapted to support
points of doctrine. We can see those hymns in the first chapter
of the Gospel according to St. John, for example, or in the letter
of St. Paul to the Philippians 2:5-11. These hymns (and there are
others) were more than likely composed by now unknown believers
and then sung in the early Christian Liturgies. They were significant
enough in doctrinal content to be included in the New Testament.
Thus, the Liturgy had a direct impact on the formation of the New
Testament. First, the Eucharist, the Christian chabûrah, preserved
the knowledge, nay, the experience of the risen Lord as Messiah
and Savior sent by the Father; now it fostered the thirst of the
community for more knowledge about the Messiah. The Liturgy, then,
attracted the foundational, binding, and oral traditions that were
later collated and redacted into the canonical Gospels. As this
relationship developed, these traditions influenced the evolution
of the Liturgy more and more. These traditions gave the Liturgy
new modes of expression, prayer, and song. The pre-Gospel oral traditions
received from the Liturgy their legitimacy, format, and focus. Once
this mutual relationship started, it never stopped. The Christian
Scriptures received their constitution from the independent, foundational,
and binding liturgical tradition. They formed a continuum, a unity.
They both disclose, in exactly the same way, the God revealed in
Jesus Christ. Each of the liturgical and the Gospel traditions only
becomes intelligible with the help of the other. Together they form
the rule of faith, the Holy Tradition of the Church, as Orthodox
Christianity understands it. Holy Tradition Defined We can now attempt
to compose a definition of Holy Tradition: Holy Tradition is the
totality of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus Christ, granted through
the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and preserved by the Holy Spirit for
the benefit of the worshipping, liturgizing Church, which is given
for the purpose of revealing to that very same Church God’s hidden
designs regarding the salvation and sanctification of the human
race. The above definition enjoys the following advantages: • It
sets the origin of Holy Tradition in God Himself. We have seen that
the Old Testament, the holy traditions that became the New Testament,
and the Liturgy all originate in the Person of the Logos, be that
in His eternal existence with the Father, or during His earthly
ministry; • It is set in God’s disclosure in Jesus Christ; it is
Christian Holy Tradition; • It is preserved by the Holy Spirit,
not only in its outer form, but also in its inner interpretation,
be it of the Bible, or of the Divine Liturgy; • It is given to the
Church, and to that Church that maintains the Apostolic rule of
worship; it is given to a Church that offers the Divine Liturgy.
Other Christian bodies which do not liturgize lack the Holy Tradition.
It is also within the liturgical context where the Word (to quote
Luther) is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered.
Finally, this aspect of the definition sets forth the constitution
of the Church as the Body of Christ, bound by the mysteries of God’s
revelation, the Eucharist, and the Apostolic Preaching. It sets
the Church of Jesus Christ apart from rival claimants; • It is given
for the salvation of the Church, which is granted within the Liturgical
Church. Those who are in the Church are granted the full knowledge
and benefit of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ for the sanctification
and salvation of their souls. Holy Tradition as Doctrine Dr. Jaroslav
Pelikan defined doctrine as that which is believed, taught, and
confessed.23 For this definition to be complete, from the Orthodox
Christian perspective, we need to again recall the ancient standard
of belief: Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law (rule, or standard)
of prayer is the law (rule, or standard) of belief. How and when
did they pray as a Church? They did so in the Liturgy. What is believed
is then taught. What is taught is then confessed by the Church.
Where do we find this confession? We find it primarily in the Divine
Liturgy, where the primitive confession first took its shape and
found its earliest expression. We find it in the New Testament,
the first inspired, written confession of the Church. Finally, we
find it in the more formal declarations of faith that we call creeds.
The Orthodox approach to doctrine is holistic. By maintaining the
liturgical context within which Christian revelation first came
to be, Orthodox doctrine is more organic, more attuned, to the entire
continuum of Christian revelation.24 Because it encompasses the
rule of prayer as the rule of belief, and the sources or instruments
of Revelation within itself, together with proper exegesis and interpretation
of the Bible, Holy Tradition is the source of doctrine for the Orthodox
Church. What, then, of Sola Scriptura? The Protestant failure to
establish, reform, or restore the ancient standard of Christian
worship stands as a symbol of the failure of Sola Scriptura. The
Bible alone was not sufficient for the Reformers to reestablish
the ancient understanding and shape of the Liturgy and the Eucharist.
They only succeeded on rehashing the medieval Latin rite in accordance
to their notion of Scriptural warrant. Conventional wisdom suggests
that the Protestant preference for Sola Scriptura preceded and justified
the rejection of anything smacking of Catholic forms of worship.
This is especially true of Reformed Protestantism in its multiple
manifestations. Perhaps we have placed the cart before the horse
here. Protestantism’s birth was due, in part, to a reaction to medieval
abuses that have crept into the Latin rite and deformed it, obscuring
its underlying, original shape. The tenet of Sola Scriptura is the
only logical remnant of Apostolic teaching after the rejection of
the historical Liturgy in all of its forms. Once Reformed Protestantism
rejected the revelational and salvific value of the Divine Liturgy,
it became necessary to hold on to, and further develop, the notion
of Sola Scriptura. There was no other alternative. Conclusion Sympathetic
as we might be to the Protestant quandary, and to its underlying
causes, we need to understand the inadequacy of the Bible being
the only and sufficient source for Christian faith and morals and
the sole container of Divine Revelation, especially in the light
of the evidence presented above. The Protestant believer needs to
face the Orthodox challenge to Sola Scriptura, a challenge which
forms the basis for our conclusion: The existence and divine origin
of the Liturgy or Eucharist, specifically, of its shape, and of
its role in creating, forging the belief, teaching, and the confession
of Christian doctrine obviates the need for the Protestant tenet
of Sola Scriptura. It is not Scripture Alone, but Holy Tradition,
in its all encompassing nature, that forms the basis of Christian
doctrine. Protestantism has failed in its mission of reforming the
Church to its original intent through its ignorance and failure
to understand the Eucharistic nature of the Church and the Liturgical
context of Christian Revelation. This failure is the fatal flaw
of Protestantism. Notes 1. Dom Gregory Dix was a British Anglican
Benedictine. Vital dates unavailable. 1901 -1952 2. Dix, The Shape
of the Liturgy, p. 1. 3. Dix, 10. 4. This author does not deny the
Jewishness of the bread-breaking ritual itself. However, the Breaking
of the Bread was, by Luke’s time, already a Christian action, a
uniquely Christian function (cf. Jerome Biblical Commentary, 45:24).
John Calvin himself understood it as a uniquely Christian function,
too. He refers to it as the breaking of the mystical bread in his
discussion on the fourth commandment (cf. Institutio, 2.8.32). 5.
The Rev. Canon C.P.M. Jones, was, at the time of the writing of
this article, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford University (cf. Jones
et al, eds, The Study of Liturgy, New York: Oxford University Press,
1978, 'The New Testament,' p. 150). 6. Staniforth et al, Early Christian
Writings, p. 103. 7. Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early
Fathers, vol. 1, p. 25. 8. Dix, p.157. 9. Jurgens, vol. 1, p.347.
10. Dix, p.48. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., p.50. 13. Ibid. Dix quotes another
work by Dr. W.O.E. Oesterly, Jewish Background of the Christian
Liturgy, as his authority to assert the Johannine priority upon
the development of the Liturgy. Dix is also aware of the (for him)
recent challenges to that Johannine priority. The Reverend R. T.
Beckwith, in his article for The Study of Liturgy ('The Jewish Background
to Christian Worship,' p. 48) takes the opposite view: Jesus and
His disciples took part of a Passover meal as the Synoptic Gospels
seem to tell us. Both authors agree that the Jewish prayers contained
in the Talmud (Jer. Berakoth 7.2; Bab. Berakoth 48b) form the model
of the Christian Eucharistic prayer. The Orthodox Church has traditionally
held the Johannine priority. It also sees confirmation of the fact
that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal because of the use
in all the New Testament sources of the word artoz (leavened bread)
to designate the bread that Our Lord took and broke, and not axumoz
(unleavened bread), which is essential in the Jewish Passover rite.
14. This is not to deny the Paschal character of the Lord’s Last
Supper. After all, the New Testament belabors the connection between
the Lord’s death as 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of
the world' and the institution of the New Covenant with the Paschal
Lamb and the institution of the Old. Our purpose is to categorize
the type of meal that the Last Supper was, not to deny its obvious
antitypical significance. 15. Dix, 78. I disagree with Dix when
he states that the breaking of the bread had no symbolic meaning
in the Last Supper, just as it does not during the chabûrah
meal. The Lord was quite free to invest the elements of the ritual
with new meaning, and He, in fact, did so with the main purpose
of the meal. 16. F.F. Bruce. The Canon of Scripture, p. 118. Bruce
is known worldwide as the dean of evangelical biblical scholars
(from the inside cover of his book). 17. It is also significant
that these letters also offer the first written testimony of the
knowledge of, and the extent of, the fledgling New Testament in
the post-Apostolic Church. 18. Dix, 2. Emphasis mine. 19. 'Set apart'
is the primitive meaning of the verb sanctify or make holy. 20.
The following scenario is based upon what we know of the development
of the pre-Gospel oral traditions as determined by form criticism.
21. Dix, 36. 22. Dix, 38. The transition to the Eucharist proper
developed later. 23. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition:
A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1: The Emergence
of the Catholic Tradition, p.3. 24. Orthodoxy avoids drawing any
doctrine solely from one individual source, be that the Bible alone,
or the magisterium as the regula próxima fidei. Works Cited
Beckwith, R.T. The Jewish Background to Christian Worship. The Study
of Liturgy. Ed. Cheslyn Jones et al. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1978. Brown, Raymond E., et al. The Jerome Biblical Commentary.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1968. Bruce, F.F. The
Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
1988. Calvin, John. Ed. John T. McNeill. 'How far does the Fourth
Commandment go beyond external regulation?' Institutes of the Christian
Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. 2 vols. Dix,
Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press, 1945. Jones,
C.P.M. The New Testament. The Study of Liturgy. Ed. Cheslyn Jones
et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Jurgens, William
A. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Collegeville, Minnesota: The
Liturgical Press, 1970. 3 vols. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian
Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol.1. The
Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press, 1971. Staniforth, Maxwell, and Andrew Louth. 'The
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.' Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic
Fathers. Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1968, 1987.
|
Subject: How the Early Church Saw Itself
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:01:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
For those rare and admirable individuals who actually read about
religions other than their own. Enjoy! The Structure and Worship
of the Early Church By Clark Carlton
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of
Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are
all partakers of that one bread (1 Cor. 10:16-17). The reason why
different denominations, with very different forms of church government,
can all claim to be based on the 'New Testament model' is that the
New Testament is not very specific about how the Church is to be
organized or how services are to be conducted. It would be a grave
mistake, however, to infer from this that the early Church had no
definite structure or patterns of worship. The New Testament does
not give a detailed plan of Church government, because the Church
already existed when the books of the New Testament were written.
As we pointed out above, the epistles were not written to be an
'owner's manual.' Because of this, if we want to know more about
the early Church, we must look beyond the pages of the Scriptures
to the earliest documents of the post-apostolic Church. This is
not to suggest that these other documents are more important-or
even as important-as the Divine Scriptures; they certainly are not.
Their importance lies in the fact that they tell us how the earliest
Christians interpreted the Bible and applied those interpretations
to their lives. In doing so, they answer many of the questions that
modern Protestants have about Church life. In Chapter Five, we examined
how the description of Baptism in the Didache shed light on the
biblical passages relating to the practice of Baptism. Let us now
turn our attention to a more systematic study of life in the early
Church, focusing in particular on Church government and worship.
In addition to the Didache, four other documents from the first
two centuries help us understand how the early Church was organized
and how She worshipped: I Clement , the Letters of St. Ignatios
of Antioch, the Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher, and Against
Heresies by St. Irenaios of Lyons. To be sure, we have many other
documents from the second century, but these contain the most specific
information about Church life. I Clement is a letter that was sent
from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth around A.D. 95-96.
Although St. Clement is not mentioned by name in the letter, early
tradition is unanimous in assigning it to Clement. There is now
no serious scholarly challenge to this attribution. St. Irenaios
of Lyons, writing in the latter half of the second century, tells
us that Clement was the third bishop of Rome and that he personally
knew Ss. Peter and Paul. He has also been connected with the Clement
mentioned in Phil. 4:3. This letter, therefore, stands as a bridge
between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages.1 Around A.D. 107,
St. Ignatios, the bishop of Antioch, was sent, under arrest, to
Rome for execution. During his sojourn, he wrote letters to several
Churches. Seven of those letters are extant. They provide an invaluable
insight into Church life at the beginning of the second century.
2 The Apologies of St. Justin the Philosopher are somewhat unique
in that they are addressed not to fellow Christians, but to the
pagan emperor. Dating from the middle of the second century, their
value for our purpose lies in the fact that Justin describes Church
life to the emperor in order to dispel various myths that were circulating
through the Roman world. I Clement and the Letters of Ignatios are
similar to the epistles of the New Testament in that they are occasional
letters. Justin, however, describes in some detail things that these
letters only hint at. 3 One could say that St. Irenaios is the theologian
par excellence of the second century. His Against Heresies is a
gold mine of information. This work dates from the second half of
the second century. Though he is known as the bishop of Lyons in
Gaul (France), he was originally from Asia Minor and knew St. Polycarp
of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Thus,
Irenaios was a spiritual grand-child of the Apostles. 4 From these
documents we learn that the Church of the first two centuries had
a definite governing structure, consisting of four principle offices:
the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the laity. The Church
worshipped according to a pattern based upon types set forth in
the Old Testament. Furthermore, both Church government and worship
were firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Incarnation‹that is, in
the belief that God had truly become man so that man might be able
to truly share in the life of God. What is most important about
this, however, is the way in which all of these elements of Church
life were integrated with one another, forming a seamless whole.
As we shall see below, episcopal government is tied directly to
the nature of the Church as a Eucharistic community. At the same
time, the Eucharist is the ultimate manifestation of the Church's
belief that Her life is nothing less than life in Christ: He that
eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in
him (John 6:56). Bishops and Presbyters In the New Testament, the
terms bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. 5 This is evident
from the following passage from Titus: For this cause left I thee
in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting,
and ordain elders [ lit. presbyters] in every city, as I had appointed
thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful
children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless,
as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given
to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre (Titus 1:5-7). We
can quote many similar passages from the literature of the early
Church where these terms are also used interchangeably: Our Apostles
also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife
over the title of bishop. For this reason, therefore, since they
had perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforementioned persons
and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep,
other approved men should succeed to their ministry.... For it will
be no trivial sin on our part if we depose from the bishop's office
those who have in a blameless and holy manner offered the gifts.
Happy the presbyters who have gone on their way before this, for
they obtained a ripe and fruitful departure; since they need not
fear that anyone should remove them from their appointed place (I
Clement 44 ), 6 But when on our side we challenge them [that is,
the Gnostics] by an appeal to that tradition which derives from
the Apostles, and which is preserved in the churches by the successions
of the presbyters, then they oppose tradition claiming to be wiser
not only than the presbyters but even than the Apostles, and to
have discovered the truth undefiled.... This tradition the church
has from the Apostles, and this faith has been proclaimed to all
men, and has come down to our own day through the successions of
bishops (Against Heresies III:2:2; III:3:2). There is one writer
from the second century, however, who did not employ bishop and
presbyter as interchangeable terms: St. Ignatios of Antioch. In
his Letters, St. Ignatios makes it clear that in a given local Church,
there is one bishop, a council of presbyters, and the deacons: All
of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and
the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance
of God (Smyrnaeans 8 ). It is commonly asserted by Protestant scholars
that St. Ignatios' view of Church government was unusual in the
early Church - even revolutionary. Indeed, the authenticity of the
Ignatian Letters was hotly contested by many Protestants, based
upon their a priori conviction that the episcopal form of Church
government was impossible in the first decade of the second century.
7 Today, however, there is little doubt among scholars as to the
genuineness of the seven Letters in the current collection. It cannot
be denied that St. Ignatios' clearly defined use of bishop and presbyter
is highly unusual for this point in Church history. Nor can it be
denied that he places a much greater emphasis on the role of bishop
than do the other authors we are considering. However, this does
not mean that the actual Church structure he describes was unique
to Antioch. On the contrary, an examination of the other documents
under consideration will demonstrate that they evince a similar
understanding of Church government. 8 Although St. Clement uses
bishop and presbyter interchangeably, there is considerable evidence
that he has in mind the same kind of Church structure as described
by St. Ignatios. This letter was occasioned by dissent within the
Corinthian Church. In particular, there was a revolt against the
current presbytery. In arguing that the Corinthians should submit
to their appointed leaders, St. Clement speaks of the proper order
in the Church in terms of the Old Testament ministers of the altar:
Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into
the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all
things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times.
He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it
should not be thoughtless or disorderly, but at fixed times and
hours. He has himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons
whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things
may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable
to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed
seasons are acceptable and blessed, for they follow the laws of
the Master and do no sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations
are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed,
and on the Levites their proper services have been imposed. The
layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. Here, St. Clement
is describing the proper order of the Church, but he does so using
the imagery of the Old Testament. The high priest represents the
bishop. 9 The priests represent the presbytery, and the Levites
represent the deacons. Notice also that St. Clement specifically
mentions the role of the laity. Thus, for St. Clement, the Church
has a four-fold structure: bishop, presbyters, deacons, and laity.
Notice also that St. Clement uses specifically cultic imagery. That
is, the structure of the Church is presented within the framework
of Israel as a worshipping community. In other words, the structure
of the Church is directly related to the way She worships God. This
point is of the utmost importance, and we shall return to it below.
In Against Heresies, St. Irenaios uses the succession of bishops
in the various local Churches as an argument against the Gnostics'
claims to have special knowledge handed down secretly from the Apostles.
As we saw above, St. Irenaios speaks of the succession of both presbyters
and bishops. However, when he gets around to actually listing the
succession of bishops for a particular Church-he uses Rome as his
example-he gives a single line of succession. That is, he describes
one bishop succeeding another. There is no suggestion of multiple
successions. Indeed, it is Irenaios who formally identifies St.
Clement as the author of the letter from the Church of Rome to the
Corinthians: The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built
up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the
episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to
Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third
place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This
man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant
with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still
echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor
was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received
instructions form the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no
small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth,
the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians
. . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed
Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed;
after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus,
after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sotor having succeeded
Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles,
hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this
succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and
the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most
abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which
has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and
handed down in truth (III.3.3). From the foregoing it is evident
that while the terminology regarding the offices of bishop and presbyter
remained somewhat fluid in the first and second centuries, the offices
themselves were not interchangeable. Ss. Clement and Irenaios, like
St. Ignatios, know of only one bishop in a church at a time. The
key to understanding this is provided by St. Justin the Philosopher
in his First Apology. In describing the Eucharistic celebration
to the emperor he writes: And on the day which is called the Sun's
Day there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or country;
and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets
are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished,
the president gives a discourse, admonishing us and exhorting us
to imitate these excellent examples. Then we all rise together and
offer prayers; and, as I said above, on the conclusion of our prayer,
bread is brought and wine and water; and the president similarly
offers up prayers and thanksgivings [Lit. eucharists] to the best
of his power, and the people assent with Amen. Notice that he describes
the leader of the Church's worship as the president.l0 This is extremely
important. Obviously an assembly can have only one president. Regardless
of how many presbyters may have been present, only one of them could
have presided.ll Notice also that this passage deals specifically
with the celebration of the Eucharist. Remember that St. Clement
treated the topic of Church government within the framework of the
Church's worship. The Church is first and foremost a worshipping
community, gathered around the Table of Her Lord. Thus, it is precisely
the Eucharistic nature of the Church that defines the structure
of the Church's ministry. John Meyendorff writes: It was in the
eucharistic meal and through it that the Church was truly herself,
the Church of God and it is, therefore, within the framework of
the eucharistic assembly, gathered every week on the Lord's Day,
that the internal structure of the Church had to take its shape.
Indeed, if the Eucharist was a reenactment of the Last Supper, someone
had to sit in the place of the Lord and pronounce the words He commanded
His disciples to say. On the other hand, the Eucharist was also
a participation in the forthcoming Messianic banquet of the Kingdom
as it was seen by the author of Revelation: 'a throne stood in heaven,
with One seated on the throne . . . Round the throne were twenty-four
thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders [ presbyteroi]
. . .(4:2,4). 12 St. Ignatios also speaks of the place of the bishop
in the Church in terms of the Eucharist: Take great care to keep
one Eucharist. For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and
one cup to unite us by His Blood; one sanctuary, as there is one
bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow-servants.
Thus all your acts may be done accordingly to God's will ( Philadelphians
4 ). Let no one do anything that pertains to the Church apart from
the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under
the bishop or one whom he has delegated. Wherever the bishop shall
appear, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ may
be, there is the catholic Church (Smyrnaeans 8). 13 From the writings
of the early Church Fathers such as St. Clement, St. Ignatios, St.
Justin, and St. Irenaios, it is evident that the governing structure
of the early Church was directly related to Her nature as a Eucharistic
community. The Church is most truly Herself when She is gathered
around the Table of Her Lord. It is in this most self-expressive
of liturgical acts that the various ministries of the Church are
delineated. The New Israel Christianity did not spring from a vacuum.
Jesus Christ did not found a new religion. The first Christians
were Jews, and from the very beginning, they viewed the Church as
the New Israel. There is no question that Judaism is a liturgical
religion. Most Protestants, however, fail to make this liturgical
connection between the Old and New Israels. Within the New Testament
there is evidence that the Apostles continued to observe Jewish
liturgical practices. 14 Perhaps even more significant, however,
is the fact that the literature we have been examining, written
by Gentiles long after the Christians had been expelled from the
synagogue, also testifies to the fact that Christian worship was
based on Jewish patterns. In the first century, Jews prayed at set
times of the day and fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. The Didache
enjoins Christians to fast and pray, but in a way that differentiates
them from the Jews: Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites,15
for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays
and Fridays. l6 And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord
commanded in His Gospel, pray in this way, 'Our Father . . .' Pray
thus three times a day. The important thing to notice about this
passage is that although the early Christians were eager to disassociate
themselves from the Jews, they nevertheless saw their life and worship
in terms of Jewish liturgical practice. Concerning the Eucharist
we read: On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread
and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your
offering may be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with his
fellow man join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your
sacrifice not be defiled. For this is that which was spoken of by
the Lord, In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for
I am a great King, saith the Lord, and My name is wonderful among
the heathen . 17 Notice that the Eucharist is considered an 'offering'
and a 'sacrifice.' These non-Jewish Christians understood their
worship as a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Their
interpretation is confirmed by the fact that, according to the Law
of Moses, sacrifices were to be offered only in the tabernacle or
in the temple in Jerusalem, and only by the Aaronic priesthood.
Only in the Christian Church-the New Israel-is it possible to offer
a pure sacrifice in every place. St. Clement also speaks of Christian
worship in terms of its Old Testament prototype. He warns the Corinthians
that they must not revolt against their appointed leaders, for only
those appointed by God are able to offer the sacrifice of the altar.
There can be only one Church, and one offering: Not in every place,
my brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered or the free will offerings,
or the sin offerings and trespass-offerings, but only in Jerusalem.
There also the offering is not made in every place, but before the
shrine, at the altar, and the offering is first inspected by the
high priest and the ministers already mentioned. 18 Those therefore
who do anything contrary to that which is agreeable to His will
suffer the penalty of death. 19 You see, brethren, that the more
knowledge we have been entrusted with, the greater risk do we incur
. It should be stressed at this point that these Christians were
not practicing Jewish rituals. Indeed, St. Ignatios goes so far
as to say, 'It is monstrous to speak of Jesus Christ and to practice
Judaism' (Magnesians 10:3). They were practicing Christian worship,
but their worship patterns were based on Jewish patterns. 20 St.
Irenaios of Lyons makes this perfectly clear. He too interprets
Malachi 1:10-11 as a prophecy of Christian worship: And He also
counseled His Disciples to offer to God the firstfruits of His creatures,
not because He needed these gifts, but so that they should not be
unfruitful nor unthankful. This He did, when He took bread, of the
natural creation, and gave thanks, and said, This is My Body. Likewise
the cup of wine belonging to the creation of which we are part,
He declared to be His Blood, and explained as the new oblation of
the New Testament. This oblation the Church receives from the Apostles
and throughout the whole world She offers it to God, Who supplies
as our nourishment the firstfruits of His gifts in the New Testament.
Concerning this, Malachi thus prophesied: I will not receive sacrifice
at your hands. . . . In every place incense is offered in My name,
and a pure sacrifice; for My name is great among the gentiles. .
. . By this he quite clearly means that the former people will cease
to offer to God, but in every place a sacrifice will be offered,
and that a pure sacrifice while His name is glorified among the
gentiles (IV:17:4). Speaking specifically about the difference between
Christian and Jewish worship, St. Irenaios states: There are oblations
there and oblations here; sacrifices among the chosen People, sacrifices
in the Church. Only the kind of sacrifice is changed, for now sacrifice
is offered not by servants but by sons. There is one and the same
Lord; but there is a character appropriate to servile oblation,
and a character appropriate to the oblation of sons, so that even
by means of the oblations a token of liberty is displayed (IV:18:2).
A college New Testament professor of mine once outlined the order
of service for a Jewish synagogue of the first century for our class.
He then drew direct comparisons between the synagogue service and
a typical Baptist service. We were all rather impressed by the fact
that our worship practices had their roots in Jewish worship. Far
more important, however, than what we learned in class that day
was what we did not learn. Our professor neglected to inform us
that this basic pattern is that of the liturgy of the Word, which
is common to most Christian traditions. In his Apology, St. Justin
describes the Sunday service in the second century as having two
basic parts. In the first part the Scriptures are read and explained
in the sermon, and in the second part the Eucharist is offered.
The liturgy of the Word, not unlike the typical Baptist service,
is indeed patterned after synagogue services. However, the Sunday
service in St. Justin's day - and today in the Orthodox Church -
did not end with the liturgy of the Word. We must remember that,
strictly speaking, the worship of Israel did not take place in the
synagogues. The synagogue derives from the period of exile in Babylon.
There is no provision for the synagogue in the Law of Moses. 21
Indeed, as we saw above, the only place where Israel was authorized
to offer sacrifice was in the temple in Jerusalem. The documents
we are considering testify to the fact that the early Christians
saw their worship precisely in terms of sacrifice. As an Evangelical,
however, I was taught that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross
put an end to all sacrifice. How, then, do we reconcile the undeniable
practice of the early Church with the uniqueness and finality of
Christ's work? The Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ When St. John
the Baptist first encountered Christ, he exclaimed, Behold the Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This
theme is echoed in the Book of Revelation. John beholds a Lamb upon
the throne as the angels and elders sing, Worthy is the Lamb that
was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,
and honour, and glory, and blessing (Rev. 5:12). St. Paul writes
that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). In Hebrews
we read: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
But this Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever,
sat down on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting till
His enemies be made His footstool(10:11-13). Jesus Christ is, therefore,
our Passover Lamb, slain for the salvation of the world. 22 Moreover,
His Sacrifice is perfect and can never be repeated. There can be
no doubt that the Crucifixion of Christ is the apex of all human
history. There is a tendency in Protestantism, however, to limit
the Cross of Christ to a point in history. That the Sacrifice of
Christ cannot be repeated is taken to mean that it can only be remembered
as a past event. Thus, the Lord's Supper is a 'memorial' -an act
of psychological remembrance. 23 This is manifestly not how the
early Church saw things. To begin with, the Greek word for remembrance-This
do in remembrance of Me (1 Cor. 11:24)‹has an active connotation.
24 It involves more than the mere psychological act of remembering.
It implies the representation of the event remembered: When the
Church is conceived to be the Temple of God and its members living
stones and a holy priesthood, then the eucharist becomes a sacrificial
meal -sacrificial in the sense that it is the means of entering
into and sharing Christ's sacrifice. This is implicit in the words
'Do this in remembrance of me,' although the translation 'remembrance'
does less than justice to the underlying idea. 'Remembrance' implies
the mental recollection of what is absent, but in the biblical perspective
the word has rather the sense of re-calling, of making what is past
present again so that it becomes operative by its effects here and
now. The offering of the eucharist in the Church, therefore, is
identified with the offering of Christ, not in the sense that his
sacrifice is repeated, but that the eucharistic offering is the
re-calling or re-presentation of his perfect oblation so that the
sacrifice is present and operative by its effects. 25 Thus, the
Eucharist is an active participation, here and now, in the unique
and unrepeatable Sacrifice offered by Christ on Golgotha. It is
not merely an act of reminiscence, but an act of genuine Communion
with Christ: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread,
and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread (1 Cor.
10:16-17). In his Letters, St. Ignatios takes great pains to counter
the claims of the Docetists, who maintained that the Word of God
had taken flesh in appearance only, not in reality. These people,
seeing themselves as more spiritual than the rest of the Church,
absented themselves from the worship of the Church. What is most
interesting, however is the reason why they did not participate
in the Eucharist: They abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because
they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior
Jesus Christ, Who suffered for our sins, Whom the Father raised
up by His goodness (Smyrnaeans 7). In the early Church, the only
people who denied that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood
of Christ were those who also denied that the Word had truly become
man. There is, in the eyes of the Fathers of the early Church, a
direct and unbreakable correlation between the doctrine of the Incarnation
and the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist. To deny one is to
deny the other. Writing to the emperor of Rome, St. Justin also
makes an explicit connection between the Eucharist and the Incarnation.
Just as the Word of God became man in the Incarnation, even so the
bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:
And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed
to partake but the one who believes that the things that we preach
are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the
remission of sins and unto regeneration,26 and who is living as
Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do
we receive these, but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior,
having been made flesh by the Word of God, and took flesh and blood
for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food
over which thanksgiving has been offered by the prayer of His Word,
and from which our blood and flesh are nourished through its transformation,
is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh. . St. Irenaios
is even more specific about the relationship of the Eucharist to
the Incarnation. His primary target in Against Heresies is Gnosticism.
Among other things, the Gnostics taught that the God of the Old
Testament and the God of Christ were two different Gods. Furthermore,
they explicitly disdained creation, asserting that matter is not
capable of being a true vehicle for the spirit. Irenaios, therefore,
goes to great pains to affirm both the inherent goodness of God's
creation and the reality of the Incarnation: We are His members,
and are nourished by means of His creation, and He Himself provides
His creation for us, making the sun to rise and sending rain as
He wills (Mat. 5:45). Therefore, the drink, which is part of His
creation, He declared to be His own Blood; and by this He enriches
our blood. And the bread, which comes from His creation, He affirmed
to be His own Body; and by this He nourishes our bodies. Whenever,
then, the cup that man mixes and the bread that man makes receive
the Word of God, the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ and by
these elements the substance of our flesh receives nourishment and
sustenance. How, then, can they allege that flesh is incapable of
the gift of God, which is eternal life, seeing that the flesh is
fed on the Flesh and Blood of the Lord and is a member of Him (V:2:3)?
We saw that earlier in the second century the Docetists whom St.
Ignatios opposed absented themselves from the Eucharist because
they did not believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. They
may have been heretics, but at least they were consistent. According
to Irenaios, the Gnostics were not consistent. They called creation
evil and denied that Christ had truly suffered and died, yet apparently
they continued to participate in the Church's worship. Irenaios
was quick to point out the discrepancy between their theology and
their practice: Again, how can they say that flesh passes to corruption
and does not share in life, seeing that flesh is nourished by the
Body and Blood of the Lord? Let them either change their opinion,
or refrain from making those oblations of which we have been speaking.
But our opinion is in conformity with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist
confirms our opinion. We offer to Him what is His own, suitably
proclaiming the communion and unity of flesh and spirit. For as
the bread, which comes from the earth, receives the invocation of
God, and then it is no longer common bread but Eucharist, consists
of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; so our bodies, after partaking
of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of
the eternal resurrection (IV:18:5). There are two aspects of this
passage that are of crucial importance for our study. First of all,
St. Irenaios states, 'But our opinion is in conformity with the
Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our opinion.' In other words,
his theology is in accord with the worship and life of the Church,
and the worship and life of the Church confirm the truthfulness
of His theology.27 This is another example of how the Fathers of
the early Church appealed to the life of the Church-tradition-in
order to settle theological disputes. Earlier in Against Heresies,
Irenaios actually talks about the relationship between Scripture
and tradition. He says that when the Gnostics are refuted from the
Scriptures, they claim that there is something wrong with the Scriptures.
They then rely on their own tradition, which, they claim, has been
handed down secretly (III:2:1). To this secret tradition, St. Irenaios
opposes the tradition handed down by the Apostles and maintained
publicly by the bishops in the Church. 28 For Irenaios, Apostolic
Succession is not merely a means of insuring valid Church government,
it is also a public guarantee of the authenticity of the Church's
teaching: It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church,
who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition
of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are
in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted
bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men down to
our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
what these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden
mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting privately and
secretly to the 'perfect,' they would have delivered them especially
to those to whom they were entrusting the care of the Church (III:3:1).
It is, no doubt, difficult for Evangelicals to understand why the
Fathers of the Early Church would place so much emphasis upon tradition,
particularly upon worship. We are used to thinking that we do x
because we believe y. It can be somewhat disconcerting, therefore,
to hear someone assert the inverse as well: we believe y because
we do x. Yet, this is precisely what St. Irenaios is saying. This
brings us to the second notable aspect of St. Irenaios' argument:
'. . . so our bodies, after partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer
corruptible, having the hope of the eternal resurrection.' For Irenaios,
as for the other Fathers of the second century, as for Orthodox
Christians today, the Eucharist is genuine Communion with Christ.
It is our participation in His divine humanity. The reason that
St. Irenaios is able to interpret the Scriptures based on the way
He worships in the second century is because that which is described
in the Bible is experienced first-hand in the life of the Church.
The Scriptures testify to Christ; the Church is life in Christ.
St. Ignatios writes to the Church in Philadelphia: I hear certain
persons saying, 'Unless I find it in the archives I will not believe
it in the Gospel.' And when I replied, 'It is in the Scriptures,'
they answered, 'That remains to be proved.' But as for me, Jesus
Christ is the archives, the inviolable archives are His Cross, Death,
and Resurrection, and faith through Him (Philadelphians 8). Ss.
Ignatios and Irenaios understood that there is little point in arguing
about Scriptural interpretation. They are able to interpret the
Scriptures correctly not because they are smarter than others, but
because in the Church they have true union with Christ. The Church
is not a voluntary assembly of individuals who happen to have common
beliefs about God, She is the mystical Body of Christ, His continuing
presence in the world.29
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- Footnotes 1. For a general
introduction and bibliography, see Quasten, pp. 42-53. Translations
may be found in collections of the Apostolic Fathers. Cf. Ch.5,
n55, above. There is also a translation by J.A. Kleist, The Epistles
of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Ancient Christian Writers,
Vol. 1 (NY: Newman Press, 1946). It is generally accepted that II
Clement is an early sermon by someone other than St. Clement of
Rome. 2. Cf. Quasten, pp. 63-76. For translations see Ch. 5, n55,
and Ch. 9, nl. 3. Cf. Quasten, pp. 196-221. There is a translation
in Vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers, pp. 159-193, and excerpts
may be found in Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, pp. 58-64.
4. Irenaios is also spelled Irenaeus. For background and bibliography
see Quasten, pp. 287-313. We do not possess complete texts of Against
Heresies. There is a translation in Vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers,
pp. 315-578. For excerpts, see Bettenson, pp. 65-102. 5. Most English
translations render presbyter as elder. The KJV and RSV usually
render bishop as bishop, although the KJV does render it as overseer
once (Acts 20:28). The NIV, however, renders it as overseer exclusively,
thereby avoiding using a word that is objectionable to most Evangelicals.
For the use of bishop in the NT (albeit written from a Protestant
perspective), see Hermann Beyer's article on in Gerhard Kittel,
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol. II,
Tr. by Geoffrey W. Bromily (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), especially
pp. 615ff. 6. For St. Clement, the office of bishop derives from
the Apostles. Elsewhere he writes, 'The Apostles received the Gospel
for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from
God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ. In both
cases, the process was orderly and derived from the will of God...
They preached in country and town, and appointed their first-fruits,
after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those
who were going to believe' (42). Thus, the concept of 'Apostolic
Succession,' dates from the first century. 7. For an account of
the history of the interpretation of the Ignatian Letters, see Stephen
Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. 41ff. 8. The only exception
to this is the Didache, which gives very little information about
Church government. The Didache is concerned primarily with the authority
of traveling apostles and teachers and takes an almost apologetic
attitude toward local clergy. This is a point in favor of dating
the Didache in the first century, perhaps as early as A.D. 70. It
is highly unlikely that a second century document would give such
emphasis to traveling teachers. 9. This terminology is still used
in the Orthodox Church. l0. A close relative, is used in the NT
synonymously with Cf. 1 Th. 5:12. 11. It is possible, of course,
that the office of president (ie. bishop) was not held permanently
by any one presbyter, but rotated among them. However, there is
not the slightest bit of evidence to support the idea that this
is how the early Church was actually governed. On the contrary,
all of the documents from this era, from St. Clement's equating
the bishop with the OT high priest to St. Irenaios' list of episcopal
successors, explicitly rule out this idea. 12. Catholicity and the
Church, p. 53. l3. This is the first extant use of catholic as an
adjective modifying the Church. Contrary to popular opinion, catholic
does not primarily mean universal. Literally, it means according
to the whole. Thus, to speak of the Church as being catholic means
that the Church is whole, complete, lacking nothing. 14. Cf. Acts
2:42, 20:16. 15. That is, the Jews. l6. To this day, the Orthodox
Church observes Wednesdays and Fridays as fast days. 17. The quotation
is a conflation of Malachi 1:11,14. 18. At the time this was written
(c. A.D. 96), the temple in Jerusalem had long since been destroyed
by the Romans. It is obvious, therefore, that although St. Clement
is speaking in terms of the OT cultus, he is talking about the Christian
Church. l9. In the OT, Korah and his followers offered incense to
God, contradicting the directives that God had given to Moses. The
ground opened up and swallowed some, while others were burned up
by fire from heaven. Cf. Numbers 16. 20. It has become popular in
some circles for Evangelicals to celebrate the Jewish Passover seder.
This would have been seen by the early Church as an act of apostasy.
Christ, and Christ alone, is the Passover. 2l. The purpose of the
synagogue is primarily educational. Likewise, the purpose of the
liturgy of the Word is to instruct Christians and catechumens in
the faith, so that they might be prepared to participate in the
Eucharist. 22. According to St. John¹s chronology, Saturday
was the Passover. The Passover seder would have been on Friday night.
This means that Christ died as the Passover lamb was being sacrificed.
23. This is the position of those who follow the theology of the
Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. See Ch. 9 below. 24. Cf in TDNT,
1:348-349. 25. J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church: A History
of Its First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1980), p.62. 26. That is, Baptism. 27. What would happen if we pressed
modern Evangelicals to demonstrate the continuity between their
professed theology and the way they worship? If in the early Church
belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist implied the
doctrine of the Incarnation‹that is, that in Christ God had truly
become man, then what would be the logical implication of the Zwinglian
view that the Eucharist is not truly the Body and Blood of Christ?
28. By publicly I mean the tradition that was open and available
to all the baptized members of the Church. This tradition, however,
would not have been made available to those outside the Church.
See the discussion of St. Basil's understanding of tradition in
Ch. 7. The Gnostics claimed to have a tradition that was not public
knowledge within the Church, but was accessible only to a small
spiritual elite. 29. 'lgnatius is no docetist. Christ came in flesh
and we are to 'flee to the gospel as the flesh of Jesus Christ.'
But that historical coming in the flesh is really and timelessly
present in the church now' so that to 'flee to the presbytery' is
to flee to the apostles. The (Greek Word) or eucharistic assembly
represents a reality which entered time and history and is significant
just because it is such. Union with the bishop in union with the
diaconate and presbyterate establishes contact therefore with an
historically grounded reality. Christ is incarnate in the flesh
and as such there will be represented in the church which is the
extension of the incarnation the dual character of flesh and Spirit
of him who is both 'Son of David' and 'Son of God.'' A. Brent, 'Pseudonymity
and Charisma,' Augustinianum 27 (1987), p. 351.
|
Subject: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Christopher
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:12:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
OK, I know I said I posted my last, but I'm almost through reading
the Council of Ephesus. Pilgrim, you said some time ago that my
idea about the council of Jeruslem in Acts being normative for the
Christian Church was 'novel.' I haven't read the first two yet,
but this is from that Third Ecumenical Council in 431: From the
Letter of Pope (a Roman Pope, no less!) Celestine to the Synod of
Ephesus: 'Every council is holy on account of a peculiar veneration
which is its due: for in every such council the reverence which
should be paid to that most famous council
of the Apostles of which we read is to
be had regard to.' Should I go back even further and see how much
less 'novel' this idea becomes? Christopher
|
Subject: Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 21:02:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Christopher,
What I perceive is the irrational
crying out of a drowning man! :-) Of what weight is the personal
opinion of a pagan Pope to a person indwelt with the Spirit of the
living God? Is he in some manner endowed with divine authority to
which I must bow, accepting any and all his ravings? To the contrary,
I have been given two new eyes that see, a mind that is now able
to comprehend the great mysteries of God and a heart which is drawn
to love the truth of God's inerrant and infallible Word (written
and made flesh). I need not listen to the dribble of Popes, 'holy
Fathers' or Orthodox traditions, nay ANY man, for God has spoken
in these last days by His SON... 'hear ye Him!'
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 21:07:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I addressed only your charge of 'novelty.' Nothing
else. Christopher
|
Subject: Re: 'novelty' of concillar authority
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 07:38:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I addressed only your charge of 'novelty.' Nothing
else. Christopher
---
Christopher, And I addressed that
point above quite tersely, in case you didn't notice! It is a 'novelty'
indeed since the true church has never adhered to it and it has
been embraced by 'novel' folk as you have so conveniently pointed
out by quoting this pagan Pope! :-) I'm always appreciative of those
who help, even if was unintentional on your part! hehe Pilgrim
|
Subject: Double Predestination
From: Sunshine
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:19:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Try again! It seems I put my 'name' in the wrong place! (Who wants
to call themselves 'various' anyway??) Well, if anyone can tell
me what 'double predestination' means, I'd be grateful. Thanks again!
|
Subject: Re: Double Predestination
From: monitor
To: Sunshine
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:27:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Try again! It seems I put my 'name' in the wrong place! (Who wants
to call themselves 'various' anyway??) Well, if anyone can tell
me what 'double predestination' means, I'd be grateful. Thanks again!
---
Here you go, 'Various'! haha! Double Jeopardy www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/DoublePestination_Sproul.html
|
Subject: God's 'mistake'
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 06:16:16 (PST)
Email Address: na
Message:
I was catching up on the postings since I last felt
like dropping in and read twice statements that God only intended
hell to be for the 'devil and his angels,' falsely interpreted to
mean that men were never intended to be sent there. That interpretation
demands that one conclude that God made an error and had to revise
His plan, sort of making it up as He goes along. We have dealt with
this terrible view in the past and no doubt it will arise again.
Please be aware of what you're implying if you are one saying this
and taking this false road. You deny the sovereignty and omnipotence
of God, a very serious error. The whole intent and purpose of God
is involved.
|
Subject: Re: God's 'mistake'
From: Berean7
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 18:53:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Rod, Hell was originally prepared for the Devil and his angels,
look at Matthew 25:41. We have to keep in perspective that God created
man with Free Will. Eventhough God is sovriegn and knows all things,
He still created them that way. We have to remember the purpose
of God creating man in the first place. For a relationship and for
fellowship. Robots can not willing choose to worship or fellowship
with its creator, so thus God created us with Free will. But, because
of the fall(know we have no free will:)), we are all in unbelief
and anyone who stays that way till death, will partake in the place
prepared originally for the Devil and his angels, 'Hell, Hades,
Sheol, and eventually Lake of Fire.
|
Subject: Re: God's 'mistake'
From: john hampshire
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 23:46:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Berean7, The place of fire prepared for the 'devil and his angels'
is also translated (better) 'devil and his messengers'. Guess who
are the messengers of the devil? Guess who are the messengers of
Christ? The point is, the lake of fire was not prepared as an after
thought due to a surprise in man's free will being lost. You wrote:
Robots can not willing choose to worship or fellowship with its
creator, so thus God created us with Free will. Well technically,
robots have no will whatsoever. There really is no analogy there.
A better illustration (maybe): Adam was created 'tuned' to God,
his spirit was 'tuned' to God's Spirit, they were in perfect communion.
With Adam's act of rebellion, God removed His signal (no more fellowship).
Adam and Eve were bound by their design, they must 'tune' to some
voice, and the voice they found was the devil. They were as much
freely slaves to God inititally as they were to become slaves to
Satan afterwards. The problem for all men born without 'direction'
is to immediately 'tune' into the nearest substitute for that missing
thing (God). I would disagree that 'Hell, Hades, Sheol are some
precursor place of punishment prior to the Lake of Fire. I know
many have differing opinions, but IMO Hades/Sheol are the abode
of the seperated parts of man (death is seperation) and the Lake
of Fire is the abode of the re-joined man (seperated from God forever).
That is, Hades/Sheol is the grave (for the body) and a place of
silence (for the spirit). All men end in Sheol, their bodies are
buried, both elect and non-elect alike. But the spirit of the elect
is different, being perfect in Christ it awaits Christ's return
in heaven with all the other elect spirits (plus Enoch, Elijah,
and Moses). The re-joined place of dwelling for the elect is called
the new heavens and new earth. The re-joined place of dwelling for
the non-elect is called the Lake of Fire. All these things were
designed by God from the start. Or to say it better, they were always
part of the 'mind' of God. john
|
Subject: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: Vernon
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:16:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hllo Pilgrim, I have read below where you embrace Calvinism and
seem to highly embrace John Calvin. Men such as Welsey and Finney
you most likely would call them heretical. But I tell you there
is none better to embrace than Jesus Christ. I laugh when you write
twenty pages using word beyound my brain calling me everything but
stupid in scriptures. I read what you wrote to Mary and it did not
disapoint me. I would never expect any different from you. Sir,
according to the word of God, We all are sinners and guilty before
Him if we have not been forgiven through Faith in Christ Jesus.
You write and speak as if a person like Mary and I have nothing
but a heretical view and understand ing of Gods word. I even wounder
if you believe us to be lost. I know that Mary and I are worthless
with out Christ and neither of us deserves God's wonderful grace
and mercy. Sir, I almost since that you preceive your self high
and mighty before the Lord. But I hate to tell you.....'Your knowledge
is nothing before God...You are a sinner just as I am and in need
of Christ to even have a relation ship with thr Father. Pilgrim,
without the Holy Spirit, You could have no relationship with CHrist
nor have any knowledge in God's word. I laugh when you ask.....'
What comes first......Regeneration or Faith? Pilgrim, Pilgrim, have
I not told you that a man must be 'Born Again' to have a saving
Faith. It seems that you do not like the term.....'Born Again.'
Would this be the same as regeneration? I have told you that mans
heart is wicked and he the man is dead in his sin and can only be
made spiritually alive with a trusting faith in Christ Jesus. I
have told you more than once that it is God the Holy Spirit working
in the World and man to convict them of sin and bring all who do
hear his voice to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus. Do you believe
this is a heretical view Mr Pilgrim? I know man in his own ability
can neversee nor understand the things of God. Any man who truly
is 'Born Again' could never disagree in that. As much as you disagree,
Man sins because he choose to sin and disobey God. God did cause
Satan to rebel against him, nor Adam to sin. These two sinned because
they chose to sin. That means we have a will to sin. Pilgrim, I
do not disagree with 'Predestination nor Election, but not in the
way you believe it to be true. Pilgrim, to hear you speak, a man
must follow the doctrine of John Calvin to be saved. John Calvin
was nothing more than a sinner saved by the Crace of God just as
you and have been. I spoke of Pastor Whitefield and I do like the
way he presente Calvinism. He was not Hyper and he fully represented
God, not John Clavin. He had love and He presented the Loving word
of God in a way that it won souls to Christ. This is what I did
not see in your reply to Mary. You could not wait to chop her legs
from under her with Calvinism. Sir, would it have been better to
witneas Jeus Christ to her and allowed the Holy Spirit to do the
work rather than being so prideful and dogmatic in your attitude?
Think about it....presenting calvinist view with the love of Christ.
Do not delight in Calvlnist Theology, but delight in presenting
the gospel of Jesus Christ with love and in a way to have people
seeing Christ in you. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: a monitor
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:03:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern - Born Again = Regeneration Paul, Augustine, the Reformers
and countless others since to include Whitfield preached a gospel
that was TOTALLY FREE based on God's mercy ... Calvin merely taught
this very same Gospel....one you reject in favor of a man-centered
one. As for your salvation, that's not my business.... a monitor
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: john hampshire
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 05:23:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon, You wrote: 'I have told you that mans heart is wicked and
he the man is dead in his sin and can only be made spiritually alive
with a trusting faith in Christ Jesus'. Vernon, do you not know,
or care, that the above statement is incorrect. If a man is dead
in his sin, how does he possesses a trusting faith in Christ Jesus
that it should make him spiritually alive. Your statement could
be restated to say: 'If a dead man were to see, hear, talk, and
walk, then the Doctor will give him life'. Does this make any sense
to you? You wrote: '...it is God the Holy Spirit working in the
World and man to convict them of sin and bring all who do hear his
voice to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus'. You must understand
by now, after so long, that this statement of yours is incorrect.
Who does the Holy Spirit bring to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus?
Is it everyone in the world? If this is the case, then everyone
in the world will come to a trusting faith in Christ Jesus. Or shall
we say that some folks reject this work by God, then who can be
saved? Why, if this is true, only those who turn to God by their
own work of hearing, by their own faith are saved. We, in other
words, would be the author of our own salvation--by works no less,
if this were true, which thankfully it is not. You wrote: 'These
two [Adam and Eve] sinned because they chose to sin. That means
we have a will to sin'. Do you suppose that a will in bondage to
sin, dead to good works, estranged from God, working only evil continually,
will also, given some nudge by God, turn from all this and believe
in Christ Jesus, exhibiting faith? Do you think man is capable of
pleasing God and performing good works under his own power? Not
a chance. We have all gone astray, our works are like sewer stained
rags before God. Can you not see that expecting spiritually dead
men to do good works is impossible. That God must first give life
(regeneration), creating a new spirit that lives and functions.
Can you not see that apart from the Holy Spirit regenerating, there
is no faith, no repentance, no life. Can you also not see that the
Holy Spirit ONLY regenerates those that Christ has redeemed, which
are the same group (the elect) that the Father gave His Son to die
for? You wrote: 'Do not delight in Calvinist Theology, but delight
in presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ with love and in a way
to have people seeing Christ in you'. But Vernon, how is Christ
displayed if we speak a theology that is incorrect. How do people
see love in a lie? Is it loving to say, 'your faith has made you
whole', when they are actually still dead in their sins? Do you
think such a vast difference is worth your time and effort to understand
and preach correctely? I think so! Who wants to spread a false gospel,
who is willing to remain a false preacher? If we call the true gospel
'Calvinism', how is that unloving? It IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
there is no difference. It is not John Calvin's ideas, he promoted
these truths, but he certainly did not invent it. Calvinism came
straight from Scripture-- IT IS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. It is
what every believer should understand and preach. This Vernon IS
love, real and honest love. Any other gospel, including the incorrect
one you have expressed, is a gospel of death, it leads you away
from truth. You decide, what is important to you? Displaying kindness,
and speaking of salvation to the lost, but preaching a lie. Or being
honest, truthful, and pointed to those who are perishing; speaking
the truth that can set them free. Which one is true love and which
one is an impostor, a wolf in sheep's clothing pretending to be
love? That is why some folks on this forum do not allow the gospel
to spiral into a stream of incorrect statements. It is just too
important. Believe it or not, these people who seem angry and judgmental
to you, are the ones who love Jesus Christ and the Gospel He preached.
They love it more than they love the feelings and wants of men,
they simply will not compromise on truth. How's about you, how important
is truth to you? john
|
Subject: For john
From: Eric
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:28:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
How exactly is the gospel that a Calvinist presents, different than
the gospel that a person who holds to a modififed Arminian/Wesleyan
presents (which I think is to what Vernon holds to, forgive me if
that is an invalid assumption). While the underlying truths as towards
the 'why' someone accepts or rejects the message, to the unregenerate,
isn't the 'how' and the gospel truth the same as far as the individual's
perspective is concerned? It is only after someone has been regenerated
that they can grasp the underlying doctrines anyway.
|
Subject: Re: For john
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:14:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
Not to answer for John, for he
is certainly capable in doing that for himself. But it seems to
me and history seems to support my view, that one's theology will
determine not only what one believes but how one expresses it. Thus
there is a vast chasm of difference between what I, the Reformers
and Puritans preached concerning the gospel itself and what most
modern church-goers are preaching as the gospel. The article I referred
Mary to by Dr. J.I. Packer makes this same point quite clear and
spells out the vast differences between the two 'systems' and how
each expresses them to others. The bottom line is that the 'modern
gospel' puts man in the 'driver's seat' of salvation and consequently
not upon Christ. Yes, yes, they will all tell you they are trusting
Christ, but in fact they are trusting in their 'decision for' Christ.
Easy Believism is a lie and it has deceived hundreds of thousands
with a false assurance of salvation. It DOES matter what you believe
and consequently what you say.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: For john
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 14:33:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I think a lot of what you say is true, but then again, I think that
much of what passes for Christianity today is not really Christian,
and that is more a function of modernity as opposed to soteriology
per se. Many of the old Reformed denominations have gone the same
way as the old Weslyan denominations--liberalism and the social
gospel. Just look at Robert Schuler-and how the RCA still allows
him ordination is beyond me. Or take the PCUSA, or how the CRC is
starting down that slippery slope, or even the PCA is probably going
to split in the next 20 years because of all the in-fighting. I
don't know how I got off on this tangent, but my point is that the
basic facts of the gospel are the same--believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and you will be saved. Both Calvinists and Armininians agree
to that--I hope! Many old school Armininians (those not of the Finney
ilk) would be shocked at how the gospel has turned into a man centered
appeal to felt needs as opposed to a biblical presentation. Gotta
run
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: mary
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 06:39:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
As you can tell I'm having a problem trying to post but I will keep
trying. I read both Vernon's post and John's. At this point I am
reading materials that Pilgrim asked me to read and it is quite
a large amount of reading which I fully intend to finish because
I want to know where you are both coming from. I just wanted to
say the following, that I became aware that I was a sinner at age
5. You might say that that was not likely. But until this day 55
years later I can tell you the circumstances causing me to understand
that I had sinned. I can't say that I understood fully what had
happened, but I knew that I had done something to displease God.
You would probably say that I had just at that time known that I
had done something wrong. No I knew that I had sinned, I had taken
the money that dad had given me for the sunday school offering and
bought candy with it on the way home from church. I can only tell
you that I was under such conviction that I have not forgotten that
incident in 55 years from that time until the day I fully understood
what regenerated, bornagain,or whatever term you choose to use and
surrenderd to the unmerited Grace of God I was working trying to
be good enough to please God and I can tell you that that didn't
work. I only became exhausted trying to please God because I did't
at that time know that it was through the work of the Cross of Christ
that I would be bornagain. I can only tell you this that I had heard
the Gospel since I was a child, my mother was a loving christian
mother, BUT until the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and anointed my
ears to HEAR I was LOST. I don't know what light either of you will
see this through, Calvin or what ever I understood that salvation
was a free gift from God throught the work of Jesus Christ on the
cross and it was not of works lest any man should boast. The following
scripture comes to mind The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,as
some men count slackness: but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I just have one question. Is not a man bornagain when he believes
on the work of Jesus Christ, and he came to that point because the
Holy Spirit led him there. Jesus said without me ye can do nothing.
I had nothing to do with my salvation except to accept or reject
the work of Jesus on my behalf. I even had to have my spiritual
eyes opened to do that. mary
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: john hampshire
To: mary
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 23:18:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mary, It is interesting that children know what constitutes wrong,
they have to be 'programmed' by parents, adults, teachers, society
and the rest to accept their wrong as right. The conscience is quite
able to 'see' the altered state that even the tiniest sin brings,
it is like a motion detector for the soul, as each sin binds the
sinner and he/she sinks a little deeper. I would say that there
is a recognition of sin, with regret, even repentance of wrong-doing,
but salvation is an entirely different animal. it is an altered
state of being. You wrote: 'I had nothing to do with my salvation
except to accept or reject the work of Jesus on my behalf. I even
had to have my spiritual eyes opened to do that'. Just to highlight
what you have said, there is a problem. If we have nothing to do
with our salvation, yet we must do this or that, then we have something
to do with our salvation. It is akin to saying: 'God does it all,
except for the part I do'. It is a contradiction. Yes, God does
it all. That's the end of the sentence, there is no following 'But
I....'. It is God who opens eyes, which He does in conjunction with
the life He imparts to the spirit. Due to this new life there are
many changes that take place, many new desires. But none of this
requires us to 'accept Jesus' or 'claim Jesus' or any such thing.
There is nothing required of us. That is why it is called grace,
it is free. If we had to 'accept' Jesus, then we must leap a hurdle,
perform a work that initiates grace, and by this grace is no more
grace. Keep on reading, studying, and asking questions. john
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: mary
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 05:12:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mary, It is interesting that children know what constitutes wrong,
they have to be 'programmed' by parents, adults, teachers, society
and the rest to accept their wrong as right. The conscience is quite
able to 'see' the altered state that even the tiniest sin brings,
it is like a motion detector for the soul, as each sin binds the
sinner and he/she sinks a little deeper. I would say that there
is a recognition of sin, with regret, even repentance of wrong-doing,
but salvation is an entirely different animal. it is an altered
state of being. You wrote: 'I had nothing to do with my salvation
except to accept or reject the work of Jesus on my behalf. I even
had to have my spiritual eyes opened to do that'. Just to highlight
what you have said, there is a problem. If we have nothing to do
with our salvation, yet we must do this or that, then we have something
to do with our salvation. It is akin to saying: 'God does it all,
except for the part I do'. It is a contradiction. Yes, God does
it all. That's the end of the sentence, there is no following 'But
I....'. It is God who opens eyes, which He does in conjunction with
the life He imparts to the spirit. Due to this new life there are
many changes that take place, many new desires. But none of this
requires us to 'accept Jesus' or 'claim Jesus' or any such thing.
There is nothing required of us. That is why it is called grace,
it is free. If we had to 'accept' Jesus, then we must leap a hurdle,
perform a work that initiates grace, and by this grace is no more
grace. Keep on reading, studying, and asking questions. john
---
John maybe I am saying this very poorly, God knows I am
not a scholar. My point is this, I want to acknowledge that I give
the total Glory to God for my salvation. Maybe I am not expressing
it correctly, but I know in my heart what I am trying to say, though
you couldn't know that because you are unable as am I to discern
the intent of one's heart. To be totally honest with you I know
very little of the doctrins which have been discussed here in this
forum. My understanding of the scriptures has come about mainly
by reading them first of all, and by listening to Pastors such as
John Mcarthur from Grace to you and David Jerimiah of California,
and at one time many years ago I attended a reformed church although
I was very young and remember very little if anything of what was
taught there. I do believe that Grace and Salvation are a free gift
from God. It has always been my desire to read the scriptures through
the light of the Holy Spirits leading so therefore, I haven't read
many books on other's experiences or thoughts, just the Bible. I
have always believed that God the Holy Spirit would lead me into
all truth as he promises to do if I just continued to stay in his
word and I have yet to be disappointed. In fact, I am often suprised
by just how faithful he is do exactly that, I don't know why I am
suprised because God can't lie and he doesn't make false promises.
I guess I am amazed that he does it for me. I want to thank each
one of you who have responded to my posts for your kindness and
concern for my soul. I sense a lot of love in your replies. I don't
know what doctrin my views fit into but I Know without a doubt that
I am a child of the Living God and that I will spend eternity with
him because he has secured my salvation through Calvery. Thank you
for your kindness in your post. Because I am not able to discuss
doctrin I don't feel I should be participating in this forum but
I hope you don't mind if I just pop in to say hello once in a while.
I will still be reading your post as I have done for a while now.
Take care and God bless. Love in Christ Jesus Mary
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: Brother Bret
To: mary
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 18:33:44 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Hi Mary: You
said: 'and by listening to Pastors such as John Mcarthur from Grace
to you and David Jerimiah of California.' To use the terms for identification,
did you realize that MacArthur is at least a 4 point if not 5 point
Calvinist? And it is my understanding that David Jeremiah is a 'closet'
Calvinist :^ ) in as much that he embraces the T-U-L-I-P, just doesn't
advertise it. Do you have a MacArthur Study Bible or read any of
his commentaries? If you read any of that stuff, or books such as
'The Gospel According To Jesus' and others, you will see that he
believes in the historic biblical reformed view of total depravity
(inability), unconditional election, irresistiable grace, and perserverence
(preserving) of the saints. As with any study bible I recommend
caution, but I do recommend his and the New Geneva Study Bible (by
modern reformers), which are both in the New King James Version.
May God bless you according to His will and good pleasure (Is. 46:10;
Ph. 2:13) Brother Bret
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: mary
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:22:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret I hope this post will be ok. I was logged off my carrier
and lost everything I had written and had to start over. No, Brother
Bret I didn't know that John Mcarthur or David Jerimiah held to
the Calviniest doctrine and it doesn't really matter. I have always
maintained that we agree on more than we disagree on. You suggested
John Mcarthurs study bible and I did try to order it but I was at
work and couldn't really take the time to wait as his line was busy.
The it just slipped my mind. I do have one of his books. Its title
is Ashamed of the Gospel, you may have read it. As I said, I do
not read to many books on religeous doctrine but I truly respect
and trust John Mcarthur enough to buy his book and read it. Although,
I will still measure everything he says by the Word of God just
as you would that I am sure of. I haven't finished it but if you
haven't read it I recommend it. Thank you again for your love and
concern. In His Wonderful Love. Mary
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: laz
To: mary
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:13:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret I hope this post will be ok. I was logged off my carrier
and lost everything I had written and had to start over. No, Brother
Bret I didn't know that John Mcarthur or David Jerimiah held to
the Calviniest doctrine and it doesn't really matter. I have always
maintained that we agree on more than we disagree on. You suggested
John Mcarthurs study bible and I did try to order it but I was at
work and couldn't really take the time to wait as his line was busy.
The it just slipped my mind. I do have one of his books. Its title
is Ashamed of the Gospel, you may have read it. As I said, I do
not read to many books on religeous doctrine but I truly respect
and trust John Mcarthur enough to buy his book and read it. Although,
I will still measure everything he says by the Word of God just
as you would that I am sure of. I haven't finished it but if you
haven't read it I recommend it. Thank you again for your love and
concern. In His Wonderful Love. Mary
---
I recently purchased
3 or 4 copies of MacArthur's 'Ashamed of the Gospel' to give away...they
were on sale...4 bucks for hardcopies! I enjoyed it. Oh, he does
have a good section on 'Election' of the 'calvinistic' variety.
;-) laz
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: a monitor
To: mary
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:57:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mary - this website is PRECISELY for folks like you! Theology (or the study of God) is
everyone's business....since what we understand about God directly
impacts how we live. No? By the way, one of the other monitors is
a graduate of 'The Masters Seminary'...John MacArthur's ... yes,
a man who also believes in 'free grace'. ;-) In Him, a monitor p.s.
don't forget about the OPEN Forum next door (link above) if you
feel a little intimidated here. OPEN Forum www.paradise-web.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=highway&shownew=ok&showall=ok
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's reply to Mary
From: Pilgrim
To: mary
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:27:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mary,
Thanks for the testimony! Why
you decided to share this at this time is known only to you I suppose.
Another question that popped up in my mind as I read your message,
was the mentioning of the name of 'Calvin'. I believe that if you
were to search any and all of my replies to you, you will not see
me name John Calvin even once. In fact, what you will see is most
Scripture references and reasoning from them. The same can be said
of most everyone's correspondence with Vernon; rarely is Calvin's
name evoked by US. It is Vernon who invariably brings up John Calvin
and for only evil purposes; i.e., he is always contending that those
of us who love the Lord Christ and HIS gospel of Sovereign Free
Grace, are followers of John Calvin! hehehe... yes, this is actually
quite funny but also quite sad. For this accusation is so far from
factual one must wonder if Vernon is suffering from some form of
mental deficiency and/or he does in fact have a serious spiritual
problem. I shall not pretend to know what his problem is other than
he is embracing serious error and preaching it to others. That much
I do know and have taken countless hours trying to point it out
and offering remedies to it. Many others have done the same in brotherly/sisterly
love. But what we always receive is 'Vernon's Venom' in the form
of fiery flaming darts, ad hominem slurs, false charges of following
men, admonishments of being 'too educated', false allegations of
questioning his salvation, etc., ad nauseam. Consequently, he has
been banned from this forum numerous times for his UNLOVING attitude
and HERETICAL views... both of which are clearly listed in the guidelines
as offenses which will not be tolerated on this forum. You will
however notice, that he is here AGAIN, and we have graciously tried
to teach him again from the SCRIPTURES (no mention of John Calvin),
but only to have our efforts fall on a hardened heart and deaf ears.
And in return, we are 'rewarded' with his non-sensical rhetoric
and false charges of all sorts. Okay, enough of this poor man. I
am more interested however in responding to you and telling you
that I am happy to read that you are indeed actually reading that
one article by Dr. Packer I recommended to you. Although it appeared
first as the Introduction to John Owen's magnificent work, 'The
Death of Death in the Death of Christ', reprinted by The Banner
of Truth Trust some years ago (the original treatise is found in
Chapter 10 of his 'Works', there were so many requests for this
Introduction to be printed separately, that it eventually was printed
in booklet form. I had already read Owen's original treatise in
his 'Works' but when the reprint appeared with Packer's 'Introduction',
I had to buy it just for Packer's remarks. Since then I have purchased
and given away literally hundreds of copies of this booklet. However,
it became impossible to financially support the giving away of so
many and thus I was even more thrilled when it was made possible
for me to reproduce this booklet on the Internet in The Highway
web site. I will always remember the very first time I read Packer's
'Introduction' for I was having some serious conflicts as a new
Christian. The Lord had given me an insatiable hunger for the Lord
Christ and His infallible Word. Thus I poured over the Scriptures
day and night, sometimes going without sleep for two or three days
because I was so captivated by this new book called the Bible. The
church I was attending was a typical conservative, evangelical congregation.
The preaching was also typical in that the theology behind it was
that which is most popular today with a few exceptions. The pastor
was surely a godly man, whom I loved more than my own biological
father, and still do to this day. He lovingly took me aside and
discipled me personally. It wasn't long before I had questions which
arose from my Scripture reading about what he was preaching and
teaching. What I was reading in the Scriptures appeared to be in
contrast to what my beloved pastor believed. In some cases, he was
unable and/or unwilling to answer some of them, eg., 'Who did Jesus
Christ die for?', etc. I began to feel like a 'black sheep' among
the members of this church, and in fact I was a 'black sheep' because
the rumor quickly got around that I was questioning some of the
most dearly held beliefs of the people. How could anyone question
whether or not it is true that 'God loves everybody equally'? or
that 'Jesus Christ died for everybody'? But I couldn't deny what
the Scriptures appeared to me to teach. Despondency was my lot for
some time as I continued to ask questions and received hardly an
answer from anyone. It was like I had the plague. There were few
if any who would or even could open their Bible and show me what
God had said to my questions. Well, as God's marvelous providence
would lead me, I came across 'The Works of Jonathan Edwards' and
the bookstore manager asked me if I had ever read Edwards? I told
him I had never even heard of Jonathan Edwards. He strongly encouraged
me to buy the set and read everything in those books. Wow! What
first came to my mind is that there was someone who believed just
like me!! I wasn't really alone in my beliefs. And here was a man
who was purportedly famous and used mightily of God to bring about
the Great Awakening in America. The short of it is, I afterward
learned that what I had come to believe as being God's truth, was
nothing less than what the Reformers also believed and which was
the doctrine of all the major denominations of the Protestant Reformation
until the late 1800's. Thus, my personal theology, which I had embraced
from reading THE SCRIPTURES ALONE, was not some theology of a 'Lone
Ranger' but the theology of Moses, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Amos,
Malachi, Paul, James, Peter and the Lord Christ Himself which had
been nicknamed 'Calvinism'. It was THE Gospel of Free Sovereign
Grace; 'Salvation is of the Lord' (Jonah 2:9). So, Packer's words
in that little Introduction were 'music to my ears', for they clearly
showed the great difference between what is currently being preached
and taught as the 'gospel' compared to what the Scriptures teach
as THE GOSPEL. Further, he also shows as John Hampshire stated so
well above, that Calvinism IS the Gospel by just another name. Call
it what you will, but what it is, is the proclamation of God's salvation
of sinners in the Lord Jesus Christ, by grace through faith alone.
It is biblical Christianity come to its own; in its purest state
thus far. No other 'system' of theology, and everyone has a system
of some kind, exalts God so highly, debases man so lowly and has
sinners saved so graciously as what is infamously called, 'Calvinism'!
It's just the truth of the Bible's teaching. It is hated by people
like Vernon because it strips away all self-reliance, self-help,
self-assurance and makes God the SOVEREIGN REDEEMER who 'will have
mercy on whom HE will have mercy'. I look forward to your comments
and/or questions when you have finished reading Packer's 'Introductory
Essay. . .'!
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: You are on the right track
From: Eric
To: mary
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:59:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Keep focused on Christ and His excellencey and sufficency for your
life, and you will not stumble. Don't get caught up on whether your
doctrinal views are as precise as others, or even if things are
confusing. Keep meditating on the Word of God, and continually petition
God to give you greater understanding. He is a merciful and gracious
Father, He will provide you all the light you need to get you Home.
95% of all scripture is crystal clear, don't let the other 5%, that
many so often differ upon, distract you.
|
Subject: Re: You are on the right track
From: a monitor
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:06:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Keep focused on Christ and His excellencey and sufficency for your
life, and you will not stumble. Don't get caught up on whether your
doctrinal views are as precise as others, or even if things are
confusing. Keep meditating on the Word of God, and continually petition
God to give you greater understanding. He is a merciful and gracious
Father, He will provide you all the light you need to get you Home.
95% of all scripture is crystal clear, don't let the other 5%, that
many so often differ upon, distract you.
---
On the surface
this seems like good advice...but what do we make of JW or Mormons
who may say that they agree with us on 95%....when we know that
it's that nasty little 5% remaining where their system is stuffed
with doctrines from demons? The 'essentials' (quality) is what should
unite us, NOT the the volume of doctines (quantity) we agree on.
I commend Mary for having the guts to search for herself in true
Berean fashion to see if in fact what the Reformers taught (and
what we believe and promote) was in fact the truth. I believe her
beloved brother, Vern, is stuck in a rut and can't seem to get out.
Not sure why that is. ;-) The nature of grace, faith, justification,
etc as they relate to salvation/redemption are NOT trivial matters.
If there is disagreement, we need to discuss it for they are at
the very heart of the Gospel. We need to nail these matters down...otherwise
we are not being faithful to the Word entrusted to us. No true believer
is going to throw his/her hands up and let God's grace be defined
by popolar opinion or sentiment. They are going to want to know
THE truth of the matter. a monitor
|
Subject: Holy Orthodoxy
From: eikke
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:16:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello- I'm a student of Christianity in general, and Orthodoxy in
particular (since, God willing, I hope to be baptized into it some
day). I'm new here, so I'm wondering what the folks who frequent
this board know/think about Orthodoxy, ancient Christian history,
etc. Thank you in advance for any responses. In IC XC
|
Subject: Re: Holy Orthodoxy
From: laz
To: eikke
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:31:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Greetings, Eikke - I'm no expert, but as I just told your friend
Christopher, I have noticed many similarities btwn 'Holy Orthodoxy'
and Roman Catholicism...especially wrt the nature of justification....and
of course ecclesiology (sp?). Be interested in hearing what you
know about the doctrines of the Reformation. blessings, laz
|
Subject: Re: Holy Orthodoxy
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 21:14:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello- I know comparably little about Reformation theology, other
than the stereotypical 'Calvin was a dark and bitter man, took Augustine's
fatalism to its logical extreme conclusion, all are damned, only
God's whim saves us,' etc. I don't know how far any of that's true
(most of it, I suspect), but I look forward to learning about it
nonetheless. Maybe we can make a trade... :) At this point in the
game, quite a few of the similarities that the Orthodox share with
the Roman Catholics are more apparent than real. Orthodox ecclesiology
is radically different from that of the Catholics, actually, and
our views on justification don't quite jibe either. After all, there
is a reason why the Reformation took place under the Roman Church.
The Orthodox have no Purgatory, hence no indulgences, and they have
no infallible hierarchy, like the Papacy. These two details in themselves
should be a tip-off that there are some radical differences between
the so-called Eastern Orthodox and the former Western Orthodox (which
is how the Orthodox occasionally refer to pre-11th century Christian
Europe, with whom they were once in communion). Then there are the
controversies over the Filioque, the nature of the Eucharist, the
nature of Holy Tradition, inherited guilt (the Orthodox have no
dogma of an Immaculate Conception), the tendency to emphasize the
Crucifixion to the exclusion of the rest of Christ's life (which
all of western Christianity, protestant and Roman, inherited from
-again- the 11th century St. Anselm), etc. Those things that the
RC holds in common with the Orthodox were actually the common heritage
of all Christendom prior to the 11th century, i.e. the real change
in the Eucharist, the absence of any doctrine of sola scriptura,
the veneration of the Mother of God and the saints, the belief in
the One, Visible Church, etc. As you will find if you visit the
Phronema board (where the debate is much more learned than what
I can muster), there is an Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism board, where
all of the differences are brought to bear. In fact, there's even
an Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism board for you to cut your teeth on,
should you feel so inclined. But a lot of Orthodox would actually
be appalled to find their beliefs equated with Roman Catholicism,
and for as many historical reasons as doctrinal ones. In IC XC
|
Subject: Re: Holy Orthodoxy
From: john hampshire
To: eikke
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:41:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
YOU SAID: 'Those things that the RC holds in common with the Orthodox
were actually the common heritage of all Christendom prior to the
11th century, i.e. the real change in the Eucharist, the absence
of any doctrine of sola scriptura, the veneration of the Mother
of God and the saints, the belief in the One, Visible Church, etc.'
If these beliefs were the 'common heritage of all Christendom prior
to the 11th century', one might think they are Biblically based
and extend back to the very early church. Which Scriptures support
these beliefs? 1. The real change in the Eucharist 2. The absence
of any doctrine of sola scriptura 3. The veneration of the Mother
of God and the saints 4. The belief in the One, Visible Church john
|
Subject: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:27:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>Which Scriptures support these beliefs? 1. The
real change in the Eucharist<<<<< Quoted in the course
of catechetical lectures by St Cyril of Jersulalem in the fourth
century. 1 Cor. xi. 23. I received of the Lord that which also I
delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which
He was betrayed, took bread, 1. Even of itself the teaching of the
Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning
those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, ye are
become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just
heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night
in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks
He brake it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this
is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said,
Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then
He Himself declared and said of the Bread,
This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt
any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed
and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that
it is not His blood? 2. He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water
into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have
turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously
wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber,
shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition
of His Body and Blood? 3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake
as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is
given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that
thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made
of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to
bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through
our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we
became partakers of the divine nature. 4. Christ on a certain occasion
discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink
My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying
in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that
He was inviting them to eat flesh. In the middle of the second century,
St Justin Martyr, in his first apology, says: And this food is called
among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which
no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things
which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing
that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who
is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and
common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ
our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both
flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught
that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from
which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the
flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6) For the apostles,
in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have
thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took
bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do ye in remembrance
of Me,(7) this is My body;' and that, after the same manner, having
taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood;' and
gave it to them alone.
---
---
It's not a matter
of 'Scriptural support,' it's a matter of how the Scriptures are
understood, no?
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: john hampshire
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 00:36:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher, Certainly 1Cor 11:23 mentions the breaking of bread
which you quote. You wrote: 'Since then He Himself declared and
said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any
longer?' And? And what was the next thing Jesus said? It was, 'Do
this in remembrance of Me'. He did not say, 'Do this and I will
turn the bread into flesh so you will not only remember Me, but
see Me'. Likewise for the wine. 'Do this, as often as you drink
it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and
drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes'. He
did not say 'You will remember Me each time you do this for a real
piece of Me will form in your cup and your hand until I come'. What
is remembering Christ, what is remembering His death? Is it so hard
to see that the bread and wine represent His death which we should
remember until He comes? You wrote: He once in Cana of Galilee,
turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible
that He should have turned wine into blood? You mean, if Jesus changed
water into wine to symbolize the atonement, wouldn't it make sense
that the wine in the cup would also be used to SYMBOLIZE the atonement?
Did Jesus ever turn anything into actual blood? The incredible part
of this is to believe that Biblical symbols are transmuted into
physical realities, when the Bible is clear they are symbols of
spiritual things. You wrote: Christ on a certain occasion discoursing
with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye
have no life in you.. Yes, and as you recognize, the spiritual connection
was in view. Or should we expect the Pharisees to, perhaps, munch
on his leg? So, recognizing that this is a spiritual invitation
to eat Christ's flesh, the logic follows that... the bread is a
PHYSICAL eating???? Whew, how does one make such an illogical grandiose
jump into no-Scripture land. The obvious implication here is: The
body of Christ in view is a spiritual union with Him -- not by chewing
on His actually body. You wrote: St Justin Martyr, in his first
apology, says... Well, I think Justin Martyr owes another apology.
(hehe) He reasons that if Jesus became a man, flesh and blood, for
our salvation, then the bread/wine must also become flesh and blood
for our salvation. That's some logic. If Christ in His body is sufficient
for our salvation how is it that we must really eat Him for our
salvation? Would not logic dictate that if Christ went to the trouble
to be a flesh n blood man, that is all our salvation requires. What
need does anyone have of physical food? You make Christ's atonement
insufficient by the inclusion of this bizarre act of cannibalism,
and all this against common sense and Scripture evidence to boot.
You wrote: It's not a matter of 'Scriptural support,' it's a matter
of how the Scriptures are understood, no? Err no! If we take the
plain teaching of Scripture and mutilate it, then ignore Christ's
constant use of spiritual imagery to force a physical fulfillment,
you might as well not even bother studying Scripture. Want an example?:
I know you said 'Yes'. Jesus is described by John the Baptist as
the 'Lamb of God'. Now let's make a similar teaching out of it.
Let's teach Christ was transmuted, just as the bread is, into an
actual lamb. We can even argue as Justin Martyr so ineffectively
does that this must be so because Christ was to be a sacrificial
Lamb so the physical lamb is a requirement just as the flesh/blood
food is a necessity to the bread/wine communion. Why not? The only
thing lacking is a thousand years of endorsement by a church to
make it gospel truth. We can not gain Scriptural support and understanding
apart from the Scriptures. We cannot take Scripture and begin to
express all kinds of doctrine from it because we simply like our
ideas. I hope you can see that this teaching is useless, unnecessary,
and wrong. If not, go down to your local grocery store. Take a long
look at the meat selection, find lamb chops, and remember: one of
these packages may indeed by Christ's body--packaged for your convenient
worship. False teachings are as easy to start as that. And you know
what? There are a million people out there who will believe whatever
is tossed their way. Sad isn't it. john
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:03:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, What would be sad would be if God waited almost 1,600 years
to give a teacher to the Church who correctly understood what the
definition of 'is' is. That is what seems to me to be 'against common
sense.' Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: john hampshire
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 19:53:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher, >>>'What would be sad would be if God waited
almost 1,600 years to give a teacher to the Church who correctly
understood what the definition of 'is' is.' Even Bill Clinton was
unsure what the definition of 'is' is, but he has an excuse, he's
a known liar and hypocrite. Fortunately the churches have no one
like that for a leader. (hehe) To your point, in all seriousness,
by your statement I will assume you would agree that except for
those church leaders who proposed and hastened the deification of
Mary, they were without opposition? It must be so, for otherwise
we would find OTHER leaders who were instructing the church differently
into different doctrines. If there were other leaders throughout
the history of the Orthodox or RC church, then the churches were
NOT without leaders who explained and expounded truth to the laity.
Or are we to believe that the only 'true' church teachers are church
teachers who teach the doctrines that tickle your ears and support
the Orthodox or RC churches? I suppose then the rest are false teachers?
If they are false, then should we not burn them at the stake, or
torture them to recant? This is the logic the RC used, and the smoke
of burning Reformers is their undeniable trademark. Indeed their
were men speaking the truth, but they are not part of your church
history. They are part of a different church, small groups that
met in individual houses. These devout Christians were criminals,
law-breakers, the very enemy the RC church sought to destroy. Fact
is, the church has NEVER been without the truth. It was not always
popular, not always preached though by the popular church leaders
of the day. Actually, from a Reformed perspective, we could say
the truth was much hated, much suppressed, and the cause of much
turmoil and death. But it NEVER disappeared. Not from the first
Pentecost onward, the NT churches have always kept the candle lit
somewhere. Today, you can find a candle here and there, just as
in most periods of history. It is the clever, people-pleasing churches
that are visible, powerful, and continue the tradition of apostasy.
We don't burn people at the stake anymore, we just don't publish
their books. We don't torture people anymore, we just ignore them
or slander them. The truth is not always readily available, just
as in the days of the house churches when the giant RC church suppressed
truth, and tortured those who dared to have their own Bible, burning
the printing presses, and robbing and cheating the populace to build
grand stone churches. Churches that resemble stone tombs in which
the dead worship. The Pope's army is gone, kings no longer bow to
him, no more torture, death, and genocide. No more persecutions,
no holy wars, no sickness, poverty, and death on their account.
But it was off the bones of the poor and ignorant masses, forbidden
to learn, the RC church grew, like a fungus on rotting debris. Today,
this hulk of ignorance, superstition and man-made doctrine continues
to bind ignorant peasants with their works doctrine and cult of
Mary. They continue to defend every man-made invention and abhor
the teaching of Scriptures. You may have it all, I will keep the
Scriptures, and honor the few brave men who withstood that tempest
of ignorance and hatred, who gave their lives as a sacrifice to
Christ to announce the truth to the huddled masses. Throughout history,
unknown men and women met together to worship God under the heel
of an oppressive political-religious cult. Remember them! They kept
the truth, they passed it to their children... until the day God
ended the reign of tyranny through men like Martin Luther (and inventions
like the printing press). So ended the manipulation of the masses
and began the process of bringing these long-held truths out for
all to see. And thus was the end of the age of the Holy Mother Church,
slain by honest men with a pen. john
|
Subject: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:38:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, You once said you didn't like long posts. Sorry. But I think
this is about all I have left to say. The second part should also
answer a monitor's question regarding how one would determine who's
got the Truth. There is no need to object, as I post this for informational
purposes only. 'The Swiss entered the colloquy intending to present
their view of the overriding importance of the spirit at the Lord's
Supper, not to squabble over its exact relationship with Christ's
flesh. However, Luther's experience as a debater, combined with his inherent unwillingness
to compromise, led him to stigmatize the Swiss' argument by his
statement soon after the colloquy began: 'You seek to prove that
a body cannot be in two places at the same time' (Kittleson 223).
He falsely deconstructed their argument to the 'physics' of Christ's
body, forcing them to prove that his strict
interpretation of Jesus' words 'This is my body' was wrong. In defending against Luther's incorrect accusation,
the Swiss primarily referred to John 6:63 saying, 'The flesh is
of no avail' (Kittleson 223). Because of Luther's shift of the burden
of proof away from himself, he was not obligated to prove the Swiss'
opinion wrong. This became an early hint of Luther's steadfastness
to his version of the gospel and his unwillingness to change, a
personal characteristic that doomed any attempts to resolve the
Sacramentarian Controversy. Luther came to the colloquy not to debate
in hopes of collaborating on a new truth about the Eucharist, nor
did he even come to persuade the others to his side. He merely came
to state his opinion and see all other notions collapse before its
rightness, without him having to defend or even thoroughly explain
the dogma.' 'Contrarily, Zwingli prefaces his 67 Articles with the
statement: 'The articles and opinions below, I, Urlich Zwingli,
confess to have preached in the worthy city of Zürich as based
upon the Scriptures which are called inspired by God, and I offer
to protect and conquer with the said articles, and where I have
not now correctly understood said Scriptures I shall allow myself
to be taught better, but only from said Scriptures' (qtd. in Hastings
12:875). Trained in the humanist tradition, Zwingli's clearly intended to seek the truth by proof and re-proof while
studying the 'original source' of Christianity, the New Testament.
He did not boldly claim to have the absolute truth, as Luther for
the most part does. Because Zwingli did not arrive at his position
through a personal, agonizing experience like Luther did, but through
a more scholastic,
Scripture based method, Zwingli does not share Luther's unyielding
adherence to his own theology. Because of Zwingli's apparent openness
to correction, it is unfortunate that Luther did not attempt to
prove to Zwingli with Scripture that 'This is my body' means exactly
what it reads. Also, because of Zwingli's openness to scholarship
by his admitting that he did not possess the pure truth, he allowed
Luther to turn the burden of proof onto him and his Swiss counterparts
without much resistance.' http://silcon.com/~akraus/ecumenism/lordsupr.html
Contrary to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, Orthodoxy does
not utilize humanism, scholasticism or any other 'ism' developed
or revived in the first half of the second milleneum (indeed, the
Hesychast controversies and St Gregory Palamas' responses to them
prove this beyond all doubt) as the principal of Christian knowledge.
I know you objected to my statement that the issue was really about
how we understand Scripture, but the small quote above should suffice
to prove that the way in which Scripture is approached has a direct
bearing on what conclusions one derives from it. The man-centered,
self-reliant spirit of the Renaissance/Reformation resulted in everyone
enjoying the priviledge of having their own personal interpretation
of Scripture. For my part, I have not rejected the 'plain' or 'clear'
teaching of Scripture at all. I endeavor to reject, as much as I
am currently able to humble my own mind, the individualistic methods
of approaching Scripture which were developed in the west after
it split from the Church. The following methodology is the corrective
to all these different ways of approaching Scripture which were
unknown to the early Church. 'II: A General Rule for distinguishing
the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical
Pravity I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of
very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what
sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish
the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity;
and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer
to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect
the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to
continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the
Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first,
by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of
the Catholic Church. But here some one
perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and
sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what
need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?
For this reason,--because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture,
all do not accept it in one and the same
sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another;
so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there
are interpreters. For Novatian expounds
it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius,
Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another,
Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another.
Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies
of such various error, that the rule for
the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed
in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that
faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense 'Catholic,'
which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends
all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.
We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be
true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity,
if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest
were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent,
in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient
definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost
all priests and doctors.' --St Vincent of Lerins, 5th c. Vladimir
Lossky, 20th century Russian theologian,put it nicely: 'Tradition
is the principle of Christian knowledge.' It is only via the lens
of Tradition that one can understand the Scriptures properly. Not
via humanism, not via scholasticism (Aquinas), and not via rationalism--none
of these methods are the principle of Christian knowledge. If one
does not seek out true Tradition (yes, that would be contained in
Orthodoxy), then one must necessarily resort to one of these other
approaches to Scripture.
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Tom
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:03:18 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Hope this helps John 6:51-54 is an important passage that can help
us better understand the Lord's Supper. It focuses on Christ presenting
Himself to the people as the Bread of Life. In verse 51 He says,
'I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. '
That means that God the Son entered our world by taking on human
form, He offers eternal life to those who receive Him in faith (symbolized
by eating). Of course only the the elect will John 6:37;44&65.
Although He used physical terminology, He was conveying a spiritual
message: to take Him to satisfy one's soul as a man eats bread to
satisfy his stomach. Jesus' statement confused some of those who
heard Him: 'The Jews, therefore, [argued] among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He
who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him' (vv. 52- 56). These Jews
were interpreting Jesus's metaphor in a literal, physical sense,
but the Lord was speaking in a figurative way. He was saying they
would need to acknowledge that He was God in human flesh and appropriate
His sacrificial death on their behalf. Unless you can accept the
incarnation and the substitutionary blood- atoning death of Christ
on your behalf, you will never have eternal life. When you were
saved you did just that. And when you share in the bread and cup
of Communion, you symbolize that spiritual appropriation. Communion
is a restatement of our salvation, and should also be a rededication
of our faith. So it's vital that we share in it. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:08:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hope this helps John 6:51-54 is an important passage that can help
us better understand the Lord's Supper. It focuses on Christ presenting
Himself to the people as the Bread of Life. In verse 51 He says,
'I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. '
That means that God the Son entered our world by taking on human
form, He offers eternal life to those who receive Him in faith (symbolized
by eating). Of course only the the elect will John 6:37;44&65.
Although He used physical terminology, He was conveying a spiritual
message: to take Him to satisfy one's soul as a man eats bread to
satisfy his stomach. Jesus' statement confused some of those who
heard Him: 'The Jews, therefore, [argued] among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He
who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and
I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him' (vv. 52- 56). These Jews
were interpreting Jesus's metaphor in a literal, physical sense,
but the Lord was speaking in a figurative way. He was saying they
would need to acknowledge that He was God in human flesh and appropriate
His sacrificial death on their behalf. Unless you can accept the
incarnation and the substitutionary blood- atoning death of Christ
on your behalf, you will never have eternal life. When you were
saved you did just that. And when you share in the bread and cup
of Communion, you symbolize that spiritual appropriation. Communion
is a restatement of our salvation, and should also be a rededication
of our faith. So it's vital that we share in it. Tom
---
That begs the question, what kind of 'meat' were the OT and preresurrection
saints munchin' on? laz
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:25:31 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz You said: That begs the question, what kind of 'meat' were the
OT and preresurrection saints munchin' on? I am trying to understand
where you are coming from when you ask that question. Are you disagreeing
with something I said? Tom
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:50:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
BUNK! - a true understanding of the basics is given by the illuminating
power of the Holy Spirit to whomever has been given eyes and ears....
The TRUE church supplements the believer in providing fellowship,
preaching, sacraments, discipleship, discipline, correct teaching
and godly exhortation of those things revealed to the Elect thru
the Word. You simply have NO basis (logical, historical or scriptural)
for claiming to be the ONE true 'visible' Church...NONE! If you
are, you've done a VERY poor job of discipling the nations. laz
|
Subject: Re: Ah, yes, Zwingli...
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:35:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I've got logical, historical and Scriptural basis for everything
I've ever presented here. You just don't happen to agree with any
of it. :) Christopher PS-I think my time here is done (don't cheer
too loud, everyone). But participation on this board has certainly
helped me ask questions which I may or may not have thought of myself
and forced me to do digging which I might not have otherwise done.
Thanks.
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:37:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, What would be sad would be if God waited almost 1,600 years
to give a teacher to the Church who correctly understood what the
definition of 'is' is. That is what seems to me to be 'against common
sense.' Christopher
---
AAAAHHHH, BUT....! ...1600 years
to the Lord is like one day and just past lunchtime of the next!
LOL! laz p.s. the greater shame is the wholesale introduction and
promulgation of doctrines not to be found nor implied ANYWHERE in
scripture...
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Pilgrim
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 13:34:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher,
I was wondering how long it would
take to have this type of discussion here! With all the cries from
the Orthodox about being so alien to the Roman state church, it
is amazing how similar the theologies are in many matters. Here,
for example, we have the doctrine of transubstantiation being promoted
as the 'doctrine of the historic church' by the Orthodox, no differently
than the apologists for the Roman state church do. Yet in both cases,
what is to be carefully recognized is that the few references made
to the 'Eucharist' and those that appear to support this fantastic proposition, that the bread
and wine actually and really are transformed into the flesh and
blood of the Lord Christ, by the 'Fathers' were NOT the universal
nor majority view of the early church. Augustine even is often quoted
as a proponent of transubstantiation, but in fact if the man is
read in context and such statements given as support for it are
compared with the bulk of his writings, he obviously and in many
places vehemently rejects this view. That there was much disagreement
amidst the early church, even during the last days of the Apostles
is not any secret. For heresy was present during the lifetime of
Paul and Peter as they both directed admonitions and exhortations
to the churches to beware of these false teachers and prophets.
It is a shallow argument, to say the least to pick and choose which
'Father' supports your particular view of doctrine when there are
many others who wrote contradictory views during the same time.
Why not adopt Origen's view of God? Why is he wrong and others correct?
Frankly, you have no valid answer or polemic against doing this,
and thus the TRUE church has always and will always rely upon the
one and only source of truth; the Word of God WRITTEN!. That men will disagree over its interpretation is a
given, as the Scriptures also reveal. But that should be no deterrent
to a child of God to seek the truth, not from some alleged preserved
'tradition' or 'holy Father', but from the SOURCE itself. Therefore
there is no substance to your proposition (indeed a disheveled strawman
at best) that antiquity equals veracity and thus truth is to be
found only by submitting to a small group of men whose proximity
of life to the Apostles is closer than ours. Further, the conclusion
is false therefore, that a disagreement with a doctrine now which
was held by a select few means that the church was without truth
for 1600 years. Even the Apostles, before they were anointed with
the Holy Spirit at Pentecost held to grave error and were mistaken
about many things concerning God and His kingdom. Is it too difficult
to understand therefore, that those who came after them, yes, even
those who were allegedly discipled by some of them, were fraught
with myriad misconceptions and errors? The 'Fathers' were not INSPIRED but men such as
we and therefore susceptible to all manner of errors in life and
doctrine. Lastly, on what documented grounds are you able to contend
that men like Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, and
later Tertullian, Edwards, Owen, Warfield, Hodge, et al were slaves
to the writings of Augustine or some other 'ancient father's ideas'?
To summarily dismiss the intellect and spirituality of all these
men and to suggest that they either did not or were incapable of
searching the Scriptures on their own is utterly preposterous and
ingenuous. To be sure, all make reference to many forefathers in
their writings, but one thing that stands out above all these references,
unlike the apologetes of the Orthodox and Roman factions, their
excursus are enmassed with Scripture passages and the exegesis of
them.
Isa 8:20 'To the law
and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.' Hos 8:12 'I have written
to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as
a strange thing. 13 They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices
of mine offerings, and eat it; but the LORD accepteth them not;
now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins: they
shall return to Egypt.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From:
Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000
at 15:21:12 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>.....unlike the
apologetes of the Orthodox and Roman factions, their excursus are
enmassed with Scripture passages and the exegesis of them.<<<<<
OK, one last post. Have you ever even read St John Chrysostom? Almost
everything written by him is verse-by-verse exegesis. It is your
'we quote Scripture and nobody else does, therefore we're right'
claim that doesn't seem to hold much water. When I've quoted others,
it's usually one of two things--either commentary on Scripture itself,
or writings which illustrate our different approaches to understanding
Scripture. Like I told laz, I've got plenty of logical, historical,
and Scriptural basis for these beliefs. You folks just don't agree
with any of them. :) I thanked laz and I would like to thank you,
too, for your continued willingness to engage in discussion over
the past several months. In Christ our True God, Christopher PS--many
thanks to john and Rod, too. Don't want to skip anyone!
|
Subject: Re: Eucharistic Scriptures
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 14:11:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, Please see the post from 'eikke' on the word symbol. This
excludes the idea of transubstantiation. Just as with the Immaculate
Conception, it is a totally unnecessary doctrine. I'm not going
to argue with you about Augustine again. We've been down that road
before. It should suffice to refer to a post by a monitor above
referencing 'Paul, Augustine and the Reformers.' Christopher
|
Subject: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted:
Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:43:36 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>Which
Scriptures support these beliefs? 3. The veneration of the Mother
of God and the saints<<<<< St Cyril of Alexandria,
whose teaching was supported by the Council at Ephesus in the early
fifth century, said: 'If any one does not acknowledge that Emmanuel
is in truth God, and that the holy Virgin is, in
consequence, 'Theotokos (Mother of God)
for she brought forth after the flesh the Word of God who has become
flesh, let him be anathema.' I'm sure you're aware of the Nestorian
heresy he and the rest of the Church was fighting. Everything having
to do with the veneration of the Mother of God, the saints and icons
has to do with that 'in consequence' and the fact of Christ's conquering
of death.
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: john
hampshire
To:
Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 06:34:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Sorry Christopher, but when I read you post I found it amusing.
I know you are serious about these things, but I just cannot fathom
it. We know that Christ is the Word of God. We know the Word was
God and was with God (John 1:1). Then it says: 'all things came
into being through Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being
that has come into being'. That means, if we understand it, Christ,
the Word of God, created all things. He is the Creator God. Mariam
who provided the biological cells that became Jesus was created
by the Word, that is Christ. But in stark contrast to this, Cyril
of Alexandria wrote that Mary created Jesus and is the Mother of
God by consequence. So, the Word which became flesh and took on
the appearance of a man has a creator under this teaching, this
woman Mariam, in complete opposition to Scripture. Even worse John
1:14 says the 'Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...the only
begotten from the Father...'. Begotten by whom? Mary the Mother
of God???? No, The Word was begotten by the Father. We can take
an idea, as some churches do, and run wild with it, but Scripture
must first be mangled to do it. Mariam is no more the Mother of
God, who has no beginning, than James was the Brother of God. Mary
was Jesus' earthly mother, that is correct, but to say any more
than this is an incredibly blasphemous doctrine, one I am surprised
any rational man would even consider adopting as their belief. It
is utterly ridiculous to boot. Because Mariam was used by God to
provide the genetic material to create the body for Jesus she becomes
God's Mother-- whew, that is phenomenally bad. Sorry, but this doctrine
really is offensive. As Jesus said to His mother, 'Woman, what have
I to do with you? That is to paraphrase: 'I am not under your authority
except in the most basic mother-son relationship, I am God and don't
forget it'. Jesus knew His mother's place, Mariam knew her place
(most of the time). It seems some churches have forgotten a lesson
Mary knew all too well. john
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: eikke
To: john
hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:09:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi John- This is one of the benefits of belonging to a Church that
understands the world in the same way that the Apostles and Gospel
writers did. You see, the German Reformers who began your traditions
did not understand symbolism in the same way that the average Greek
of the 1st century did. For moderns, symbols are seen as signs unconnected
in any essential way with the things they represent, i.e. your view
of the Eucharist. It's a symbol, it points to a higher reality,
reminds us of Christ's sacrifice, but otherwise there is no essential
connection between the bread/wine and Christ. Symbolism for the
Greeks (including the authors of the Gospels, who to varying degrees
thought like Greeks, especially St. John) meant that an object,
or a word, or an idea, was somehow viscerally connected (in its
essence) to the higher reality that it represented. That which makes
an object what it is, it's essential 'it'ness, is somehow related
metaphysically to the thing or being that it represents. It's as
simple as that. That's how it came about that Christians from the
very beginning understood the Eucharist to be in some sense literal.
They were, after all, only thinking about it in the same way that
the gospel authors were. For further illustration, the same idea
applies to idolatry. If, after all, idols were mere lumps of clay
or wood, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to pray to them.
But they were seen to be essentially connected to the beings they
represented, and were thus viewed as demonic in and of themselves
by Jews and Christians. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: john
hampshire
To:
eikke
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 20:28:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You wrote: For further illustration, the same idea applies to >>>>idolatry.
If, after all, idols were mere lumps of clay or wood, there is absolutely
no reason for anyone to pray to them. But they were seen to be essentially
connected to the beings they represented, and were thus viewed as
demonic in and of themselves by Jews and Christians' I thank you
for your clarification on symbology, but please permit me to continue
to disagree. The bread and wine are understood to represent something
-- bread is the gospel of Christ and the wine is the blood that
was shed, as defined by Scripture itself. You argue that there is
an intrinsic connection, a certain metaphysical binding of the blood
to the wine and the bread to Christ's body. But in reality, this
idea is foreign to the Bible's use of symbology and Christ's usage
for that matter. Sure an idol is considered evil, but not because
it has become the god it represents. It is evil because it is forbidden
by God. Should we think that there is some metaphysical reality
in which the wood idol actually BECOMES the god it represents? Yes,
some believed it did, they were pagan idol worshippers. By contrast
then, would those who believe the bread/wine actually BECOMES the
real body and blood of Christ equally pagan worshippers? They are
cut of the same cloth, who else believes such ridiculous notions.
Did the early church believe that lambs BECAME Christ during their
sacrifice? Did the Jews think that the unleavened bread actually
became manna? Did the apostles think the water used in baptism actually
became God the Holy Spirit? Did those who heard Jesus preach that
He was the water of life really think Jesus could become water suitable
to drink? Is there any instance, outside the beliefs of the pagan
church of Rome and the Orthodox church, where we find Scripture
teaching that the symbol actually becomes the thing symbolized?
Is it found anywhere?, even by any means possible, including some
metaphysical meaningless mumbo-jumbo? No, it is always understood
as we do today. The symbol is just a symbol, the reality never becomes
the symbol. If this is the benefit of belonging to a Church that
supposedly understands the world in the same way that the Apostles
and Gospel writers did, then there is no benefit. It would be more
truthful to say it is the benefit of belonging to a church which
pretends its many aberrant unscriptural doctrines are the apostles,
and does this simply by stating it to be so without proof or Scripture
to corroborate, so that it has a means to defend what it cannot
prove otherwise. It may seem more holy and powerful to say your
teachings are those of the Apostle John, and I suppose it dupes
the unwashed masses, but that claim is a bold lie: a popular lie,
but still a lie. It is no better than a Pentecostal saying “Jesus
told me.... just the other day”. A lame attempt to make the indefensible
seem defendable. john
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: eikke
To: john
hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:41:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Your post is full of good points. It had not occurred to me before
reading it that the first century hellenes of the mediterranean
looked at the world in a fashion so similar to the way you and your
16th century north european forebears do. You said: But in reality,
this idea is foreign to the Bible's use of symbology and Christ's
usage for that matter. What exactly is the Bible's use of symbology,
then? Has it occurred to you that a symbol with no intrinsic connection
to that which it represents is arbitrary and therefore meaningless?
You wrote: Sure an idol is considered evil, but not because it has
become the god it represents. It is evil because it is forbidden
by God. Nobody said anything about the idol becoming the god it
represents. You're reading too much into my example. I just said
the idol was seen to have an essential connection to that which
it represented. It was not considered the same thing as the demon
it represented. Now, the above is some pretty dead end reasoning.
You're saying that idolatry is not inherently evil, we just call
it evil because God forbids it, or because He has decided that it
is. Forgive me. I've been out of protestantism so long that I forgot
how arbitrary and circular a logician your God is. Should we think
that there is some metaphysical reality in which the wood idol actually
BECOMES the god it represents? Yes, some believed it did, they were
pagan idol worshippers. By contrast then, would those who believe
the bread/wine actually BECOMES the real body and blood of Christ
equally pagan worshippers? They are cut of the same cloth, who else
believes such ridiculous notions. Well, all Christians until the
16th century, actually, and the majority of Christians today. With
one and a half billion people worldwide believing in such ridiculous
notions, and with a religion that has believed in them everywhere
for 2000 years, it's good to know that there are a few million intelligent
armchair theologians in America to set us all straight. You just
don't get what I was saying. You see, that attitude wasn't just
restricted to idols, sacrifices, or other religious paraphernalia.
It was applied to everything. Nobody thought their idols were the
gods themselves, not even the pagans. They believed there was a
metaphysical connection between their idol and their god. The fact
that early christians believed that there is an essential connection
between an object and its symbol did not mark them as pagans, any
more than your belief in a fatalistic God makes you a muslim. That
is, assuming you're Reformed. That way of thinking was just part
of the 'intellectual furniture,' of their world. It was just assumed
by everybody, whether they were monotheistic Stoics, hellenized
Jews like the Apostles, or pagan polytheists. The only people back
then who looked at symbols in any way remotely resembling the way
you do all happened to be atheist Cynics. The parallel is fitting,
since that's what your religion reduces people to. You wrote: Did
the early church believe that lambs BECAME Christ during their sacrifice?
Did the Jews think that the unleavened bread actually became manna?
Did the apostles think the water used in baptism actually became
God the Holy Spirit? Did those who heard Jesus preach that He was
the water of life really think Jesus could become water suitable
to drink? Apparently not, since we have no sacrament that involves
drinking water. Is there any instance, outside the beliefs of the
pagan church of Rome and the Orthodox church, where we find Scripture
teaching that the symbol actually becomes the thing symbolized?
Is it found anywhere?, even by any means possible, including some
metaphysical meaningless mumbo-jumbo? Actually, it's your logic
that reduces the Eucharist to meaninglessness, not 'metaphysical
mumbo-jumbo.' Btw, I'd be careful about throwing out those kinds
of phrases, if I was you. The author of the gospel which begins
with a discussion of that well known metaphysical term 'the Logos'
might hear you. Gee, I wonder if he meant anything by using a term
that had been familiar to Greek philosophy for centuries, in order
to get his idea of a divine Son of God across to a Greek thinking
audience. Nah, it was probably just more of St. John's metaphysical
mumbo-jumbo. And this last part is kind of a silly question, insofar
as there were no writings on the nature of the Eucharist outside
of the Church for the first couple of centuries, unless you count
the gnostics. Therefore, there could be no 'instances outside of
the beliefs of the Roman and Orthodox Churches,' considering they
were the only ones writing. You have to remember: The Bible is ours.
The One, Visible Church put it together at the end of the 4th century,
not the 1st. You're welcome. I'm not sure I know which period of
'the early church' you're talking about. You mean Israel? Can you
really be asking such a silly question, considering as their God
had not performed the act of the sacrificial lamb at that point?
What on earth does that have to do with Christianity, which came
about only after the sacrifice was made? If you can find me a point
in the OT where God splits a lamb asunder and says, 'Take, eat,
this is my body, and this is my blood, etc.', then your question
might be relevant. We're talking the NT Church here, and they never
sacrificed lambs. As for the water used in baptism: does anybody
say that the water actually becomes the Holy Spirit? I've never
heard this. Still, I have to wonder why baptism was instituted for
the Church if God could purify us by any means and at any time.
If one wants to make a symbol nothing more than a representation
of a certain reality, then why not just forego the symbol and say
that God has purified you regardless of immersion? What does water
do to facilitate the descent of the Holy Spirit? Nothing, right?
Then water baptism is an empty ritual, and best done away with,
right? You wrote: If this is the benefit of belonging to a Church
that supposedly understands the world in the same way that the Apostles
and Gospel writers did, then there is no benefit. I still don't
see where you've shown there to be no benefit. I'd prefer to understand
God in the same way that the 1st century Greek christians did, considering
they're probably a lot closer to the truth than 16th century swiss
or germans, or 20th century Americans like yourself. It would be
more truthful to say it is the benefit of belonging to a church
which pretends its many aberrant unscriptural doctrines are the
apostles, and does this simply by stating it to be so without proof
or Scripture to corroborate, so that it has a means to defend what
it cannot prove otherwise. First off, you're asking the Orthodox
and Catholics to play exclusively on your homecourt, and that just
ain't gonna happen. Sola scriptura is a man-made doctrine, a historical
fallacy. What point is there in debating according to its rules
when we're discussing early christians who themselves had never
heard anything like it? It may seem more holy and powerful to say
your teachings are those of the Apostle John, and I suppose it dupes
the unwashed masses, but that claim is a bold lie: a popular lie,
but still a lie. This really says nothing, of course. But I do think
that in the interest of good christian humility, the people on this
board shouldn't make such frequent contrasts between themselves
and 'the unwashed masses.' It is no better than a Pentecostal saying
“Jesus told me.... just the other day”. Yeah, it's almost as lame
as somebody saying 'I had all of these questions and nobody at my
church could answer them. Then I began reading Calvin and found
out that he agreed with me. I knew from that point on that I was
right.'
|
Subject: Re: The veneration of the Mother of God and the saints
From: Christopher
To: john
hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 21:13:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
So irrational, isn't it? So foreign to human reason! The pagan Greeks
thought the idea of Logos having flesh and blood (and bile, according
to one objection) was mumbo-jumbo, too...quite a ridiculous notion.
Christopher
|
Subject: Nestorian?
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:54:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Let's at least be intellectually honest with one another, shall
we? Tell you what, read the Council of Ephesus, readily available
online or in any 38 volume collection of the works of the Fathers
that a good library would have. When you have read the canons, and
the brief arguements for both sides, generally provided by Nestorius
and Cyril, then we can have an educated conversation about whose
doctrine is blasphemous and not according to Scripture and whose
isn't. Blasphemy is a serious charge and if a discussion is to steer
clear of meaningless rhetoric, then both parties should probably
be on the same page. Not that I expect you to hold the Council of
Ephesus as any sort of authority for yourself. I am merely curious
as to how your rejection of the very Scriptural doctrine of St Cyril
and the council does not lead directly to the allegedly Scriptural
Nestorianism and a hopeless division of the Person of Jesus Christ.
I am becoming more and more convinced that most Protestant theology
actually is Nestorianism. The rejection of the title Theotokos is
usually defended, as you have defended it, by splitting up the Person
of Jesus Christ into different parts, as if one could explain the
Mystery of the Incarnation of God in such a manner. Christopher
PS--just FYI, I am no longer under the delusion that what I believed
prior to converting to Orthodoxy was, in any real sense, 'Reformed.'
Although I was raised Baptist, my thinking was shaped far more by
CS Lewis than anyone else. In fact, I probably would have eventually
become Anglican if it's American branch, the Episcopal Church, had
not exchanged the teachings of men like Lewis for men like Bishop
Spong, and I had not discovered, by the mercy of God, the Orthodox
Church first. In rereading some of Lewis recently, I was struck
by how Orthodox a lot what he wrote actually is. The Screwtape Letters
would be a perfect example. And his recommendation, in his introduction
to the translation of St Athanasius' On the Incarnation, that one
should read three old books for every one new book still seems very
sound. Whether you consider St Athanasius or St Cyril Fathers of
the Church or not, there is at least value in reading them to ensure
that one is not dooming oneself to repeat history. So that's why
I'd like to see if the brands of Protestantism that reject Mary
as Theotokos are, in fact, Nestorian in their theology of the Person
of Jesus Christ. Nestorius was only willing to grant 'Christotokos,'
much as you might.
|
Subject: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: Christopher
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30,
2000 at 13:05:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
>>>>>Which Scriptures support these
beliefs? 4. The belief in the One, Visible Church<<<<<
Start with Eph 4:6 and 1 Tim 3:15? Please see the attached link
for how these Scriptures are understood in the Orthodox Church.
It won't take up too much of your time. Christopher PS--I'll leave
the conversation regarding sola scriptura to eikke, if he chooses
to respond. We've been down that path several times and I don't
think revisiting the subject is likely to yield any new arguments
from either side. The Church is Visible and One orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.htm
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30,
2000 at 14:38:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Seems to me that the true Church, like a house, having
her beginning with the FOUNDATION built by the Apostles (with the
chief cornerstone being Christ himself (1Pe 2:5))has been undergoing
successive growth in maturity with the passing of time under the
superintending presence of the Spirit. Some call this 'progressive
revelation' whereby the Body has been getting stronger and smarter
relative to the things of God as He has revealed Himself (in scripture).
We are transformed as we grow in grace and knowledge with time as
individuals ... the Church as an organism has also been undergoing
the same transformation - growing in grace and knowledge as new
heresies have come to be (or reemerged) and as annointed teachers/preachers
have been raised up for the edification of the saints. No NEW revelation,
mind you, but increased understanding (fuller understanding) of
the revelation already given in holy writ. Rome and Orthodoxy have
never 'grown up'... in fact, they refuse to put the 'errors' of
the early church (who were not all in agreement on many things!)
under the all revealing light of the God's Word...a
lamp unto (our) feet, and a light unto (our)path. Ps119:105 Heb 4:12 For the word
of God 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. In fact, their errors (especially
Rome's) have been compounding over the centuries...kinda like interest!
;-) Sola, Raised To The Fifth, laz
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30,
2000 at 18:32:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I'm still curious as to which errors you believe
the Orthodox adhere. Say what you will about Rome (the Orthodox
were calling her on the same errors that the Reformers protested,
after all, just 450 years earlier), but I'd like to know which developments
in the last thousand years have taken the Orthodox from the ancient
understanding of the Word of God? But do you really mean to say
that you have a better, fuller, more mature understanding of Christ's
mission (because you live 2,000 years after He did) than the Apostles
or their disciples did? Merely because there are so many more books
on the subject today than back then, or because the catalogue of
Christian experience is wider now than in the 1st century? I assume
the traditional response to your idea of 'progressive revelation'
(or progressive understanding of revelation) would be to question
why it is that those folks who have changed the least since the
days of the Apostles (i.e. the Orthodox, for the sake of this argument),
and who understand the meaning of the revelation as the Apostles
did -having that direct line of discipleship from the Apostles to
the Apostolic Fathers, and down the line- should be held somehow
to be inferior in comparison with those whose teachings (the Reformers)
have less in common with the mindset that guided the Holy Apostles.
Is not Christ the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? If anything,
shouldn't we be seeking to adopt the mindset that has guided the
ancient faith for millennia, rather than condescending to it by
calling it a less mature species of our own faith? I ask this especially
in light of the fact that the Reformers, in going back to what they
thought was the mind of the ancient Church, actually sought to do
so by using the same Church Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, et al)
that have always undergirded Orthodoxy. The Reformation was, after
all, fueled in part by new translations of the Greek Fathers into
German -which translations rarely, if ever, existed in Latin. Ironically
enough, the idea of a progressive revelation is actually Roman Catholic.
It might interest you -and anyone else who looks on Orthodoxy as
an eastern form of Catholicism- to know that the Orthodox look on
protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two sides of the same coin.
This is a prime example. The Orthodox have no truck with 'progressive
revelation.' They understand the Ecumenical Councils, for instance,
not as meetings to discuss new Christian doctrines, but rather to
define what Christians have always believed. The Roman Catholics,
on the other hand, understand revelation as a sort of gold mine
from which new and interesting facts about God are constantly extracted.
That, in fact, is how the errors of the Catholics have been gaining
compound interest. What you call errors, they would call examples
of the 'fuller understanding' that you claim. It's the same principle
as 'reformed and ever reforming.' Now, you've seen the mistakes
that that attitude has led Rome into. Do you think that hydra-headed
protestantism stands a better chance with the same principle? History
certainly doesn't bear that out. The idea that the 'Church' is constantly
growing and improving is more rooted in the post-Enlightenment belief
in inevitable progress than in historical reality. Especially if
you look at it from the Orthodox point of view, according to which
the last 900 years have seen Western Christianity fall further and
further away from the true and ancient Faith. As for the supposed
tendency that the Orthodox and Roman Churches have of not submitting
their findings to Holy Scripture: it was only with the scholastic
movement in the 11th-15th centuries that the Catholic West developed
doctrinal theories based on philosophy largely divorced from Holy
Tradition or scripture. I believe this is one of the main qualms
that Luther and his ilk had with the scholastics, and rightfully
so. It had appalled the Orthodox for centuries. But this development
never took place in the East. The Orthodox never threw the Holy
Bible, the Church Fathers, or the Holy Traditions overboard for
the sake of reason-based philosophies. Read any of the Church Fathers,
and see how much their exegesis depends on the Bible, or on their
copious commentaries on the Holy Books contained therein. I imagine
you would not be surprised to see how much of their thought is vitiated
with the mindset of the Bible, considering that in many cases these
are men who spent their entire lives in remote monasteries studying
their holy books. I'd also like to know how you (or any of the other
protestants here) view the Church as somehow stronger now than it
was in the past, considering that at one time most of Europe, Asia
Minor, mediterranean Africa, and the Balkans were Christian. Today,
America is hardly even nominally Christian, Europe is well known
to be a post-Christian continent, Asia Minor and mediterranean Africa
were conquered and forcibly converted to Islam, and the Balkans
are a political nightmare. Can anyone really say that the Church
is healthier now than it was even 100 years ago, the Holy Spirit
notwithstanding? IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: a monitor
To: eikke
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 12:08:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Errors of Orthodoxy? How would determine that an
error has been committed? What would be my barometer for truth?
hmmm If I were from Mars and wanted to settle the dispute between
Orthodoxy and Rome....how would I go about arbitrating ...coming
to the truth...determining who is right...who is the true and rightful
heir to the 'keys of the Kingdom'...and apostolic succession? a
monitor
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: a monitor
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 20:04:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
That would be an involved undertaking, and one that
I suggest our martian friend get down to doing, rather than sitting
snidely by, pointing out the fact that there are differences between
the only historical churches. After all, if he wants to determine
who's right and who's wrong, he has to study the canons, the consensus
patrum, the history, the traditions, the theology, the commentaries,
the liturgies, the lives of the saints, the Whole Dang Thing. Unlike
Catholics and protestants, the Orthodox have no one person to determine
who's right and who's wrong. They do so after sifting the above.
I suppose an Orthodox would suggest that our martian friend start
by reading Plato, since he not only had a profound influence on
the Fathers, but on St. Paul and some of the gospel writers as well.
It's always good to know what mindset St. John the Divine was writing
for and with, what all he means by Logos, etc. Then the more generous
Orthodox would steer our martian friend to a general, popular history
of Christianity, written by a humanist Catholic like Paul Johnson.
If he wanted the Orthodox view of said controversies, he could (and
should) read Papadakis' The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy,
in addition to Meyendorff's Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions,
both meant to be accessible for students and the general reader,
and very well written. If our martian friend likes reading religious
history, he'll find both books to be real page turners. They can
be found on the net at Eighth Day Books, for about $20 apiece. I
suppose a Catholic would guide him to a more expensive book, like
the weighty Documents Illustrative of Papal Supremacy, if he wanted
to prove his point. The Orthodox would argue that Papadakis' and
Meyendorff's books provide the only balanced assessment of ancient
Christendom out there today, as all the other histories tend to
speak of it as a purely Western phenomenon. The Orthodox know -and
have always known- that the real split in Christendom is not between
Catholics and protestants, but between the Catholic West and the
Orthodox East. The Orthodox would point out to the martian that,
in some pretty fundamental ways, the protestants are just Catholics
without the sacramentalism, so that he need not bother reading up
too much on them. The martian, being an outsider and forced to look
at the three faiths objectively, would note that while the Orthodox
and Catholics may seem to dress and decorate their churches alike,
it is truly the Catholics and protestants who have the most in common.
Now, if our Martian friend weren't absolutely sick of Christianity
by this point, but were in fact eager to learn more about the true
faith (which in any case would lead him away from so-called protestantism
and towards one of the historical churches), the Orthodox would
point him to Michael Pomozansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, which
is both lucid and accessible, and contains many edifying citations
from the Fathers. Perhaps our martian has a taste for more popular
books, ones that contain well-rounded surveys of theology and history
in one. The friendly Orthodox would point him in the direction of
Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, which the martian at any rate
should be able to find at his nearest Barnes & Noble or Borders.
Or, if our Martian were something of an intellectual, they would
point him to Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends
and Doctrinal Themes, as well as Lossky's The Mystical Theology
of the Eastern Church, both of which protestant thinkers (at least
those protestant thinkers who even think about Christianity outside
of protestantism) have been contending with for some time. And,
of course, no martian ever went wrong in buying up every one of
Fr. Georges Florovsky's books that he could find. Of course, our
martian, being a visitor from another planet, most likely has no
American currency to plunk down for these purchases. In that case,
our frustrated little friend must settle with Patrick Barnes' www.orthodoxinfo.com,
which really isn't much of a letdown because it contains a gigantic
amount of information on the historic faith. More than any one person
could digest in a month. Say the martian wants to see comparisons
between the Orthodox and the Catholics, Anglicans, Reformed, and
other protestants. He can do so by following the link to the 'For
Anglican Inquirers,' 'For Reformed Inquirers,' links, etc. On the
Reformed link, he will even find a link to a wonderful site put
up by a former Presbyterian elder converted to Orthodoxy. The Catholics,
I suppose, would direct our martian to The New Advent Catholic Supersite,
at newadvent.org. There the martian will find links to the Fathers
AND THEN SOME. There's the ever-informative (if a little dated)
Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as links to the ancient councils,
canons, and all the rest. Our martian will find that this site is
actually far more satisfying along these lines than the Wheaton
Church Fathers site, which his erstwhile protestant friends had
once suggested he visit. After sifting all of these things, our
sincere (as opposed to proud and mocking) alien will then be able
to see for himself what the root causes of the schisms and controversies
between the churches are, why they are -in fact- so important, how
they have been resolved at various times in the past, and how they
may be resolved in the future. But then, all of this presupposes
somebody who actually cares enough about the truth to do the legwork
and find it. The lazy martian will return to his ship without supplementing
his prior beliefs by further study, impoverished in his understanding
of his own faith, if not in his knowledge of the history of his
religion. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: Pilgrim
To: eikke
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 20:55:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
eikke,
And a true Christian would emulate
the Lord Christ and His apostles, 'And
beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them
in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.' (Luke 24:27) . . . 'And Paul,
as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned
with them out of the scriptures,' (Acts
17:2) . . . 'But now is made manifest,
and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment
of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience
of faith:' (Rom 16:26) . . . Further,
it is hopefully the desire and actual practice of true Christians
which enables them to echo the apostle Paul when he wrote:
Acts 20:26 'Wherefore
I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood
of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all
the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves,
and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch,
and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not
to warn every one night and day with tears. 32 And now, brethren,
I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is
able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all
them which are sanctified.'
Our foundation and hope is built
upon the person of the Lord Christ and His Scriptures; nothing more,
nothing less!
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 02:48:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Our foundation and hope is built upon the person
of the Lord Christ and His Scriptures; nothing more, nothing less!
---
Paradoxically enough, your foundation and hope are
built upon far more and far less than Christ and the Scriptures,
but rarely on the two of them alone. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: Pilgrim
To: eikke
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 01,
2000 at 07:57:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Our foundation and hope is built upon the person
of the Lord Christ and His Scriptures; nothing more, nothing less!
---
Paradoxically enough, your foundation and hope are
built upon far more and far less than Christ and the Scriptures,
but rarely on the two of them alone. IC XC NI KA
---
eikke,
You may indeed write your ad hominem
slurs, albeit not for long in here, but what you may not do is to
judge/determine where my hope lies. In this you are unqualified
and your opinion stated is woefully erroneous. You may wish I would
become an icon-carrying Orthodox, but until then, I'll trust in
the Scriptures ALONE, the Lord Christ ALONE, by faith ALONE, and
the source being BY GOD'S GRACE ALONE. I am glad that you guys have
decided to try your traditional hands here in The Highway Theology
Forum. I am indebted to you three, really!! :-) It has brought back
found memories of a dear friend I met while in college many years
ago. He was Greek, John Ephantides was his name. And sometimes he
would share with us something of his life in Greece. One of the
things we found most fascinating was his release from the captivity
of the Orthodox church. The truth of the gospel and the power of
God had set him free from the 'Traditions of men' which made void
the word of God. John was indeed a free man in Christ and loved
the Word of God so very much, for it was his 'meat indeed'. I sometimes
take out the Greek Bible he gave me as a gift and read it, for it
is a sure reminder how easy it is for someone to follow men and
not God according to the Scriptures.
By His Grace, Pilgrim 'All men become like the
objects of their worship. Our inward character is being silently
moulded by our view of God and our conception of him. Christian
character is the fruit of Christian worship; pagan character the
fruit of pagan religion; semi-Christian character the fruit of a
half-true understanding of God. The principle holds good for us
all: we become like what we worship for worse or for better.
'They that make them are like unto them' (Psa. 115:8).' — Maurice
Roberts |
Subject: Re: The belief in the One, Visible Church
From: eikke
To: a monitor
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 31,
2000 at 19:59:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
That would be an involved undertaking, and one that
I suggest our martian friend get down to doing, rather than sitting
snidely by, pointing out the fact that there are differences between
the only historical churches. After all, if he wants to determine
who's right and who's wrong, he has to study the canons, the consensus
patrum, the history, the traditions, the theology, the commentaries,
the liturgies, the lives of the saints, the Whole Dang Thing. Unlike
Catholics and protestants, the Orthodox have no one person to determine
who's right and who's wrong. They do so after sifting the above.
I suppose an Orthodox would suggest that our martian friend start
by reading Plato, since he not only had a profound influence on
the Fathers, but on St. Paul and some of the gospel writers as well.
It's always good to know what mindset St. John the Divine was writing
for and with, what all he means by Logos, etc. Then the more generous
Orthodox would steer our martian friend to a general, popular history
of Christianity, written by a humanist Catholic like Paul Johnson.
If he wanted the Orthodox view of said controversies, he could (and
should) read Papadakis' The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy,
in addition to Meyendorff's Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions,
both meant to be accessible for students and the general reader,
and very well written. If our martian friend likes reading religious
history, he'll find both books to be real page turners. They can
be found on the net at Eighth Day Books, for about $20 apiece. I
suppose a Catholic would guide him to a more expensive book, like
the weighty Documents Illustrative of Papal Supremacy, if he wanted
to prove his point. The Orthodox would argue that Papadakis' and
Meyendorff's books provide the only balanced assessment of ancient
Christendom out there today, as all the other histories tend to
speak of it as a purely Western phenomenon. The Orthodox know -and
have always known- that the real split in Christendom is not between
Catholics and protestants, but between the Catholic West and the
Orthodox East. The Orthodox would point out to the martian that,
in some pretty fundamental ways, the protestants are just Catholics
without the sacramentalism, so that he need not bother reading up
too much on them. The martian, being an outsider and forced to look
at the three faiths objectively, would note that while the Orthodox
and Catholics may seem to dress and decorate their churches alike,
it is truly the Catholics and protestants who have the most in common.
Now, if our Martian friend weren't absolutely sick of Christianity
by this point, but were in fact eager to learn more about the true
faith (which in any case would lead him away from so-called protestantism
and towards one of the historical churches), the Orthodox would
point him to Michael Pomozansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, which
is both lucid and accessible, and contains many edifying citations
from the Fathers. Perhaps our martian has a taste for more popular
books, ones that contain well-rounded surveys of theology and history
in one. The friendly Orthodox would point him in the direction of
Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, which the martian at any rate
should be able to find at his nearest Barnes & Noble or Borders.
Or, if our Martian were something of an intellectual, they would
point him to Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends
and Doctrinal Themes, as well as Lossky's The Mystical Theology
of the Eastern Church, both of which protestant thinkers (at least
those protestant thinkers who even think about Christianity outside
of protestantism) have been contending with for some time. And,
of course, no martian ever went wrong in buying up every one of
Fr. Georges Florovsky's books that he could find. Of course, our
martian, being a visitor from another planet, most likely has no
American currency to plunk down for these purchases. In that case,
our frustrated little friend must settle with Patrick Barnes' www.orthodoxinfo.com,
which really isn't much of a letdown because it contains a gigantic
amount of information on the historic faith. More than any one person
could digest in a month. Say the martian wants to see comparisons
between the Orthodox and the Catholics, Anglicans, Reformed, and
other protestants. He can do so by following the link to the 'For
Anglican Inquirers,' 'For Reformed Inquirers,' links, etc. On the
Reformed link, he will even find a link to a wonderful site put
up by a former Presbyterian elder converted to Orthodoxy. The Catholics,
I suppose, would direct our martian to The New Advent Catholic Supersite,
at newadvent.org. There the martian will find links to the Fathers
AND THEN SOME. There's the ever-informative (if a little dated)
Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as links to the ancient councils,
canons, and all the rest. Our martian will find that this site is
actually far more satisfying along these lines than the Wheaton
Church Fathers site, which his erstwhile protestant friends had
once suggested he visit. After sifting all of these things, our
sincere (as opposed to proud and mocking) alien will then be able
to see for himself what the root causes of the schisms and controversies
between the churches are, why they are -in fact- so important, how
they have been at various times resolved, and how they may be resolved
in the future. IC XC NI KA
|
Subject: An invitation
From: Christopher
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 19:40:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You are all hereby, with all due respect to the 'master' of this
website, invited to participate on a new board that involves discussion
between Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants. It's new still,
but some of the discussions are substantive, and the input of some
of the 'old timers' here would be of value for everyone. Please
do stop by when you have a moment. Christopher Phronema pub4.ezboard.com/bphronema.html
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:27:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I was struck by the Georges Florovsky's piece and how much it resembles
Roman Catholic thought relative to justification. For a moment I
thought he might even be suggesting that the reformers neglected
'human responsibility'. He tried hard to avoid being accused of
Pelagianism...but at the end of the day, synergism is just as diabolical.
I was shocked to see him outright deny alien imputation of Christ's righteousness....again, so very Romanish.
I didn't get the feel that he was promoting monasticism per se,
but I was constantly reminded of this: Isa
64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and
all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind,
have taken us away. YET....! Zec 3:3 Now Joshua
was clothed with filthy garments,
and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those
that stood before him, saying, Take
away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold,
I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe
thee with change of raiment. 5
And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set
a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. AAAHHHH, such grace, sweet and free.....what have we
done to deserve such favor? zip... laz p.s. not that I consider
myself an 'old timer' with anything to contribute, but I did visit
and bookmark that website/discussion board,,,my system got hung
up ....may try again.
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:23:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I'm curious to know how you define Pelagianism, and how the Orthodox
doctrine of the divine energies is to be considered 'just as diabolical?'
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: laz
To: eikke
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 14:39:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I'm curious to know how you define Pelagianism, and how the Orthodox
doctrine of the divine energies is to be considered 'just as diabolical?'
---
eikke - I (a non-scholar/theologian) define Pelagianism
as the denial of original sin and the affect it had on Adam's (and
our) total being whereby we die physically AND have inherited both
his guilt(imputed to us ala Rom 5), and a will/emotive/desires at
odds/emnity with God. We inherited corruption and are 'dead in trespasses
and sin' completely and totally unable to understand 'spiritual'
things as they pertain to God's special revelation. We are unable
to help ourselves salvifically speaking....like a corpse, like Lazarus
as he lay rotting. The author was quick to qualify his statements
so as to preclude any notions of a self-help gospel of works-righteousness
(pelagianism), but in the final analysis, he clearly defended synergism...
that we cooperate with God's grace in our justification through
our 'works'. Monasticism being the works of the best kind, or so
I gathered. Was monasticism a requirement (even a consideration?)
for the Apostles...or Paul or Timothy or those elders/deacons to
be chosen by them for service in the first Churches identified in
Scripture? What about the seven churches identified in Revelations?
laz p.s. call me biased but I think monasticism exists because synergism
is clearly embraced...believed to be meritorious towards justification.
This is the heart of our beef with Rome...the nature of justification,
and apparently with Eastern Orthodoxy.
|
Subject: Ah.
From: eikke
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 20:37:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
In that case, I think there may be a problem, because we define
the heresy differently. I assume that Pelagius' argument was really
meant as an optimistic/humanist defense of God, i.e. that no one
could blame God for their damnation. Pelagius, after all, was a
pretty cheerful guy. I am by no means a scholar or a theologian
myself, as will become readily apparent, but my understanding of
Pelagianism was that the essential doctrine didn't necessarily have
anything to do with inherited guilt. It ultimately revolved around
the proposition that God made man inherently capable of fulfilling
His commandments, and He just lets us to it. He made us so that
we don't need His help in returning to Him. The two components of
St. Augustine's argument, as I understand it, are Original Sin and
Inherited Guilt. For the Orthodox, the doctrine of the first is
sufficient to refute Pelagius, and it also confirms the truth that
we are fallen beings. However, the Orthodox also adhere to the familiar
belief that we are responsible for our own sins, not Adam's and
Eve's. Now, the Orthodox do believe in Original Sin. They believe
that physical (and, more importantly, spiritual) death entered the
world through Adam's and Eve's sin, and that we are naturally (rather,
unnaturally) inclined to flout God's will for the sake of base pleasures
and whatnot. Man's nature has degraded since Adam to the point that
we are now more inclined to bad than good, and only God can save
us from our own fallenness. But the Orthodox do not believe in inherited
guilt, nor did the Church in the West before St. Augustine. It is
important to remember that Augustine's reading of Romans 5 was based
on a faulty translation of that passage. St. Augustine didn't know
Greek very well. Oddly enough, the great theological mind of the
Western middle ages wasn't very good at picking up languages. I
do think it's highly significant, however, that of those Church
Fathers whose native tongue was Greek (and who therefore read the
NT in its original language), not one of them -even in St. Augustine's
day- ever agreed with the doctrine of inherited guilt. Now, when
one speaks of the late Fr. Georges Florovsky's views, one is almost
always speaking of Orthodox belief itself. He's a widely recognized
Orthodox stalwart. I only say this so you know where he stands in
regard to Orthodoxy. Moreover, unlike what I'm about to say, his
thinking was actually organized, and the essay to which you refer
dealt specifically with a justification for monasticism from the
NT. If it isn't too much trouble, would you mind bringing up those
points in Fr. Florovsky's essay with which you take issue? The way
I understand 'synergism,' and I think this is how most Orthodox
look at it, is that our cooperation with God (hence, our salvation)
is impossible without Him. Which is to say, synergism is manifestly
not Pelagianism, as the Orthodox recognize that nothing in our salvation
happens without the Savior. If I'm not mistaken, synergism is based
in part on the belief that the Incarnation was entirely God and
entirely Man, having two natures and two wills, with neither His
human nor His divine aspects submerged in the other. This is thoroughly
orthodox, being defined throughout the Seven Ecumenical Councils,
to which I assume Calvinist theology (like that of Luther and Melanchthon)
seeks to conform. At any rate, the Orthodox believe that in Christ
the divine and human wills, though separate and distinct, yet work
as one. In addition, the Orthodox have this strange habit of looking
at their Christology on a personal level, i.e. what is true of Christ's
nature can be true of ours, God willing. In a way, Christology is
a psychology of man. To a large extent the relationship between
the human and the divine in Christ defines the nature of the relationship
between the Holy Spirit and its human agents, which is another way
of saying that it determines who we are as human beings, now that
human nature and the Divine have become united in the Incarnation.
This partially explains all the riots and destruction that accompanied
the Christological controversies way back when. To deny that we
have any role in our salvation is, Christologically speaking, the
heresy of Nestorius, which held that in Christ the Divine enveloped
the human nature ('Christ's humanity was but a drop in the ocean
of His divinity', or something like that), and thus His human will
was forcibly submerged in His divine will. Do I understand correctly
if I perceive this to be your view of man's relationship to God
the Holy Spirit? We are saved purely through an act of God's will,
and none of our own? As for Fr. Florovsky and monasticism: Monasticism
per se is not really looked on as 'works of the best kind,' at least,
not by the Orthodox. They have multitudes of married saints in their
liturgical calendar. Indeed, at least one of the Church Fathers
(St. Ambrose) was married. But, as I believe Fr. Florovsky pointed
out, most men and women are not made by their Creator for the vocation
of strict monasticism. The Orthodox attitude is that, while the
majority of us are better prepared to live 'in the world' than in
a mountain cell, layfolk are still called to pursue righteousness.
Thus it happens that layfolk -no less than monastics- are expected
to participate in the feasts and fasts of the liturgical calendar,
that they too are expected to renounce the world wherever it conflicts
with God's will, to pray as much as possible (last time I heard,
the Orthodox have eleven appointed times every day when they are
called to set aside time for prayer), to deprive themselves of those
pleasures which contribute to the corruption of their souls, to
attend church services whenever possible (most Orthodox churches
have at least a few services every day) etc. The main difference
between the average monastic per se and the average layman per se
is that the monastic is constitutionally capable of taking himself
out of the daily grind of the working world, which places innumerable
barriers to constant prayer, fasts, and self-renunciation; while
the rest of us are not. But again, layfolk are still called upon
to live as much of a monastic life 'in the world' as possible. By
asking about a 'monastic requirement for the Apostles' are you referring
to clerical celibacy? Because if so, the Orthodox have always had
married clergy. The Roman Church did too, up until the 11th century
when -in reaction to the corruption of inherited dioceses- they
made celibacy a requirement of all clergy. Oddly enough, the 11th
century was also the point when the Roman Church fell away from
the Orthodox East (they were one Church before then). As far as
the Orthodox look at it, monasticism began with St. Anthony of Egypt,
roughly two centuries after most of the Apostles had died. And monastics
do not look at their vocation as being meritorious of grace. Actually,
it seems like that would lead to a sort of spiritual snobbery. But
in any case, talk to any monastic and they will likely tell you
that they are a greater sinner than you are, though you may be inclined
to disagree after observing the long hours they spend in prayer,
contemplation, work, Church services, and self-renunciation. They
lead their entire lives seeking purification of the temple of the
Holy Spirit, which they know cannot be had without His grace. P.S.
I could be wrong, but I believe that looking into the Orthodox view
towards justification will show you that their view of it differs
significantly from that of the Roman Catholics. In IC XC
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 22:06:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, Please do try again. There are several folks over there
whom I'm sure you'd enjoy conversing with. I see 'eikke' stopped
by. I hope Kwanstantinos does, too (he's Greek--spells some 'o's
with a 'w' for some reason, I forget). Both pretty sharp. Christopher
|
Subject: Re: An invitation
From: eikke
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 21:21:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Chris- Kwnstantinos spells his name that way because the 'w'
is Omega in Greek, which makes a short 'o' sound (as in boat), while
the Greek 'o' (Omicron) makes a long o sound, as in 'long'. Forgive
my pedantry. :) In IC XC
|
Subject: A great and humble Calvinist
From: Vernon
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 16:33:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello Pilgrim. Would you accept George Whitfield's teachings,I do
agree and find him different in his Calvinist teaching. A great
evangekist. In Christ Vernon One of the greatest evangelists ever
to set foot on American soil was George Whitefield. Read carefully
the following quote and note his pleading with sinners. I offer
you salvation this day; the door of mercy is not yet shut, there
does yet remain a sacrifice for sin, for all that will accept of
the Lord Jesus Christ. He will embrace you in the arms of his love.
O turn to him, turn in a sense of your own unworthiness; tell him
how polluted you are, how vile, and be not faithless, but believing.
Why fear ye that the Lord Jesus Christ will not accept of you? Your
sins will be no hindrance, your unworthiness no hindrance; if your
own corrupt hearts do not keep you back nothing will hinder Christ
from receiving of you. He loves to see poor sinners coming to him,
he is pleased to see them lie at his feet pleading his promises;
and if you thus come to Christ, he will not send you away without
his Spirit; no, but will receive and bless you. O do not put a slight
on infinite love--he only wants you to believe on him, that you
might be saved. This, this is all the dear Saviour desires, to make
you happy, that you may leave your sins, to sit down eternally with
him at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Let me beseech you to come
to Jesus Christ; I invite you all to come to him, and receive him
as your Lord and Saviour; he is ready to receive you. I invite you
to come to him, that you may find rest for your souls. He will rejoice
and be glad. He calls you by his ministers; O come unto him--he
is labouring to bring you back from sin and from Satan, unto himself:
open the door of your hearts, and the King of glory shall enter
in. My heart is full, it is quite full, and I must speak, or I shall
burst. What, do you think your souls of no value? Do you esteem
them as not worth saving? Are your pleasures worth more than your
souls? Had you rather regard the diversions of this life, than the
salvation of your souls? If so, you will never be partakers with
him in glory; but if you come unto him, he will supply you with
his grace here, and bring you to glory hereafter; and there you
may sing praises and hallelujahs to the Lamb for ever. And may this
be the happy end of all who hear me! George Whitefield was a staunch
Calvinist. There is one thing certain--Whitefield's Calvinism did
not in any way dampen his holy zeal for the souls of men.
|
Subject: Re: A great and humble Calvinist
From: Tom
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 23:30:44 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Vernon I find nothing that is at odds with what Whitfield said here
and Calvinist theology, though it could be interpreted that way.
For instance: I offer you salvation this day; the door of mercy
is not yet shut, there does yet remain a sacrifice for sin, for
all that will accept of the Lord Jesus Christ. He will embrace you
in the arms of his love. Whitfield does not go into his theology
in detail, but indeed if someone TRULY accepts the Lord Jesus Christ,
He will indeed embrace them with open arms. The problem is nobody
will accept Him unless they first have been regenerated and given
the faith to believe. If you had read any of the works written by
Whitfield, you would realise what he meant by the word 'accept'.
It is not meant in the same sence that an Arminian preacher would
mean it. For if it was he would be contradicting his own theology,
for the sake of a few more false professions of faith. That is not
to say that Arminian preachers haven't led people to the Lord, I
am proof that it can occur. But I am convinced that it is the exception
to the rule. For indeed there are true believers in Arminian Churches.
Tom
|
Subject: Re: A great and humble Calvinist
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 19:55:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon,
More games Vernon? hahaha....
You may like what old George was preaching here, but you would not
be in agreement with the theology behind it which made it possible
for him to preach so passionately to sinners. For you are in fact
in agreement with John Wesley far more than Whitefield, and Whitefield
used no buttery words when describing the errors of Wesley. Whitefield's
preaching is hardly 'different in his Calvinist teaching' than most
all other Calvinists. How you perceive that it is, only you would
know. I am confident that I have read 100's perhaps 1000's more
sermons, articles and books by Calvinists than yourself, and there
is absolutely no warrant to see George Whitefield's teaching as
being any different than the great mass of those other Calvinists
I have been privileged to read. If you want a simple evidence of
this, then I refer you to: George Whitefield
- The life and times of the great evangelist of the 18th century
revival by Arnold Dallimore and specifically
to Volume II, pp. 551-569 (Cornerstone Books: Westchester, Ill.,
1979). On the other hand, I find your Semi-Pelagian/Arminian teaching
to be no different than those who have held this heresy before you.
:-)
In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Talking Religion
From: Berean7
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:32:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brethren, I have a question to ask; What is one to do if he is asked
not to speak religion or share his faith with others in the workplace?
Would appreciate any Biblical views and instruction:)
|
Subject: Re: Talking Religion
From: laz
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 17:46:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brethren, I have a question to ask; What is one to do if he is asked
not to speak religion or share his faith with others in the workplace?
Would appreciate any Biblical views and instruction:)
---
Depends who's (not 'whose', hehe) asking. If the boss says stop
talking religion because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that it's
disruptive/divisive/etc and bad for business...you should stop.
If you disagree, then if a little badgering of coworkers is commanded,
then CONSTANT badgering would be even more biblical. ;-) If a coworker
asks to not be badgered...honor his request. No skin off your nose.
No sin in NOT witnessing to him when and where he/she desires not
to be bothered. Can we badger a person into the kingdom? We are
called to live at peace with all men... laz
|
Subject: Re: Talking Religion
From: Eric
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 13:59:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Abide by there request. However, your actions speak so much more
loudly than your words will. Let them see your love and compassion
and diligence towards your job. Let them see your disinterest in
the things of this world. Matthew 5:16 In the same way, let your
light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise
your Father in heaven. IMHO, it is when people see that you live
what you profess, that they will be willing to listen or respond
to the message. There is a gentleman in my office who professes
often to be a believer, but yet he is disliked for his smugness,
meanness, and arrogance. People have no interest in what he has,
for he is just like they are, even worse.
|
Subject: Re: Talking Religion
From: Proginowsko
To: Eric/Berean7
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 16:09:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gentlemen: Witnessing on the job both verbally and through our lives
does require balance. I recall some of the posts below regarding
this subject. Just today I was talking to a customer who was sharing
things about his life and being at a crossroads so to speak, and
it being difficult to make certain decisions in life that probably
should be made. This customer is a Dentist and knows my wife and
daughter and therefore a little bit about me. I asked him what his
'faith' was. He said he was Jewish, and I proceeded to tell him
that I have some Jewish in me too :-). I proceeded to tell him that
there was a point that I accepted Christ as Messiah and Savior.
He said he wouldn't do that, but that it was that type of 'cutting
against the grain' decision that he needed to make. All of this
was done at a time that normal conversation takes place while doing
business. I agree with what many have said regarding Christians
being the best and most honest employess. So true. And we should
not verbally witness so that it will take away from our job performance.
But if other conversations are allowed then certainly so is conversation
about the Lord Jesus, IF someone has ears to hear. And even better,
if they ask us something about faith, church, God, etc. It's amazing
how talk of sex, dirty jokes, innuendos, and cursing God's name
is okay, but nothing about God's grace in salvation etc is acceptable.
One lady on my job today was saying that the homosexuals didn't
bother her any. She wouldn't do it, but that is was their business.
I put my 2 cents in and talked about how the tolerance has hurt
us as a nation. And that every nation or empire in the past mentioned
in the word of God and history were either destroyed by others or
self destructed(humanly speaking) when they became immoral. Was
it okay for her to make her comments (she was my immediate supervisor),
but not okay for me to make mine? Finally I would like to ask: Was
our Lord Jesus being disobedient when he talked with the doctors
in Jerusalem while His earthly parents were continuing on? 'And
He said unto them, how is it that you sought Me. Wist(know) ye not
that I must be about My Father's Business' (Lk.2:39-49). Blessings,
Proginowsko
|
Subject: Sheol/Geenna/Hades/Tartaroo
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:22:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Are these words referencing different places/states? Sheol/Geenna/Hades/Tartaroo
It seems that these words are often translated as being the same,
but certain passages indicate that they are not all referring to
the same thing. Any info?
|
Subject: Off the top of my head
From: mebaser
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:10:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Eric, Now off the top of my head, I remember the following information
from studying this issue. Sheol - in the Old Testament, this Hebrew
word was a reference not so much of a place, but a state of being,
that is 'death.' It would be very similar to how we would use the
phrase 'the grave' in our conversatoins (i.e. Both the wicked and
the righteous will go to the grave). Gehena - Literally, Gehena
was a specific location where refuse was burned continually. Metaphorically,
some New Testament authors refer to the place where the wicked go
to be tortured by burning after they die. Hence, the usual translation
for this word is 'hell' in many Bible versions. The lake of fire
of Revelation 20 (although the word Gehena does not appear in that
passage) is the ultimate expression of the idea that Gehena conveys.
Hades - In the New Testament, this word is used much like Sheol
is used in the Old Testament. In greek mythology, there is no heaven
or hell, but one place called Hades (run by the god of death - himself
called Hades). Greek language then adopted the word Hades to, again,
refer to 'the grave' or 'death' itself. The actual Greek word for
death is THANATOS, and appears frequently in the Bible. We have
an interesting example of parallel thought in Revelation 1:18 and
20:13-14 where the two words (THANATOS and HADES) appear together
('and I have the keys of death and of Hades';'and death and Hades
gave up the dead which were in them';'And death and Hades were thrown
into the lake of fire'). Notice that Hades will be thrown into the
lake of fire, which is reminiscent of Gehena. Tartarus - also from
Greek mythology, the place 'in Hades' (it was more of bottomless
pit) where the wicked were condemned to suffer for all eternity.
I don't actually know if this word is used in the New Testament,
but if it is, it may have to do with where the wicked go, or perhaps
in Revelation, allegorically depicting a pit that was used for a
prison for the devil or other demonic agents. There you go, I hope
that helps. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Thanks, mebaser
From: Eric
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:37:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Would it be fair to say that the OT does not speak of what we commonly
refer to as Hell? Your point about death and Hades (Sheol) being
thrown into the lake of fire (Hell) must mean that these are distinct
things. Now, where are the dead currently? Are they in Sheol/Hades,
or Heaven/Hell? The verse that I often hear referenced is Paul's
telling us that to be absent from the body is to be present with
the Lord, is commonly interpreted as meaning that at least as far
as a Christian is concerned, they're immediately in heaven, and
not in any sort of immediate state, also, there is some symbolic
statements in Revelation that indicate this as well. P.S. Tartoroos
is mentioned only once in the NT, by Peter who refers to it as the
place where fallen angels are chained. II Peter I believe.
|
Subject: For Eric
From: Christopher
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:54:58 (PST)
Email Address: mtl9904@yahoo.com
Message:
Hi Eric, I apologize if I seemed unwilling to talk in my previous
post. In lieu of a long post detailing differences, please see the
attached article by Georges Florovsky. It provides a nice explanation
of the Orthodox objections to Reformation interpretations of St
Paul and it's not too long. It was one of the first articles I came
across when researching Orthodoxy and, upon rereading it, I still
find it to be one of the better critiques of the Reformation doctrine
of justification. Should you desire further reading, there is a
link at the top right hand corner of the page which will take you
to articles on other topics of interest to Evangelicals. Please
let me know if I can be of further assistance. There's a ton of
stuff on the web and I must have most of it bookmarked, so I would
be glad to pass on information on whatever topic you may be interested
in. Christopher PS--Regarding your recent discussion here: are you
a Methodist? Wesley is the only Protestant theologian I'm aware
of that went in the direction you did here with the Scriptures on
the topic. Whatever information you could pass my way would be appreciated.
I am interested in Protestant denominations that do not adopt an
Augustinian concept of original sin/guilt. Thanks. Link for Eric
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/florov_nt.htm
|
Subject: Thanks
From: Eric
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:21:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Don't worry about it. I will e-mail you sometime in the near future
with some questions--I hope. I have been pretty busy lately, but
then again, who hasn't? As to my background, I haven't read anything
by any Methodist. I grew up Pentecostal, but upon seriously examining
their doctrines, I decided to raise my family in a different church.
As to the doctrine of Orginal Sin, honestly, I haven't read anything
about it besides the Reformed view, but it just didn't seem to fit
with my understanding of the character of God. I think justification
by faith alone is truly biblical, but I also think that the majority
of Protestants have put their interpretation of Paul over and above
Jesus's own words. They read Jesus in light of Paul, as opposed
to reading Paul in light of Jesus. God bless.
|
Subject: just curious
From: a monitor
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 20:28:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric - if I may ask, what church DO you attend and could you explain
your comment abouit how many interpret Jesus in light of Paul? Enquiring
minds wanna know, a monitor
|
Subject: Re: just curious
From: Eric
To: a monitor
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:52:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I attend a Baptist church, however I tend to disagree with their
stated position on a number of issues. I lean towards paedobaptism,
weekly participation in the Lord's Supper--very hard to find unless
one is Catholic, paedocommunion, I prefer the Lutheran emphasis
on Christ, but am uncomfortable with their dramatic distinction
between law and gospel, amillenialism, strong church discipline,
the Reformed/Lutheran concept of '2 kingdoms.' As far as my comment
of many reading Jesus through Paul, I get a sense that their is
such a strong fear of preaching a works based gospel, that many
go to far. For instance: Matthew 25:34-46 'Then the King will say
to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father;
take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation
of the world. [35] For I was hungry and you gave me something to
eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger
and you invited me in, [36] I needed clothes and you clothed me,
I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came
to visit me.' [37] 'Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when
did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something
to drink? [38] When did we see you a stranger and invite you in,
or needing clothes and clothe you? [39] When did we see you sick
or in prison and go to visit you?' [40] 'The King will reply, 'I
tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these
brothers of mine, you did for me.' [41] 'Then he will say to those
on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal
fire prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry
and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing
to drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I
needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison
and you did not look after me.' [44] 'They also will answer, 'Lord,
when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes
or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' [45] 'He will reply,
'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least
of these, you did not do for me.' [46] 'Then they will go away to
eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.' Matthew
5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Instead of taking Jesus' words at face value, many will soften their
meaning, and read their understanding of Paul's view of the law/gospel
antithesis into Jesus words, as opposed to the other way around.
Jesus was so radical in his teaching, but His message of the Christian
life is unrecognizable in most of it's followers today. Almost all
of Jesus teaching was about DEEDS. IMHO, the Reformers, did a good
job in clearly spelling out the gospel, but their personal piety
and private devotion kept the personally from moving to far away
from the necessity of good deeds, but subsequent generations, have
taken justification by faith alone into a greater distinction between
law and gospel than what is presented in the bible. I think this
may also play a large part as to why the 'church' is so ineffectual
today, and irrelvant in society. I often hear that whatever is not
gospel, is law. I don't think that is quite right, at least the
way it is often lived out.
|
Subject: Re: just curious
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 17:09:24 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Eric, Excuse me while I jump in here for a sec. I understand and
agree with you on the weekly communion idea. John Calvin actually
held to that as well. The church I attend has communion every Sunday
evening. We are non-denominational with teachings that lean strongly
in the Reformed view. The church does not hold to padeobaptism but
does allow young children (starting at age 6) to partake of communion.
If you are curious as to why we allow at that age I would be happy
to let you know but for brevity sake I will abstain in this post.
As a whole we are amillenial. Now my other question. Have you ever
read D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones? If not I think you should try to find
some of his sermons. There are many in print and even some on the
internet in various places. Also there is a book put out by Zondervan
Publishing House title 'Five Views on Law and Gospel.' I think you
would find that of great interest. Each of the 5 people put forth
their argument and the other four state their objections to the
view. All five views are treated this way. This is actually part
of a really good series. I would be happy to supply you with the
other titles and possible locations of purchasing them. Lastly,
I partly understand your concept of people interpreting Jesus in
light of Paul's writings. I agree that there could be a danger but
we must remember that Paul's writings are on par with what Jesus
said. The two never contradict one another and the two should never
be pitted against each other. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Thanks
From: Christopher
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 14:31:46 (PST)
Email Address: mtl9904@yahoo.com
Message:
Eric, You're welcome and I look forward to hearing from you. And
may God bless you, as well. Christopher
|
Subject: Who's Authority?
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 14:13:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Way down there on the other side of town (dozens of threads down
the list), 'Christopher' recently made an interesting point about
how we determine who we're gonna listen - to doctrinaly speaking.
He said: You believe that Reformed doctrines
are the clear teaching of Scripture because you trust the authority
of the teaching you have received. A good Methodist is likely to
strongly disagree with what you perceive to be the clear teaching
of Scripture because he believes that John Wesley's doctrines taught
within his church have more authority.
Am I to conclude that the 'referee' in this debate is some 'church'
or tradition alledgedly finding it's roots in antiquity? hehe ...and
NOT the authority of the Scriptures? I'd say I trust my pastor for
instance, because his classic reformed teachings most clearly resonate
for me when I consider the whole counsel of God and the creeds/confessions/doctrines
held by so many before me. Modern Christianity is truly a buffet
line with so many flavors to pick from. But, then again, there is
one cuisine that's been around for centuries which can trace it's
roots far back...and better yet, is faithful ultimately to God as
He's spoken infallibly to us....yep, Sola Scriptura. I reject other
teachings when they cause gapping and irreconcilable holes in the
gospel message systematically revealed thru holy writ. The infallible
scriptures should ULTIMATELY form and shape our thinking on all
matter pertaining to faith and practice....that is, LIFE. We are
to be transformed by the renewing of our minds...and that's done
thru the Holy Spirit as He works in concert with the Word, 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 I guess my point is that no one should be relying on which
source seems most credible or historical... but which source stacks
up most honestly with the only infallible and straight stick of
truth. I believe in propositional truth and am persuaded by the
Biblical record (and backed up by many far more learned than myself)
that John Wesley, for instance, missed the mark on a few key doctrines.
I happen to think Rome has stayed on some essential doctrines, as
have her cousins, the Eastern churches. laz 2Tim 3:16 All scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works.
|
Subject: Re: Who's Authority?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 14:27:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Ah, well. May God bless you richly, laz. Christopher
|
Subject: Thorn in the flesh - water baptism
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:33:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/string.html That is what
this writer calls water baptism... a 'thorn in the flesh'...! Could
it be that our baptism is now of the Spirit of God alone? If only
the church would follow the one baptism of the Spirit as Paul tells
us -- There is One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Rather, they 'teach
as doctrine, the commandments of men'...! freegrace www.founders.org/library/malone1/string.html
|
Subject: Re: Thorn in the flesh - water baptism
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 22:26:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Freegrace let me ask you this plainly: Do you believe
that the New Covenant that Christ institued was to the church? Including
the ordinances of Water Baptism and Communion? If not is the Church
under any covenant with God whatsoever? If not what is your proof
of this? Prestor John Servabo Fidem
|
Subject: Re: Thorn in the flesh - water baptism
From: freegrace
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28,
2000 at 08:17:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Greetings! What I am looking for are the Scripture
verses that say the sacraments and/or ordinances are 'means of grace'
for the church (the Body of Christ) today. I think there is a danger
of placing our well known confessions (as good as they are), and
making them equal with the Scriptures. BTW, what did you think of
the article? You probably support his views - since you follow baptism
by immersion. IMHO, The church could have saved itself alot of trouble
if it followed the one baptism of the Spirit as taught by the apostle
Paul. Water baptism has become a 'thorn in the flesh' for the entire
church, I think. freegrace
|
Subject: Re: Thorn in the flesh - water baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27,
2000 at 11:34:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/string.html
That is what this writer calls water baptism... a 'thorn in the
flesh'...! Could it be that our baptism is now of the Spirit of
God alone? If only the church would follow the one baptism of the
Spirit as Paul tells us -- There is One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Rather, they 'teach as doctrine, the commandments of men'...! freegrace
---
freegrace, It is not an 'either/or' choice between
water baptism and Spirit baptism! It is both/and. I would hardly and with great trepidation even intimate
that the commandment of the incarnate God; the Lord Christ to baptize
disciples in the name of the Triune God to be teaching 'as doctrine,
the commandments of men' . . . In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim PS:
Have you read this: The Means of Grace: Baptism?
|
Subject: What is mans Responsibility?
From: Berean7
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:06:17 (PST)
Email Address: Isaiahscall68@aol.com
Message:
Brethren, Please inform me of what Mans Responsibility or accountability
includes when it comes to Rejecting Christ as the Messiah? We know
that man is first of all accountable for his sin and therefore will
spend an eternity in a place prepared for the devil and his angels.
But how is anyone held accountable for rejecting Christ if that
person was chosen not to recieve or be given faith to believe to
begin with? In Christ, Berean7
|
Subject: Re: What is mans Responsibility?
From: Pilgrim
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:26:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brethren, Please inform me of what Mans Responsibility or accountability
includes when it comes to Rejecting Christ as the Messiah? We know
that man is first of all accountable for his sin and therefore will
spend an eternity in a place prepared for the devil and his angels.
But how is anyone held accountable for rejecting Christ if that
person was chosen not to recieve or be given faith to believe to
begin with? In Christ, Berean7
---
Berean7,
All men are responsible and held
accountable for EVERYTHING they think, feel and do. It makes no
difference whether or not a person has been 'chosen' to receive
grace unto salvation. For example: Would you say that a man/woman/child
who commits murder is not responsible for the act if that person
is not one of the elect? How about a more biblical example. Do you
believe that those who physically nailed Christ to the cross or
those who were directly involved in His mock trial and sentencing
are responsible for their act even though they did so according
to the 'determinate and foreknowledge of God'? Our sins are our
own; not God's doing. Our salvation is of God; and not our doing.
Thus being born 'dead in trespasses and sins' is no excuse for our
sinning, which is always a willful act. Yes, one might try and blame
God ultimately for his/her corrupt nature, since it is inherited
from Adam and is not a result of our own direct actions. However,
as the other post correctly quotes Paul in Romans as rhetorically
asking the question in behalf of his antagonist readers, 'why then
does He find fault?', to ask such a question reveals a shallow or
non-existent knowledge of the persons and or workings of the blessed
Trinity. Let me put it simply this way; everything which has ever
been created or brought to pass is the result of the eternal foreordination
of God. Whether we perceive them as being 'good' or 'bad', all things
were determined first and foremost for the glory of the LORD God
Who is perfect in all His works (Deut 32:4). No creature of God
has or ever will receive anything which is unjust. The entire human
race will be treated 'fairly' according to God's perfect holiness.
In this we find our hope and put our trust. That God has determined
to save a remnant of undeserving sinners who willingly are rebels
against the Most High and spurn His infinite goodness shown to them
every minute of every day should evoke praise and adoration from
all for His incomprehensible mercy. Again, whether or not anyone
has been chosen to be found in Christ by grace through faith has
no bearing on each person's individual responsibility to repent
of their sins and their sinfulness and cast themselves upon the
only Saviour of Sinners; the Lord Jesus Christ.
In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: What is mans Responsibility?
From: Apostle Paul said:
To: Berean7
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 09:34:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brethren, Please inform me of what Mans Responsibility or accountability
includes when it comes to Rejecting Christ as the Messiah? We know
that man is first of all accountable for his sin and therefore will
spend an eternity in a place prepared for the devil and his angels.
But how is anyone held accountable for rejecting Christ if that
person was chosen not to recieve or be given faith to believe to
begin with? In Christ, Berean7
---
Rom 9:11 (For the children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works,
but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall
serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness
with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy
on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I
will have compassion. 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.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth
he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast
thou made me thus?
|
Subject: God is to be praised..!
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:40:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John recently posted: >>>Yes, there ARE vessels of mercy
and vessels of wrath, such as the Potter has made. However, we do
not find that God takes happy, whole pots (babies) and wacks them
'til they crack so He can get some vessels of wrath. This is the
false implication of double predestination. It implies falsely that
God takes perfect pottery and ruins it just to get His quota in
hell. Rather, the pottery was ruined by Adam, a perfect pot gone
bad. God allows the junk pots to continue, but has no plan to re-create
them (re-fire them) into shiny new pots. So the junk pots have always
been planned to remain so, and end in the junk pile. This is the
first predestination: all pottery is junk, cracked and worthless,
none can be used, all will go to the junk yard. The second predestination
says that God will send His own Son to the junk yard in the stead
of a handful of worthless pots. This frees the worthless pots from
the first condition. Both are predestined, both are under God's
Sovereign Will, neither can avoid their end. But God cannot be blamed,
rather He is to be praised for saving SOME of the junk which deserves
to be destroyed. <<< I say to this Amen! God is to be praised
for saving *some* from Adam's fallen race! Our election to salvation
and eternal life must always be seen with man's sin in the background.
However, I believe that God is not saving just a 'handful' of pots
for His glory, but rather a *great multitude* which no man can number!
freegrace
|
Subject: Angels
From: TDT
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 19:48:30 (PST)
Email Address: aaront@junct.com
Message:
Hello Everyone!
I am studying angels and would like to find some Biblical Facts!
If you know of any links or sites I might find helpful I would appreciate
it! Thank You! TDT
|
Subject: Re: Angels
From: laz
To: TDT
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:22:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello Everyone! I am studying angels and would like to find some
Biblical Facts! If you know of any links or sites I might find helpful
I would appreciate it! Thank You! TDT
---
All I know is
that angels are messengers that historically have been sent to proclaim
Christ and/or redemption of some type. Much of what we find today
on the subject or of alledged appearances of angels often make no
mention of Christ Jesus....like that silly TV show, Touched By An (false) Angel.
laz A Start on Angels www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html#9
|
Subject: Re: Angels
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:49:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
And they are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit
salvation, no? Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Angels
From: john hampshire
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 23:39:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Facts? Hmmm, Angel means messenger. The messenger of the Lord is
Christ. He is called Michael (He who is like God) the Chief Messenger.
It was this Messenger that Jacob wrestled by the river until dawn.
I believe the angel of the Lord that was at the tomb on Sunday morning
was indeed Christ, as were the three angels that met with Abraham.
Christ was the Messenger in the burning bush which Moses saw and
spoke with. Christ is the angel (messenger) with the flaming sword
which protects the way to the tree of life. And on and on. Now there
are also angels, messengers of God, such as in Luke 22:43, 'Now
an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him'. Believers
are also angels, that is, messengers of God: Gal 4:14, 'and that
which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise
or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus
Himself.' Well, I can go on indefinitely. Hope this helps. Remember
angel refers to: an angel (created being), Christ, the believer.
P.S. - Christ was not an angel, in case someone is want to misunderstand.
john
|
Subject: The True Children of God
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 12:00:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
This is a repeat from a recent post by Pilgrim, and I just thought
it was beautiful! I posted it again just in case anyone here missed
reading it! >>>The fact that the LORD God has eternally
determined to save a remnant out of Adam's fallen race to be redeemed
from destruction by the substitutionary obedience and work of the
Only Begotten Son of God; adopted into His kingdom as heirs, joint
heirs with Christ and made to sit in the heavenlies is incomprehensible
to any enlightened sinner who has received grace. 'O the depth of
the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable
are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!' (Rom 11:33).
For the heart of God's children, who have received the mercy of
God in Christ Jesus are not want to ask, 'How could a loving God
hate Esau?' but rather they speak in tears, 'How could a holy and
loving God love Jacob? How could He possibly set His infinite love
upon ME?' The true children of God are very much aware that they
are undeserving of anything good from God. And this awareness is
something which grows throughout their earthly pilgrimage, for the
Spirit is merciful in revealing slowly and progressively the blackness
of their own heart and the depth of their sinfulness, which exalts
all the more the mercy and love of God to them.<<< (From
a recent message posted by Pilgrim)
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 14:53:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
ShowMe,
I am sorry you are unable to grasp
the Scriptures, Calvin, Calvinists or myself in these matters. There
is absolutely NO contradiction between my views on double predestination,
the Fall or salvation with Augustine, Calvin or historic Reformed
teaching which is found in any of the historic Confessions. I agree
100% with Scripture and Calvin in that God decreed from all eternity
that Adam should fall and all his posterity should suffer the consequences
of his actions. Yet, God is in no sense the 'author of sin'. The
guilt is owned by Adam and his progeny and them alone. If you are
unable to accept this, well, that's a personal problem which you
must deal with. I am glad to say that there have been millions of
others before you and will hopefully be many to follow who have
searched the Scriptures and have concluded these things to be God's
truth. I believe I have suggested you read, 'Calvin's Calvinism'
before. If not, then I suggest it now and you can even read a copy
online on The Highway at: Calvin's Calvinism - 'The
Eternal Predestination of God' and 'The Secret Providence of God'. In that magnificent work, Calvin answers most every
possible objection and accusation which I have ever heard against
God's free sovereign grace, and many more. In His Grace, Pilgrim
PS: FYI, my theological view was formulated long before I had ever
heard of Calvinism or read anything written by a Calvinist. I was
taught Arminianism and read Arminian writings along with much study
of the Scriptures first. It was God who opened my blind eyes to
the truth and the result was a complete rejection of all other views
and an embracing of what is nicknamed Calvinism through the study
of the Scriptures ALONE. It was afterwards that I came to realize
that what I had determined before God was His truth was held my
myriad 'giants' of the faith and was called Calvinism or the Reformed
Faith. I followed no man's teaching blindly to what I believe. Yet
I am not a rogue theologian who stands at odds with the historical
church's dogma. Thank you! |
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 15:39:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, You wrote: 'I am
sorry you are unable to grasp the Scriptures, Calvin, Calvinists
or myself in these matters. There is absolutely NO contradiction
between my views on double predestination, the Fall or salvation
with Augustine, Calvin or historic Reformed teaching which is found
in any of the historic Confessions.' Augustine
and Calvin differ on the view of predestination and yet you say
that you are in agreement with both of them! That simply cannot
be! You wrote:' In that magnificent work,
Calvin answers most every possible objection and accusation which
I have ever heard against God's free sovereign grace, and many more.' I’m not the one that has a problem with 'God’s free sovereign
grace.' But you cannot have the one without the other, that’s why
Calvin was a supralapsarian. Calvin taught that sin had no more
to do with a persons condemnation to hell than good works had to
do with the elects salvation. You try to blame man’s condemnation
on his own demerit, true Calvinism does not allow that. Calvin taught
that man is saved only because of the will of God, and that man
is condemned, only because of the will of God. Condemnation or salvation
was a settled fact before anything or anyone was created. Before
anyone ever sinned, God had already determine who was to be saved
and who was to be damned. Then you say that everyone has been created
in the image of God or at the very least maintains something of
that image, while at the same time teaching that man is totally
depraved. I’m don’t understand why you cannot see your contradiction.
How can anyone that maintains any aspect of God’s image be totally
depraved? That’s like saying that the image of God that they maintain
is depraved and that simply cannot be. I’m familiar with Calvin’s
writings, and the Calvinism that is dished out today is not Calvin’s
Calvinism. Like everything else in Christianity it has been watered
down to please the masses. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: Brother Bret
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 20:47:26 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
By being created in the 'image of God' means that
we are thinking (intellect), feeling (emotions), acting (will) beings
just as God is. Due to the 'fall' and us being dead in trespasses
and sin, the way we think, feel and act is wicked and as filthy
rags.....Brother Bret P.S. Why don't you share with us who you are?
Are you an old friend to the Highway? Do any of us know you? Not
that it is that big of a deal :^ ).
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 14:35:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Golly Gee, ShowUS - your fingers must be tired and
sore by now.... It would have been easier if you'd simply read the
article by RC Sproul on 'Double Predestination' (which none here
would deny, biblically defined of course).... for of course, predestination
is 'double-sided'... but Pilgrim's point is that man was created
'good' (if not better).... And let's not forget the mystery (which I think you
really hate)...that God's immutable decrees and human responsibility
go TOGETHER. ;-) laz Double Jeopardy... www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/DoublePestination_Sproul.html
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 15:57:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Laz, I read the article that your link led me to,
that’s not Calvinism, that a kind of 'new age' Calvinism, a watered
down Calvinism, a counterfeit Calvinism that people try to pass
off as the real thing. If you want to argue the subject then let
us stick to Calvin’s writings, I quoted more than enough to get
us started. There is no 'mystery' on this subject in Calvin’s writings,
it is quite apparent that Calvin was a supralapsarian and so was
Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. It is true that Infralapsarians
were in the majority at the Synod of Dort. Four attempts were made
at Dort to condemn the supralapsarian view, but the efforts were
unsuccessful. Although the Canons of Dort do not deal with the order
of the divine decrees, they are infralapsarian in the sense that
the elect are 'chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen
through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude
into sin and destruction' (I,7; cf.I,1). The reprobate 'are passed
by in the eternal decree' and God 'decreed to leave (them) in the
common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves'
and 'to condemn and punish them forever...for all their sins' (I,15).
That’s simply not Calvinism, no matter how much you want it to be.
People did not fall through their own fault, that is totally contrary
to the Calvinist understanding of the Sovereignty of God. Defenders
of supralapsarianism continued after Dort. The chairman of the Westminister
Assembly, William Twisse, was a supralapsarian. Supralapsarianism
never received confessional endorsement within the Reformed churches,
because it is, as Calvin stated a 'dreadful' decree. You can pretend
that you are a Calvinist all that you want but that does not make
it so. You have a watered down version that has been made more palatable
for you, to gain your acceptance, but if you truly follow Calvinism
then you must accept that 'dreadful' decree. You must rely upon
'mystery' because you are embracing something other than Calvinism.
Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: john hampshire
To: ShowMe
Date Posted:
Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 19:24:04 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
ShowMe, Calvin's
beliefs (?): 1. Sin does not place the sinner in hell. 2. Good works
does not place the believer in heaven. 3. Salvation is all the will
of God 4. Condemnation to hell is all the will of God 5. God predestined
His elect to salvation 6. God predestined His non-elect to damnation
Calvin wrote: '...they are PREDESTINED to eternal DEATH SOLELY by
his decision, APART from their own Merit'. In other words, God did
not predestine anyone to be vessels of wrath based on their intrinsic
worth. Calvin wrote: 'God hardens or shows mercy to whom he wills,
MEN ARE WARNED BY THIS TO SEEK NO CAUSE OUTSIDE HIS WILL'. That
is, the final cause for those who end in heaven is God's will that
it occur. The final cause the wicked don't get to heaven is God
did not will it. It does not imply that Calvin meant sin is not
a proximal cause. Rather, the reason sin is counted against the
wicked is that God did not provide for their redemption, it all
ties back to God's will. Calvin said, 'Those whom God passes over,
he CONDEMNS; and this he does FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT HE WILLS
TO EXCLUDE THEM' That is, God condemns them ultimately because it
is His will not to include them amongst those who He redeems. They
are excluded by God, left to their own devices, which God permits,
so they have no hope outside of God's election. Calvin said, 'What
of those, then, WHOM HE CREATED FOR DISHONOR IN LIFE AND DESTRUCTION
IN DEATH...His immutable decree had once for all DESTINED THEM TO
DESTRUCTION. That is, yep. Now that does not mean that the sin of
the wicked is not accounted for in God's judgment. They are not
destroyed solely because God decreed them such, but on account of
His decree (which is the beginning of all things) they have been
provided no covering for their sins. Unlike the elect, who sin too,
but have been provided a means of escape. Calvin said: '...the fall
of Adam is not presupposed as preceding God's decree in time, but
IT IS WHAT GOD DETERMINED BEFORE ALL AGES' That is, God planned
that Adam would fall, determining all events for His grand purpose.
Could Adam have avoided this decree and remained upright? No. Rather,
God utilize the means inherent to His creation to bring His creation
down. There was no flaw, Adam was perfect, but God exploited the
very thing that He created in Adam, so that Adam would sin by his
volition under the planned circumstances, as surely as gravity attracts
an object downward. YOU SAID: '...God of necessity becomes the author
of sin and of evil, since He decreed it from eternity'. Now if you
compare what Calvin wrote, and what he meant to your summation of
what he wrote, we find you have made a leap of reasoning, a faulty
one at that. The quotes above do not teach such a thing, nor would
Calvin have professed such a thing that makes God the author of
sin. You have inserted your beliefs as Calvin’s. In regards to predestination
you said '...God wills/decrees not only the reprobation of the damned
but also the sin which leads to it...'. There is, of course, a distinction
between willing an event and making a person commit an act of sin.
While certainly the sin is part and parcel with a sinner, and the
sinner is a sinner because God has not withheld them from it, but
we must also say that God is allowing that which is by nature the
will of each sinner to do. He also wills that the elect commit sin,
as they too will to disobey. How is it God is blamed for a sin which
He is not responsible nor required to prevent? Why is it men sin?
Certainly not because God makes them. He may decree it, and then
use various means to bring it about, but He never forces sin upon
men so that He becomes the author. You said, 'Augustine referred
only to God’s decision to redeem, and did not include the act of
assigning some to damnation'. Well then, what would Augustine have
done with the wicked? Is God a Sovereign ruler over some, but not
all? How could the wicked not be marching to God's drumbeat? If
they are not under God's control, do they then control God? Obviously,
God planned the wicked to be passed by, to act according to the
nature they possess, and never to be redeemed. The end result: The
wicked are damned to hell from the get-go. But they were not forced
to sin, not forced to hate God, not forced to ignore God's salvation.
In other words, God is not keeping them down. They are down by their
own will, which God uses for His purposes. You said, 'Double predestination
involves an unconditional positive decree of reprobation and the
resolve of God to punish these non-elect eternally in hell'. Yes,
there ARE vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath, such as the Potter
has made. However, we do not find that God takes happy, whole pots
(babies) and wacks them 'til they crack so He can get some vessels
of wrath. This is the false implication of double predestination.
It implies falsely that God takes perfect pottery and ruins it just
to get His quota in hell. Rather, the pottery was ruined by Adam,
a perfect pot gone bad. God allows the junk pots to continue, but
has no plan to re-create them (re-fire them) into shiny new pots.
So the junk pots have always been planned to remain so, and end
in the junk pile. This is the first predestination: all pottery
is junk, cracked and worthless, none can be used, all will go to
the junk yard. The second predestination says that God will send
His own Son to the junk yard in the stead of a handful of worthless
pots. This frees the worthless pots from the first condition. Both
are predestined, both are under God's Sovereign Will, neither can
avoid their end. But God cannot be blamed, rather He is to be praised
for saving SOME of the junk which deserves to be destroyed. You
have tried to argue that true Calvinism makes God the author of
sin, that God sends the wicked to hell for no other reason then
He wants them there, and Calvin and other Reformers taught these
things. But that is not what Calvin taught, it is rather what you
teach. You have found in Calvin's remarks justification to make
a strawman, one that you would like to foist on all Calvinists.
Do you see the difference between what you say Calvin taught, and
what Calvin taught? john
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: ShowMe
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 22:07:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
John, You can add all the 'that is’s' that you want
but it will not change the fact that Calvin was a supralapsarian.
You want to do away with supralapsarianism because it teaches an
election to hell that you find repulsive. Modern Calvinists say
'we do not teach any one is elected for hell but that they are only
passed by and left to themselves.' Calvinists who call themselves
'infralapsarian' say God predestined individuals to hell before
the world's creation in consideration of Adam's sin (i.e., after
mankind's fall had been contemplated). Supralapsarian Calvinists
teach that God predestined people to hell free from any influence
of what man might do (i.e., before mankind's fall had been contemplated).
The 'infra' version of predestination they say is not an election
to hell and certainly not undeserved because it comes into view
after Adam's sin had been forseen. They usually argue that God elected
to salvation some undeserving sinners out of the fallen mass of
humanity without electing the rest to eternal damnation. According
to the infralapsarian, God merely 'passed by' the rest and left
them to themselves, forever condemned in the sinful state they inherited
from Adam. The 'infra' sequence is actually the thing that keeps
the infralapsarian Calvinist at peace with Calvinism. Without it,
they would be teaching that men not yet contemplated as sinners
are foreordained to hell, which they simply are not ready to accept.
But even your brand of Calvinism, the infra brand teaches that everything
was decreed before the creation of the world apart from a foreknowledge
of the future. You don’t have to look any further than the Westminster
Confession to prove that, the Westminster Confession is a confession
of faith accepted by virtually all infralapsarians and it states:
'God from all eternity did...of his own
will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass....Although
God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;
yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future...
The Westminster Confession Sect. 3:1,2
Notice that the Westminster Confession says God decreed whatsoever comes to pass
and then adds yet hath he not decreed any
thing because he foresaw it as future. Now,
where it says 'whatsoever comes to pass' and 'anything' let us replace it with the fall, an event that was to
come to pass, Adam's sin, and see how it reads: God
from all eternity did...of his own will, freely and unchangeably
ordain [Adam's sin] ...Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to
pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed [Adam's sin] because
he foresaw it as future... There it is,
even in the Westminster Confession, Adam was ordained to sin not
because God foresaw it as future, but by a free election. Thus,
elected sin is the only possible sin available upon which the infralapsarian
can base a predestination to hell. The only way man might have deserved
a foreordination to hell before the creation of the world is if
it was based on a foreknowledge of what man would do in the future. But that option does
not exist in the Westminster Confession, yet
hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future. Indeed, it is impossible for man to deserve a foreordination
to hell if God decreed everything with none of it being because
he foresaw it as future. Infralapsarian has no actual sin in view
upon which to base a predestination to hell. The only 'sin' in view
is one divinely elected to an innocent person. With no actual sin
in view, there can be no actual guilt upon which to base a foreordination
to hell. There can be no actual basis for saying the foreordination
to hell was deserved. And that results in an election to hell, undeserved
by any sin and that is supralapsariaism, that’s Calvinism. Calvin’s
Calvinism teaches a predestination to hell before any actual sin
of man is in view. Honest Calvinism teaches a bonafide election
to hell undeserved by any sin, and not merely a foreordination to
hell based on 'a passing by of sinners' and it really doesn’t really
matter whether you call it infralapsarian or supralapsarian, both,
as the Westminister Cofession shows, teach the same thing, just
what you wrote at the beginning of your post: 1. Sin does not place
the sinner in hell. 2. Good works does not place the believer in
heaven. 3. Salvation is all the will of God 4. Condemnation to hell
is all the will of God 5. God predestined His elect to salvation
6. God predestined His non-elect to damnation That’s Calvinism,
and I get so tried of Calvinists denying it, watering down Calvinism
in order to make it 'acceptable.' Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: john hampshire
To: ShowMe
Date Posted:
Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 00:12:27 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Showme, You
said: You can add all the 'that is’s' that you want but it will
not change the fact that Calvin was a supralapsarian. You missed
my point. I don't care if Calvin was, or was not, a supralapsarian.
My point was that you have misrepresented Calvin's position by your
grand assumption concerning his written statements. I evaluated
Calvin's statements as they stood, with no axe to grind, and found
nothing implausible. You said, 'You want to do away with supralapsarianism
because it teaches an election to hell that you find repulsive'.
To know what I believe one would have to READ what I wrote, but
apparently you are able to skip this step. I do not mind, as I said,
the idea that God predestinates the non-elect to 'hell', the only
problem I have is when someone try’s make God responsible for sin
by forcing the acts of the wicked upon God, something that is unnecessary
and wrong. You said, 'Modern Calvinists say 'we do not teach any
one is elected for hell but that they are only passed by and left
to themselves.' Why is it both cannot be true? Why cannot God determine
that the final state of the wicked is 'hell', and pass them by in
His plan of redemption? Your definition of the infra/supra uses
the term 'foreseen' concerning God's knowledge of future sins. Should
we expect God to be surprised by Adam's sin? You said, 'men not
yet contemplated as sinners are foreordained to hell', how does
God contemplate a new idea? Did He not know, and then learned something?
Who was His teacher? You said, 'the infra brand teaches that everything
was decreed before the creation of the world apart from a foreknowledge
of the future'. What is the future except the unfolding of God's
predetermined plan. Does the future operate independently from God,
does it think and act, is it alive? If God did not foreknow or predetermine
the future, then who did? The Westminster Confession says God did
ordain and predetermine the future in an unchangeable decree. Then
it says, 'yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it
as future'. That means to me that God set the future based upon
His plan which He decided beforehand. The second part says there
was nothing independent of God which could council Him or cause
Him to alter His plan, nothing yet future. Well that's all the time
I have right now. Let me know your many objections. john
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 22:57:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
ShowMe,
You have tried to distort the
teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith as you did with
the writing of John Calvin. When the Confession states that God
ordains all that comes to pass, 'yet hath
he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future.' the writers had no intention as to what you suggest,
that is, that the Fall was not considered in the decree, for the
decree indeed included the Fall, both by Supralapsarians and Infralapsarians
alike, as the very names themselves indicate. What the Confession
is clearly stating is a polemic against Semi-Pelagianism which would
have God be subject to the prior actions of men. Indeed, since the
decrees of God were from all eternity, what COULD God see that was
future, since nothing exists but what He has decreed. As to whether
or not Calvin was a Supralapsarian is a debatable point. There are
times he writes as if he were one, and other places he writes as
if he were Infralapsarian. The fact is, historically that distinction
was not refined enough to impose either view upon him. Personally,
I am of the opinion that Calvin was neither but both. Lastly, just
who are you to make the determination that 'true Calvinism' is what
you have defined it to be, which is classic Hyper-Calvinism? This
is an old argument which has never worked and never will. Those
of the Westminster Assembly and those who were in attendance at
the great Synod of Dortrecht who embraced Supralapsarianism openly
rejected YOUR definition of 'true Calvinism'! Your presence here
is obviously not one that has any good intention as its end. I suggest
you move on willingly at this point for the good of all. Thanks....
!
Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Pilgrim, aren't you a Calvinist?
From: freegrace
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 15:38:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
To ShowMe... It sounds as if you are trying to defend
or make a case in defense of those who perish and are finally lost....
Pilgrim is correct that man was created upright, and all of the
human race had 'free-will' in Adam at the beginning; but when Adam
sinned, the entire human race was brought into a lost state or condition.
If there were no election unto salvation, none would be saved! The
entire human race would have perished! Laz has already reminded
us about the fact of human responsibility - along with the doctrine
of predestination. Your quotes from Calvin are showing just one
side of the truth only... In all of the John Calvin books I have
read, one of the first things I noticed was how he always stressed
human responsibility -- just as the great Calvinistic Puritan writers
have done in the past. It is misleading I think to show Calvin's
quotes of the decrees of God, and not also show his quotes where
he speaks of the human responsibity of man. Also, as I have said
before, reprobates will never search the Word of God to 'find themselves'
in the Scriptures. The gospel is good news for all who have 'ears
to hear'... Our job is now to tell the good news that God saves
sinners by free grace alone, and not to be 'overwise' in searching
out the ways and decrees of God made before time began. I have never
really had any problems with election and reprobation; if the Bible
teaches it, we are to believe it! Besides, that is God's business.
But also remember that God has ordained the means as well as the
end. To whom much is given much shall be required. As the Puritans
have written, 'if one is to be warm, he must come near the fire'.
To be eternally lost even after hearing the gospel message in this
forum week after week would be very sad indeed! Now the 'fire' of
God's truth is burning brightly! Do not miss it, my friend! Now
is the day of SALVATION! - (The Bible never says: 'Now is the day
of damnation'). freegrace
|
Subject: Calvin on Baptism
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 23:35:57 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Calvin, in his book Institutes of Christian Religion stated: But
whether the person being baptised should be wholly immersed, and
whether he should only be sprinkled with poured on water-these details
are of no importance but ought to be optional to churches according
to the diversity of countries. Yet the word baptise means 'to immerse,'
and it is clear that the rite of emmersion was observed in the ancient
church. IV,xv19 I agree with John Calvin on this, but if the word
baptise means to 'immerse' then I have to say I have to go with
immersion over sprinkling. If my studies on baptism are correct,
up to this point that while many Greek words might have been used
to discribe the mode of baptism in the New Testament, only one was
used exclusively. That word is 'baptizo' which means to immerse-
put down under. And as far as I can tell(and I don''t know Greek),is
the only word used to discribe water baptism in the New Testament.
Which makes me wonder, if the only word used exclusively in the
New Testament for baptism means emmersion. Then why should we choose
the method of sprinkling over baptism? Remember even Calvin said
that baptism means to immerse and that is how it was used in the
ancient church. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Shelly
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 12:10:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, check out this link. ...Some examples of 'baptizo' which do
not necessarily mean to 'immerse'. Quite interesting... In Him,
Shelly Which Baptism is Baptism?
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 19:46:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Well, there is the problem, and I can understand your problem very
well: 'That word is 'baptizo' which means to immerse- put down under'.
The word baptizo does not mean to immerse, to put down under! :
o There are some books I have which show the truth of this, perhaps
I will have time to quote some of it. The best identification that
baptizo has is with washing or cleansing. Such as Mark 7:4 'and,
[coming] from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves,
they do not eat; and many other things there are that they received
to hold, baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches.'
It was not the custom of the Pharisees to immerse their couches
or themselves..... wash or cleanse YES, but immerse no. That is
why Jesus mentioned things being CLEAN vs UNCLEAN and relates it
to being spiritually clean vs physically clean. The baptism of cups
made them clean, but the Pharisees were spiritually unclean. Jesus
was defining the word correctly. As a matter of fact (don't prove
me wrong here) but the Bible contains no word, Hebrew or Greek that
speaks of immersion (going under) or emersion (coming out). Kinda
hard to formulate an entire doctrine around an idea that the Bible
does not even mention. Now, washing, sprinkling, cleansing it never
ends speaking of. If you need more info, I'll look up stuff from
my library. Quite interesting the way he refutes the writing of
D.A. Carson (I believe that was his name, I'm not at home right
now). Carson wrote a length (tedious) book explaining that baptism
can ONLY mean to dip or immerse. Carson's book is refuted and shown
to be incorrect. I have Carson's book, so I was glad (being a sprinkling
proponent) to find where the errors were, and see that baptizo was
still safe from the clutches of Baptists. john
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 21:42:07 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John You said: The word baptizo does not mean to immerse, to put
down under! : o Are you saying that Calvin was wrong about that?
I thought I would write out some of the imformation that I have
looked at so far, FYI. Words not used to describe baptism in the
Greek New Testament If I knew how to I would type out with Greek
letters, before the pronunciations of each word, but I don’t. Louo-
The word signifies either to bathe the whole body in water or to
bathe the body all over by the application of water. It appears
in John 13:10 Nipto- This term signifies washing some particular
part of the body or some item. It appears in Matt. 6:16-17. Ex-echo-
To pour out. It is applied to the pouring of the Holy Spirit in
Acts 2:17-18. Katapontizo- To plunge down, to drown. It is found
in Matt. 18:6 Rhantizo- To sprinkle. It is found in Hebrews 9:19.
Brecho- To moisten or make lightly wet. It is used in Luke 7:38.
From my research I have found that several of these are used in
different churches today, to express different modes of baptism.
However none of these appear in the scriptures with reference to
baptism. Why is that? The Greek word I see in reference to baptism
is baptizo. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Gene
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 03:42:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, According to Pilgrim, baptism cannot mean immersion. Well...he
quoted an author that said it could not mean immersion. I do not
know what Pilgrim himself thinks. Be that as it may, is Calvin wrong?
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Gene
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 17:01:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Whether the person baptized is to
be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether
he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence:
churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the
diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term
baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by
the primitive Church.
Actually according to Calvin it doesn't matter
whether you sprinkle, or immerse but that the churches should be
a liberty to adopt either. And that is the important principle not
whether people need to be immersed or not. It is foolish to continue
this arguement thats a hint Gene think about it. |
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 20:47:37 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Prestor John My question is why do some people choose sprinkling
over immersion, when the word baptise means to immerse? It is not
a contentious issue with me, but never the less I would like to
know why that is. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 21:52:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
The reason why there is so much
disunity on this issue is due to the very fact that some, Baptists
who wrongly equate 'baptizo' with only immersion and others, who
wrongly equate 'baptizo' with only sprinkling. The fact is that
a thorough word study on 'baptizo' and all its derivatives will
show that it means immersion, aspersion and effusion (dunking, sprinkling
and pouring). All are legitimate meanings for the verb 'to baptize'.
As with all words and their proper meaning, the context must determine
which meaning is applicable. To put all one's 'eggs in a basket'
is to ask for trouble. And this being done by some has resulted
in needless denominationalism in some cases. The BAPTIST denominations
being one fine example. 'If you ain't been dunked... you ain't been
really baptized'!! This is sectarian and needless. If a particular
group doesn't believe it is legitimate (biblical) to baptize infants;
that's fine. But to require believers to submit to immersion for
entrance into the church of Christ is criminal. I of course, don't
know which book John is referring to that he has that refutes Carson's
contention that 'baptizo' IS immersion. I do have several of my
own, one being Dr. John Murray's book, Christian
Baptism which also destroys any notion
of that position. From my own advanced study in the Greek N.T.,
I also would have to agree with Murray's findings as well. I was
open to either position at the time, so there was no biased on my
part. And if I was biased at all, I was biased toward the Baptist
position and not the Paedobaptist position, if that is of any consequence
to you! :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:02:11 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim I hope you do not think I am being disagreable here. That
is surely not the case, I like Calvin don't want to make a big deal
about this issue. But I also want to be like a Barrean(sp?) and
see what the word of God says about the issue. I don't have the
time or the bugeted money to add another book to my list, for indeed
it is long. I hope you understand where I am coming from on this
issue. I don't nessasarily agree with everything that the Baptist
Church believes. In fact I don't think there is a Church denomination
that I could agree on 100% of the time. But then again God is not
finished with me yet :-) Tom
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism -books
From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 04:46:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The books I have found are: 'Baptism in the New Testament', written
by G.R. Beasley-Murray, which wishes to show believers baptism as
the proper method. 'Holy Baptism, Words which Unlock the Covenant'
by Duane E. Spencer who says the mode doesn't matter. 'The Biblical
Doctrine of Infant Baptism' by Pierre Ch. Marcel wishing to prove
infant baptism. And 'Johannic Baptism - Baptizo', by James W. Dale
which ruins D.A. Carson's immersion theory and sets the grounds
for understanding the meaning of the word baptizo. I especially
thought the last title useful, and very well done. Should like to
re-read them all, if time permits. Anyone familiar with these works
or the men who wrote them? john
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Gene
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 20:38:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
My point was the Pilgrim quoted an author that says baptism cannot
mean immersion. Calvin obviously believed it does. By the way, where
does Calvin get the scriptural authority for this statement; 'churches
should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity
of climates...'? Why, because he said so?
|
Subject: Re: Calvin on Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 00:27:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I suppose that since there is no direct statement in the bible that
says that baptism is to be done by a particular method that Calvin
sees this as neutral and should be done as the Churches see fit.
Again you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and trying to
discredit Calvin's reputation for no reason other than your own
pettiness. Now while I believe in believers baptism I was not always
of that mind set and when I was the member of the Lutheran Church
had my son baptized as an infant. However, my two girls were baptized
as adults after making their confession before witnesses in church.
Yet, I do not pressure my son to get rebaptized but leave it to
his own convictions. If he never gets baptized as an adult I will
never say that his baptism as a infant excludes him from membership
in the covenant community of believers. The point is that what is
important is that the sacrament is obeyed not the method. Prestor
John
|
Subject: grieved in spirit
From: mary
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 13:11:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I just wanted to take a moment and express how grieved I felt when
I read the message to Vernon from Pilgram. There was nothing bad
in what you said it was how you said it. It cost nothing to show
respect, it cost nothing to show kindness, but to love as Christ
loves it will cost you everything. You will have to love the unlovely,
you will have to love those who do not speak as well as you, you
will even have to love your enemy. I must be honest with you I know
Vernon and if you met him you would love him, because he is the
most humble loving person that you would ever want to meet. And
his first love is Jesus Christ. You see I know this because he's
my brother. Thank you for listining to me. I hope you read this
knowing that I mean no disrespect to anyone at this site.
|
Subject: Re: grieved in spirit
From: Pilgrim
To: mary
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 22:24:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mary,
My dealings with Vernon have nothing
to do with any alleged 'goodness of heart', sincerity, or any other
positive attribute which he may possess or that which you perceive
in him as having. This is a theological discussion board, and therefore
my concern is far more sober and important an issue that these things.
And please don't misconstrue this as meaning that I don't consider
sanctification or the fruit of the Spirit as important. For indeed
I do. However, it is Vernon's theological views which are in question
here. He embraces heresy and thus is preaching a false gospel which
puts his hearers in peril of eternal damnation (speaking from a
position of human responsibility). Vernon has been shown his error
for over two years here on this forum alone by countless people.
He has systematically avoided dealing with the Scriptures shown
him, reason presented to him and questions asked of him. It has
NOTHING to do with someone's alleged inability to spell, write,
articulate or any other thing better or worse than someone else.
Those issues are irrelevant and thus are mute. Loving one's enemy
is being willing to speak the truth to him/her knowing that by nature
they are opposed to that truth and that the typical response will
always be defensive, offensive and fraught will all manner of avoidance,
unless the Spirit of God enlightens their hearts and minds. It is
a far simpler thing to do to just smile and nod your head in an
insincere manner to someone who is espousing untruth rather than
confront them. Today, if someone DOES emulate the Lord Christ as
He did in confronting those who held positions of responsibility
and authority, there comes an immediate cry of 'foul' and the castigations
flow like water. And so with such unwarranted protests I must echo
the Apostle Paul, ' 1Thess 2:3 For our
exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:
4 But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel,
even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our
hearts. 5 For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye
know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness:' May God grant you therefore a deeper understanding of
the sobriety of what is taking place here and that it is for the
benefit of all and particularly for the salvation of those who are
yet outside of Christ. Biblical respect, kindness and love are not
necessarily synonymous with the modern conception of 'love' nor
of 'What would Jesus do!' It is sometimes necessary to bring sorrow
to those heard of hearing so that they may be moved to repentance.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: grieved in spirit
From: mary
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 09:56:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgram I have visited your site once in while but have never participated
before now I'm not quite sure what heresy you are refering to when
you refer to Vernon. If you mean that he does not seem to embrace
Predestination then I guess you would think that I am a heritic
also. Vernon and I do not agree on all things but I believe he is
every bit as much a Bornagain Christian as I am. The diciples did
not agree on all things. Paul and Peter were examples of that, but
they believed on the most central part of Christianity. They believed
as I do that Jesus is the Anointed one of God that the Old Testament
proclaims and that he is indeed a part of the God head and is God.
I believe in that with all my heart. I read your statement of faith
when I first found this site. I find it hard to find much that we
disagree on except maybe predestination. And I have read the most
recent statements that Vernon has posted to you and it seems he
was quoting scripture to back up his statements. It looks to me
as if the two of you disagree on this one area of the Scriptures.
Will that keep either of you out of the Kingdom of God? If you both
believe that Jesus is the Christ and He is the Lamb of God that
taketh away the sin of the world are you not both saved by this
conviction? Does one have to believe in predestination to believe
that God is soverign over all things? I am not being critical of
you I truly want to know the answer to that question. My constant
prayer, and I mean this literally, is that God will lead and guide
me into his truth and that I wont deceive myself, nor be deceived
by others when it comes to his word. Since the diciples disagreed
on somethings (not the Deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ) I do
not feel that God would condemn me to hell for not believing in
Predestination. But I do believe if I did not believe in Jesus Christ
I would have been condemn by my own disbelief. I do agree with you
that you must always speak the truth, but God's word is a two edged
sword and must be weilded with love. Jesus proved that when he called
the Pharasees white washed tombs full of dead mens bone he loved
them but he still spoke the truth to them. So I stand corrected
and receive you reply with love and hope you receive mine in the
same way. Thank your for your kindness. Mary
|
Subject: Re: grieved in spirit
From: Pilgrim
To: mary
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 10:30:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mary,
My dear lady, this is NOT about
'Predestination' although 'Predestination' is surely a part of the
gospel. Vernon's and perhaps your understanding of the gospel, although
popular today, is not the gospel which the Scriptures, nor what
the true church has believed and preached since the first. And because
what you, Vernon and multitudes now believe is in vogue, for anyone,
including myself to question it and to point out that it is in fact
heresy most often brings loud cries of 'foul' and the one who does
so is more often than not labeled by such terms as 'narrow', 'unloving',
'schismatic', 'dogmatic', 'puffed up with knowledge', and a plethora
of such terms. However, this is not a matter of being any of those
things, but one that concerns the OBJECTIVE teaching of the Scriptures
and the salvation of God which is by GRACE ALONE! The Apostle Paul
was kindly, as it were, toward those who out of sinful motives preached
the TRUE GOSPEL (Phil 1:15-18) for the TRUTH was being made known.
However, he was anything but kind or tolerant of ANYONE who preached
a false gospel, regardless of their sincerity or motives (Gal 1:7-9;
5:12) and warned of giving an ear to them (2Cor11:2-4). This is
a matter of utmost importance and the gravity of it cannot be underestimated.
I am glad that you have confessed to being 'open' to learning and
that you are concerned about believing and speaking forth God's
truth. Therefore I would highly recommend that you read the following
article which is posted on The Highway home page. You can access
it by clicking the link here: Introductory Essay to the Death of Death in the Death
of Christ by Dr. J.I. Packer. In this
rather lengthy exposé, Packer sets forth the great differences
and gulf that exists between the 'modern gospel' and the gospel
of the Scriptures and the historical church. I hope that you will
indeed take the time to read this for your personal edification
and sanctification. And that the result will be a positive turning
to the truth that is found in Christ Jesus. In His Precious Blood,
Pilgrim 'I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to
tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are
concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order....
when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order,
but only anger, dispute, and destruction -- to be sure, only with
the Word of God as our weapon.' - Martin Luther LUTHERAN THEOLOGIAN
MARTIN CHEMNITZ (1522-1586) ON JUSTIFICATION: 'This unique doctrine
in a special way distinguishes the church from all other nations
and religions....[Justification] is the pinnacle and chief bulwark
of all teaching and of the Christian religion itself; if this is
obscured, adulterated, or subverted, it is impossible to retain
purity of doctrine in other loci. On the other hand, if this locus
is securely retained, all idolatrous ravings, superstitions and
other corruptions are thereby destroyed (Loci Theologici II, p.
443) |
Subject: Re: grieved in spirit
From: mary
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:25:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgram there is a problem with your URL when I clicked on where
you instructed me to click the page 'reads there is an error and
it should be reported to webmaster@gospelcom.net'. As to what you
responded I guess I am at a loss. I am a simple person who believes
that we are saved through the Grace of God and redemed by the blood
of Jesus Christ. I refer to Hebrews Chapter 9. I will be the first
to admit that I am not a student of theology although I have read
the Bible through many times and found that I learn deeper truths
eveytime that I have. I ask in all honesty, what am I reading in
the Word of God that I am misunderstanding? Hebrews 9 tells me that
Jesus is Gods passover lamb. What am I missing? Ephesians chapter
2 tells me this 'you hath he quickened (made alive) who were dead
in trespasses and sins: wherein times past ye walked according to
the course of this world, according to the prince of the air the
spirit that now worketh in the childre of disobedience. It tells
me that he has quickened or made me alive together with Christ and
made me to sit in heavenly places in Christ. It tell me I am not
saved by works but by grace. Please tell me what I have misunderstood.
This is the only gospel I have ever heard other than Jehovah's witness
which I have never believed, or the social gospel that says do what
ever feels good because a good god would not send you to hell. I
dont believe God sends anyone to hell except satan and his angles.
I believe anyone in hell chose to be there, deceived yes, but non
the less they made the choices that took then there. I will try
and find the pages you are refering to in you reply. Meanwhile,
please tell where I am wrong because I am always open to truth if
it matches the Word of God. We should all search the scriptures
comparing scripture to scripture. Is harder to be deceived that
way. Thank you again Pilgram mary what has been posted before because
in order to hold an intellegent conversation I have to know what
you believe and mary
|
Subject: Re: grieved in spirit
From: Pilgrim
To: mary
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:34:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mary,
First, here is the direct URL
for the article by Dr. J.I. Packer: http://www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/Death.html.
I personally tested that link in my last post and it worked fine.
So I don't know why you experienced the problem you did? If this
URL doesn't work for you, then just go to the home page, which you
can quickly do by returning to the main message page of this Forum
where all the threads are displayed, and at the very top right hand
side is a blue logo that says, 'The Highway'. Click on that and
it will take you to the home page. Then, click on the link, 'The
Atonement of the Lord Christ'. When that page opens you will see
the listing/link for this article at the very top of the list. :-)
Your post which I am replying too is really messed up. Not in what
you wrote but in how it was physically displayed. I don't have a
clue as to why it is so. :-( But I can perhaps respond to one item
you mentioned. It's not in what you have written that is wrong.
No, not at all, but rather in the actual meaning of what you wrote.
For example, you quoted Ephesians 2:3 which says,
'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.'
Now the current interpretation
of that passage is that men are sinners and thus 'dead in trespasses
and sins', BUT they are still able to exercise faith in Christ.
A further distortion of that text is sometimes stated, as Vernon
has many times done here and in other places, is that God convicts
a sinner of his sins and then it is up to that person to either
'ask Jesus into his heart' or reject the 'invitation' to do so.
If the response is positive, then the person is 'born again' and
saved. If a person rejects the gospel, then he remains unsaved,
but may 'decide for Jesus' at some other time as he/she wishes.
However, the passage clearly says that all men (generic) are DEAD in trespasses and sins.
And it is God Who in His grace 'makes them alive/quickens' them.
Most importantly, in regards to this issue is the end result of
this 'quickening', which Paul states in verse 5: 'Even
when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ,
(by grace ye are saved;)'. The being 'made
alive/quickening' infallibly and thus ALWAYS leads to being placed
in union with the Lord Christ and salvation apprehended and secured.
The quickened sinner therefore believes upon Christ and is justified.
There is no other possible result other than salvation in the Lord
Jesus Christ for one that has been 'born again/regenerated/made
alive/quickened'. For. . . 'by grace ye are saved'! This 'quickening/making alive/new birth'
is the sovereign work of God the Spirit, accomplished in whom HE
wishes and when He wishes as John 3:5-8 teaches. Those who believe
upon Christ are those, and those ONLY who have BEEN 'born of God' (Joh 1:13). The new birth is the origin
of faith. And this faith ALWAYS and INFALLIBLY: seeks, finds and
rests in the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation. The modern 'gospel'
denies this truth by making the 'new birth/regeneration/quickening/making
alive' depend on the initial believing of the individual. It is
the sinner's faith
that actually saves at the end of the day. Why? Because according
to the modern 'gospel' all other things are equal. The 1) love of
God the Father 2) the atonement of Christ the Son 3) the influence
of the Spirit is indiscriminate, i.e., all men share God's love,
the Son's death and the influence of the Spirit. Yet, some are saved
and some are lost. The deciding factor is therefore the will of
man in his cooperating with these three things. In essence, this
is nothing less than 'synergism'; a cooperating with God's 'grace',
which amounts to the following 'salvation formula': 'Grace+ Work
(man's faith) = Justification - works'. But the Scriptures teach:
'Grace (which creates faith) = Justification + Works'. As you can
see, there is a stark contrast between the two views. Roman Catholicism
is very much in agreement with the modern Arminian 'gospel' which
states: 'Faith + Works = Justification'. Let me summarize the modern
Evangelical view once again, so that there is no misunderstanding
either in my ability to convey it or your ability to comprehend
it. This view confesses that salvation is by GRACE. But this 'grace'
is not sufficient in and of itself to save anyone. The person must
also contribute to this salvation by exercising his/her faith which
he/she may or may not do according to their will. In total contrast,
the Reformed and biblical view holds that the GRACE of God is the
origin and end of salvation. Yes, a sinner believes upon Christ
and he/she does so willingly. But until the sinner is 'born again/quickened/regenerated/made
alive' he/she lacks any desire or ability to do so. And once grace
has been applied to the sinner, the result is ALWAYS a believing
upon Christ unto justification, sanctification and glorification
(Rom 8:30; Heb 12:2; Acts 13:48; et al). 'Salvation is of the LORD'
(Jonah 2:9), from beginning to end. Thus GRACE never fails to accomplish
that which it was intended to do. ALL who receive grace, while they
were yet 'DEAD
in trespasses and sins' are brought to a saving knowledge of Christ
Jesus. I certainly will try and explain further if necessary and/or
to answer any other questions you might have. But again, I would
recommend you read in full what Dr. Packer has written for I am
confident that what he has to say will clarify much of the confusion
you might currently have about our differences. :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: becky
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:36:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
hello everyone, i have been thinking about predestination...and
i believe that God forknew who his children would be, but the question
i have is, why would He bother creating people who He did not desire
to be His? why wouldnt He die for us all? how can i witness to people
and say 'perhaps He died for you, or perhaps he didnt', 'He may
love you and call you to be His own, or He may of just created you
to go to hell'. what is the use of praying that God to draw certain
people to Himself so that they would be saved if God does not continually
desire reconciliation with ALL people? being adopted, i know what
it's like to be an unwanted child. i am grateful that i have now
been 'adopted' into His kingdom, but how am i to trust a heavenly
Dad who shows favoritism and creates 'unwanted children'? this is
not an issue of 'fairness' for me because, in fairness, i believe
we all deserve to die...this is more a question of why would God
have bothered to create all these extraneous people if He did not
desire that ALL people be reconciled to Him through His Son's work
on the cross? does this mean that, infact, 'God does make junk?'
thanks for listening, becky
|
Subject: Re: Yes, Grace is for everyone!
From: Old Faith
To: becky
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 06:52:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Yes, Grace is for everyone! We all get more than we deserve. It's
just that for the vessels fitted for destruction, grace is only
a temporal thing. They don't receive all 'badness' in this world.
But they are used contrastingly for illustrative lessons to the
elect. Of course even elect iron sharpens iron via this board, et.
al.
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: CMB 19
To: becky
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 21:02:07 (PST)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
'this is more
a question of why would God have bothered to create all these extraneous
people if He did not desire that ALL people be reconciled to Him
through His Son's work on the cross? does this mean that, in fact,
'God does make junk?' ' Well let me ask this. If GOD knows who will
be his and who will not, then why did he bother to create Adam &
Eve? And you asked; 'how can i witness to people and say 'perhaps
He died for you, or perhaps he didn't', 'He may love you and call
you to be His own, or He may of just created you to go to hell'.
what is the use of praying that God to draw certain people to Himself
so that they would be saved if God does not continually desire reconciliation
with ALL people?' Well, the fact is we don't know who is his. That
is why we have to witness to all so that when His sheep do hear
his call they will come. It's like a young shepherd going into a
field filed with sheep to find the ones that belong to his master.
Some belong to the shepherd's master and some don't. The young shepherd
can't tell them apart so, he sounds his master's call to all the
sheep. And the ones that belong to the master will hear the master's
call and come out from the other sheep, and then return to the master.
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: laz
To: CMB 19
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:38:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
'this is more a question of why would God have bothered to create
all these extraneous people if He did not desire that ALL people
be reconciled to Him through His Son's work on the cross? does this
mean that, in fact, 'God does make junk?' ' Well let me ask this.
If GOD knows who will be his and who will not, then why did he bother
to create Adam & Eve? And you asked; 'how can i witness to people
and say 'perhaps He died for you, or perhaps he didn't', 'He may
love you and call you to be His own, or He may of just created you
to go to hell'. what is the use of praying that God to draw certain
people to Himself so that they would be saved if God does not continually
desire reconciliation with ALL people?' Well, the fact is we don't
know who is his. That is why we have to witness to all so that when
His sheep do hear his call they will come. It's like a young shepherd
going into a field filed with sheep to find the ones that belong
to his master. Some belong to the shepherd's master and some don't.
The young shepherd can't tell them apart so, he sounds his master's
call to all the sheep. And the ones that belong to the master will
hear the master's call and come out from the other sheep, and then
return to the master.
---
Hey CMB 19....I like THAT! blessings,
laz
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: freegrace
To: becky
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:48:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
This is a good question! I believe that the gopsel comes to us as
good news! All who have 'ears to hear' will hear it as Glad tidings
of great joy! Since we do not know whom the Lord God will call,
we are to sound out the message to everyone. The Words of the gospel
are Words of Life to all those whom Christ came to save - (HIs elect).
The reprobate never searches the Scriptures to 'see if these things
be so' or not. Only the elect are 'made willing' to come to the
Mirror of the Word, and see themselves (so to speak) as lost sinners,
in need of a Saviour. Psalm 110:3...KJV. Reprobates can pray, read
the bible, and be religious, etc. but they still are lost nevertheless,
because they have not been made willing to come to Christ (inwardly)
to be covered by His imputed Righteousness alone for an eternal
justification in the sight of God. Romans 10:3. Therefore, We never
need to 'fear' about giving the gospel to the non-elect. The gospel
comes as 'Words of Life', and has the power to quicken even the
hardest of hearts. freegrace
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: David Teh
To: becky
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 06:16:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Becky, I don't know if this helps, but you might want to prayerfully
consider Romans 8 to 10. May the Lord (if it be in accordance to
His pleasure) grant you (including myself and all others) grace
to understand.
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: john hampshire
To: becky
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 03:43:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
No doubt God could have designed a salvation program that included
redemption for all. But He decided to provide redemption for some
instead. I would imagine the main reason being, that God intended
to make known His character, which includes His mercy and His wrath
both. If God provided grace for everyone, salvation for everyone,
mercy to everyone, love to everyone, forgiveness to everyone, choose
everyone, we would be missing God's wrath, anger, hatred, and judgment
of sin and sinners. We would not understand His Holiness, Righteousness,
and Perfection. As for God making junk, it was not junk, it was
perfection, in Adam. The rebellion and death was not God's, it was
Adam's doing. While God makes one vessel for mercy and another for
wrath, essentially all vessels deserve only wrath. It is God who
takes His chosen vessels off the conveyer belt to destruction, and
remakes them into vessels of mercy. It is God who loves us when
we are junk, and was willing to essentially become junk Himself
for our salvation. Now imagine how much more God’s love is demonstrated
when a Holy and Perfect God condensends to become Junk Himself Some
would say it is more God-like to redeem everyone, I say the only
real way to know who God is and what He is like is to NOT redeem
any, saving but a few. You know what makes choice jewels rare? It
is not because every single rock is a ruby, if that were the case
who would marvel at a jewel? john
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: ShowMe
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 10:38:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, You wrote: 'No doubt God could have
designed a salvation program that included redemption for all. But
He decided to provide redemption for some instead. I would imagine
the main reason being, that God intended to make known His character,
which includes His mercy and His wrath both.'
You can find those that make very persuasive arguments for the teaching
that God did design a salvation program that includes redemption
for all. As for God having to torment people forever in order to
reveal His wrath, that seems to be a bit of overkill. My children
are well aware of my wrath without my having to endlessly demonstrate
it, when they did something wrong they were punished but the punishment
was always tempered by my love for them. In order to have God punish
people forever there can be no love involved. Those that God would
punish forever cannot ever have been loved by God. They must have
been created as objects of hatred. Under the Calvinist system of
theology God did indeed make 'junk' objects of wrath fitted for
destruction. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: Rod
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:19:48 (PST)
Email Address: na
Message:
Show Me, Under your system of theology, God has to
do things your way instead of His own. Let's quit remaking God into
our own image and let Him be God.
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 10:54:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
ShowMe - I guess it boils down to how we view God and His holiness...you
obviously have a lower view of it...believing that He owes us salvation
based on our decisions/works. Perhaps YOU should reread Rom 8-10
as well....? I think your man-centered objections are answered clearly
there. laz
|
Subject: Way Off Base!
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:04:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, You wrote: ' I guess it boils down
to how we view God and His holiness...you obviously have a lower
view of it...believing that He owes us salvation based on our decisions/works.' I have no idea how in this world you came up with this
based upon my post to John! God certainly does not own anyone salvation,
and salvation is most certainly not based upon any decision and/or
work that any human being can do! That’s simply ridicules! There
is absolutely nothing that a person can do in order to save themselves.
The very term salvation negates that idea. You are way off base
here! Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: No, right on target!
From: laz
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:04:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, You wrote: ' I guess it boils down
to how we view God and His holiness...you obviously have a lower
view of it...believing that He owes us salvation based on our decisions/works.' I have no idea how in this world you came up with this
based upon my post to John! God certainly does not own anyone salvation,
and salvation is most certainly not based upon any decision and/or
work that any human being can do! That’s simply ridicules! There
is absolutely nothing that a person can do in order to save themselves.
The very term salvation negates that idea. You are way off base
here! Sincerely, ShowMe
---
ShowMe - I think not. Questioning
God's ways, His wrath upon vessels prepared for destruction (Rom
8-10)- and then comparing yourself as a dad to God (albeit as an
analogy, but even that is ridiculous) makes my point, to the point.
laz If you have a problem with 'calvinistic' soteriology...the only
game left in town is arminianism....i.e., works-salvation...or maybe
universalism.
|
Subject: Junk!
From: ShowMe
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:31:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, You wrote: ' Questioning God's ways,
His wrath upon vessels prepared for destruction (Rom 8-10)- and
then comparing yourself as a dad to God (albeit as an analogy, but
even that is ridiculous) makes my point, to the point.' I have in no way whatsoever questioned God’s ways! I
have no idea what you are talking about! My whole point was that
God, according to Calvinism, does indeed create 'junk'! If God created
people to be vessels of wrath only fit for destruction, that means
that He did create 'junk'! He never loved them, He never intended
to save them, He hates them and has always hated them. They were
made for destruction, to be thrown away, they are 'junk'! You cannot
have God tormenting forever objects of love. If God loves someone
He will save them. You wrote: 'If you have
a problem with 'calvinistic' soteriology...the only game left in
town is arminianism....i.e., works-salvation...or maybe universalism. Nor have I stated that I have a problem with 'calvinistic
soteriology.' You must have really misread my post to John. You
are getting so defensive when there has not even been an attack!
Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Remember this
From: CMB 19
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 21:10:08 (PST)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
To say they
are 'Junk' kind of sounds like your saying 'I'm better than them'
Remember this, before we (true believers) where saved we where no
different. The only difference now is that through God's grace he
stepped into our lives and changed it. (from our point of view)
Like I said in my other response, we don't know who is and who is
not. Don't start labeling those who sin. We where ALL there before.
We are NO BETTER. If you start to reject all sinners (not saying
that you do) you WILL miss out an opportunity of witnessing.
|
Subject: An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
From: Joel H
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 15:26:33 (PST)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu
Message:
ShowMe, I could be wrong, but you seem more pre-occupied
with using inflammatory rhetoric hoping to convince all of the 'misinformed'
people on the board (or perhaps even yourself) of the 'stupidity'
or 'injustice' of Calvinism, rather than desiring to come to a better
understanding of the truth (Scripture). Your insistance that the
objects of wrath be labeled as 'junk' is a good example. If you
consider vessels which God uses to show His eternal qualities of
justice and wrath as 'junk', then God has made 'junk'! Why is this
wrong or ignorant? I personally don't understand why you would label
a vessel with an important 'purpose' (to show God's qualities) as
junk. Do not the objects of mercy serve the same purpose (to show
equally important qualities) as the objects of wrath? Are the objects
of mercy junk too? So what if God made some people who will never
know His infinite grace and mercy? So what if God made some people
to whom He could express perfect emotional hatred? God crafted a
plan where none of the objects of wrath would be undeserving of
their foreordained destiny! Please try to grasp that point. Perhaps
you would benefit more from leaving personal arguments aside and
basing your arguments more on Scripture? If the whole idea of God
having objects of wrath is obviously a foolish or cruel idea, then
I am sure a solid Biblical defense would not be difficult. Joel
H
|
Subject: Re: An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
From: ShowMe
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 16:37:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Joel H, If you read the very first post by Becky
in this thread you will see that she asked, and I quote …does this mean that, in fact, 'God does make junk?'' In using the term 'junk' I was simply answering her original
question. I have no idea as to why you are so angry about my response.
You wrote: ' If the whole idea of God having
objects of wrath is obviously a foolish or cruel idea, then I am
sure a solid Biblical defense would not be difficult. Those are your words, not mine. I have never said any
such thing. Your heading was 'An object with 'purpose' is not junk'
you therefore affirm that God created the vast majority of humanity
so that He could use them, give them purpose, by punishing them
forever and thereby manifesting His Justice, Righteousness, and
Wrath to His elect. As an aside, do you think that the punishment
of these vessels of wrath forever in order to manifest His wrath
to the elect is necessary in order to keep the elect ones in line?
To keep them from sinning in the way that some of the angels did?
Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 08:52:20 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Showme Think about the Old testament for a few minutes.
How did God use other nations against Israel when Israel was disobedient
to God? Now think about what kind of things happened when they obeyed
God. Tom
|
Subject: Missed Your Point
From: ShowMe
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 09:06:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, I really don't understand what your post has to do with this
subject. Israel was/is God's elect nation. Sorry, but I simply don't
get your point. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Missed Your Point
From: Tom
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 13:33:17 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
My point is that God used and uses other people and nations whether
saved or not, to make His elect face Him and be obedient to Him.
Tom
|
Subject: Re: An object with 'purpose' is not junk!
From: Joel H
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 18:43:51 (PST)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu
Message:
I concede the fact that the term 'junk' did not originate
with your post. However, you did seem to vigorously adopt the terminology
in your critic of others. Nevertheless, I did not reply out of anger
at the time of my last response. If you perceived me as being angry,
then my tone was out of a deep desire to manifest the truth, not
out of a desire to 'attack' you :) For the sake of eliminating more
potential misunderstandings, I will cease to comment on your motivation
for posting on this forum in the future and let others judge the
'evidence' for themselves. Fair enough? About your last set of questions,
the eternal punishment of the vessels of wrath is not a motivation
for obedience to the elect. God did not make an 'example' out of
the reprobate to scare the elect into obedience. In fact, God has
made known to the elect in His Word that there is now no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus. He freed us from the mortal terror
of His eternal wrath, so we can serve Him out of sincere love and
appreciation, not out of dread of punishment like the law. However,
to know others will suffer eternal damnation for their disobedience
is not without effect on the elect. To understand His justice, is
to understand His mercy. You grasp a much greater sense of His grace,
when You better understand that you are not getting what you deserve,
like so many others. Think of colors, how good would your understanding
be of a certain color without contrast? Am I helping you understand
this position? A question to you: If you are posting here to clarify
your understanding of the 'Calvinistic' viewpoint, perhaps I would
be of more help to you if I knew from what perspective you are viewing
this particular issue. Keeping that in mind: Would you perceive
ignorance or injustice on the part of God, if He created a plan which included objects of wrath to
be made for destruction to accomplish His eternal purpose? Any other
possible objections? Do you have any objections at all? Joel H
|
Subject: No Objections :o)
From: ShowMe
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 19:24:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Joel H, You wrote: 'To understand His justice,
is to understand His mercy. You grasp a much greater sense of His
grace, when You better understand that you are not getting what
you deserve, like so many others. Think of colors, how good would
your understanding be of a certain color without contrast? Am I
helping you understand this position?'
I do understand the teaching that some were created as vessels of
mercy while others, the majority were created as vessels of wrath.
I’m not sure about your idea of people getting what they deserve.
As I understand it the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath
were determined before anything was created, before anyone had sinned.
It was predetermined who would be vessels of wrath and receive endless
punishment and who would be vessels of mercy and receive endless
blessing before either were born. I don’t see how 'deserving' fits
in at all. I mean, if you were chosen for salvation before you were
even born, if it were determined that you were to be a vessel of
mercy before you were born, then you get what you 'deserve' by right
of birth, you get to be a vessel of mercy and receive endless blessing.
That's what you were created to be and that’s what you are and you
therefore 'deserve' to be treated as a vessel of mercy. You ask:
If you are posting here to clarify your
understanding of the 'Calvinistic' viewpoint, perhaps I would be
of more help to you if I knew from what perspective you are viewing
this particular issue. I’m not sure what
you mean by my perspective. God can do whatever He wants. I’m closer
to Reform, in so far as I understand it, in my beliefs, than any
other system of theology that I’m aware of. I’m not comfortable
calling myself a Calvinist, I prefer the label Christian. You continues:
'Would you perceive ignorance or injustice
on the part of God, if He created a plan which included objects
of wrath to be made for destruction to accomplish His eternal purpose?
Any other possible objections? Do you have any objections at all?' I would never presume to object to anything that God
decided to do. I’m not sure that He has created people just so that
He could use them to manifest His wrath, just so that He would have
them to punish forever but if that is the case, then I certainly
cannot object. Sincerely, ShowMe P.S. You wouldn't happen to know
where heaven and hell are, would you?
|
Subject: Re: Junk!
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 15:17:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
ShowMe,
You wrongly assuming that 'love'
and 'hate' are mutually exclusive! Can not a Judge who is also the
father of a convicted murderer sentence his own son to death for
his crime, but simultaneously be grieved over his son because he
loves him? God's love in the Scripture is not some sentimentality
which directs His immutable and holy will. Far be it from God to
be likened to fallen mankind who has so distorted the image he was
originally created with. The love of God is DISPLAYED in His foreordination
to save unworthy 'vessels of wrath' who otherwise, if left to themselves
would much rather occupy hell than spend eternity praising their
Creator. Further, the cost involved in accomplishing their salvation
is incomprehensible in that it was God Himself who condescending
to become man and suffer the pangs of hell in those who were elected
by grace to receive the benefits of the Lord Christ's vicarious
substitutionary obedience and death. Such love is incomparable to
anything done within the realm of mankind.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Junk!
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 16:39:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, Am I to therefore understand that you believe that God
loves everyone with the same love that He has for the 'elect'? Is
that your position? He loves everyone equally? The vessels of wrath
created for destruction are just as much objects of God’s love as
are the 'elect'? Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Junk!
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 22:01:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, Am I to therefore understand that you believe that God
loves everyone with the same love that He has for the 'elect'? Is
that your position? He loves everyone equally? The vessels of wrath
created for destruction are just as much objects of God’s love as
are the 'elect'? Sincerely, ShowMe
---
ShowMe,
Is this a game with you? In a
reply to Joel H. you stated that you are closer to the Reformed
'system' than any other. If that were true then would I not be wrong
to presume that you have at least a basic understanding of the doctrines
of that system? Taking that as the most reasonable conclusion one
could come to, then why is it you are asking me such a fundamental
question which is espoused by Calvinism and the Scriptures? There
are myriad passages which clearly state that God HATES the wicked,
etc. Obviously the LORD God doesn't love the reprobate in the same
way as He has eternally loved the elect. That God has a general
'love', i.e., a benevolence for all men as His creatures is a truth.
However, the Scriptures make clear that God's 'love' is salvific
and efficacious, which is only extended to the elect. Again, whatever
God desires/wills is that which He has decreed and will infallibly
come to pass (Is 43:13; 46:10; 48:13-15; Ps 33:11; 135:6; Dan 4:35;
Rom 11:33, 34; Eph 1:9-11; Heb 6:17). On the contrary, God hates
those who are not destined to inherit the kingdom as adopted sons
through the Lord Christ (Ps 5:5; 7:11; 10:3; 11:5-7; 21:8-13; Prov
6:16-19; Mal 1:1-3; Matt 7:22, 23; Rom 9:11-13). The immutable and
eternal love of God shown to the elect is the exhibition of His
eternal counsel. It is not some sporadic existential emotion which
is spurred by a perception of the objects of His own creation. The
LORD God is Omniscient and Omnipotent and has no need to react emotionally
to that which is a result of His own doing.
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Junk!
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 09:08:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, In my very first post in this thread I wrote: 'In order to have God punish people forever there can
be no love involved. Those that God would punish forever cannot
ever have been loved by God. They must have been created as objects
of hatred. In your first post to me in
this thread you wrote: 'You wrongly assuming
that 'love' and 'hate' are mutually exclusive! Can not a Judge who
is also the father of a convicted murderer sentence his own son
to death for his crime, but simultaneously be grieved over his son
because he loves him?' Yes, I was very
confused by your responce, you seemed to me to be comparing a vessel
of wrath, the murderer, as a son of God that God grieves over because
He must condemn him to death. That is not Reformed Theology! I don’t
know how else I was suppose to read your analogy. Furthermore, your
example falls apart because the father in this case created the
son to be a vessel of wrath and therefore the son in your example
was simply fulfilling the purpose for which he was created. Actually
in your analogy the son did what he was suppose to do and should
be rewarded, not punished, for doing that for which he was designed.
I’m certainly sorry if I misunderstood you but I really don’t see
how I could have taken your post any other way. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Junk!
From: CMB 19
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 22:11:32 (PST)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
'Furthermore,
your example falls apart because the father in this case created
the son to be a vessel of wrath and therefore the son in your example
was simply fulfilling the purpose for which he was created.' Yes,
I'm sure that all fathers can say what there kids will do when they
grow up and leave the house. And I believe a judge will not 'create'
his child to brake the law. A father that spanks his child he does
it because he loves his child. And think about that old saying 'This
is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you' really think
about that one.
|
Subject: Re: Junk!
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 09:55:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
ShowMe,
Yes, you certainly have misunderstood
the analogy and what the Reformed (biblical) Faith teaches. God
did not CREATE men sinners (Supralapsarians might disagree here)
but 'Lo, this only have I found, that God
hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.' (Eccl 7:29). It is was God's purpose that Adam be created
perfect yet he fall according to his own will. This disobedience
on the part of Adam, who being the Federal Head of the entire human
race, brought corruption, guilt and the ultimate ruin of all who
would follow. The guilt is man's to bear alone and God cannot be
held responsible or culpable for man's condemnation. God can and
does 'love' the reprobate in the sense that they are His creatures,
who despite their corruption, still bear the imago dei in them.
This being so only makes them more vile and worthy to be damned,
for '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 that he might make known
the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore
prepared unto glory, destruction' (Rom
9:22, 23). This 'longsuffering' is manifested in myriad ways, even
in the fact that God has often lavished these rebellious and unthankful
people with most of the earthly wealth and riches. As the Lord Christ
said of the Pharisees, 'They have their
reward.' (Matt 6:2, 5. 16). All men everywhere
are the recipients of God's benevolence in common grace to one degree
or another, which they accredit to the creature rather than the
Creator, 'who is blessed over all, Amen'. Thus God has given them
over to their own vile affections and desires for which they shall
suffer the punishment due on the day of Judgment. Yet, in complete
agreement with the Reformed (biblical) Faith, even in His wrath
when He justly sentences them to eternal torment, God will do so
with a 'broken heart' 'As I live, saith
the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but
that the wicked turn from his way and live:'
(Ezek 33:11). It is not one attribute diminishing or nullifying
another, but all exist in perfect harmony in the Godhead, for His
ways are always perfect (Deut 32:4). 'That
be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous
with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked,
that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?' (Gen 18:25). The fact that the LORD God has eternally
determined to save a remnant out of Adam's fallen race to be redeemed
from destruction by the substitutionary obedience and work of the
Only Begotten Son of God; adopted into His kingdom as heirs, joint
heirs with Christ and made to sit in the heavenlies is incomprehensible
to any enlightened sinner who has received grace. 'O
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!' (Rom 11:33). For the heart of God's children, who have
received the mercy of God in Christ Jesus are not want to ask, 'How
could a loving God hate Esau?' but rather they speak in tears, 'How
could a holy and loving God love Jacob? How could He possibly set
His infinite love upon ME?' The true children of God are very much aware that they
are undeserving of anything good from God. And this awareness is
something which grows throughout their earthly pilgrimage, for the
Spirit is merciful in revealing slowly and progressively the blackness
of their own heart and the depth of their sinfulness, which exalts
all the more the mercy and love of God to them.
SOLA GRATIA SOLA FIDE SOLUS CHRISTUS
SOLI DEO GLORIA
By His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: all junk goes to gehenna nt
From:
kevin
To: ShowMe
Date
Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000
at 14:40:29 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
|
Subject: Re: isn't Grace for everyone?
From: Anne
To: becky
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 09:10:59 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com
Message:
...this is more a question of why would God have bothered
to create all these extraneous people if He did not desire that
ALL people be reconciled to Him through His Son's work on the cross?
does this mean that, in fact, 'God does make junk? Well, since all humans are created in God's image, we
are none of us junk. Most assuredly not. As to why He creates us
all, knowing that some will receive justice in lieu of mercy, it
is critical, I think, to remember that His divine and holy justice
(and by logical extension, His wrath) is to be worshipped every
bit as much as His divine and holy love. For both to be displayed
properly, He requires some to be objects of His wrath, while others
are chosen to be objects of His mercy. Whether one is the object
of His wrath or his mercy, one is still displaying His glory. There
is no doubt, however, that it will be a lot more pleasant to be
an object of mercy, and not only due to improved living conditions.
We will grow to our fullness in the afterlife, whether being sanctified
with Him in Heaven, or by being totally given over to our sinful
natures in Hell, with no more divine interference, for lack of a
better term, holding us back from being 'all that we can be', to
borrow a well-known recruitment slogan. And where you are, theologically
speaking, is where I was just last October, so I easily understand
your confusion. Anne
|
Subject: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: ShowMe
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:57:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
In Reformed theology are Heaven and Hell real places? Do you believe
that Heaven is up above, perhaps another planet? Do you believe
that Hell is in the center of the earth? Are Heaven and Hell actually
places, or do you see them as some kind of other dimension outside
of time and space? Or, do you understand them as simply some sort
of symbolic state representing man's abandonment by God? I can’t
find much on this subject, Edwards apparently believed that Heaven
and Hell were right next to one another since he taught that those
in Heaven can watch the suffering of those in Hell. But, then, just
where are Heaven and Hell? Are they then both under the earth? This
is a rather important question for me and I would appreciate your
Scripture based views. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: kevin
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24,
2000 at 15:00:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
ShowMe, That is an interesting question. I shall
try to answer but I do need to know what you believe hell and heaven
are. Do you believe that Hell is real? Do you believe it is eternal?
Do you believe that Heaven is real? Is it eternal? I am not trying
to avoid your question, I simply need to know what knowledge you
do have to hopefully avoid future, fruitless dialogue on the attributes
of heaven and hell. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: ShowMe
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24,
2000 at 17:25:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Kevin, You wrote: 'I am
not trying to avoid your question, I simply need to know what knowledge
you do have to hopefully avoid future, fruitless dialogue on the
attributes of heaven and hell.' Please
allow me to decide for myself what is and what is not 'fruitless
dialogue' :o) My question really has little to do with the attributes
of heaven and hell other than there locations. If you believe them
to be real places, I’m simply asking, where are they? Are they separate
planets? Is Hell beneath the earth? Can you stand in heaven and
see hell? Simple questions. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: Gene
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24,
2000 at 18:52:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Show me, Some interpret questions like yours as 'doubt.'
They think true believers would not ask such questions. Here is
what I believe thus far in my spiritual journey: There is a place
for the wicked. Where it is and what it is like-I do not know. The
Bible describes Hell as a place of fire and burning. Try and describe
a very bad place to us humans and you come up with 'fire' and eternal
burning. What could be worse? Is it literally 'burning'? I doubt
it. Heaven, I believe is a place like the garden of Eden. To me,
that would be heaven. In fact, John describes heaven this way in
Revelation. Heaven is a 'return to Eden.' Where is this place? I
have no clue. Good questions! This is how I believe it to be.
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: ShowMe
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24,
2000 at 19:49:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hello Gene, Thank you for your reply but I’m looking
for the Reformed teaching on the locations of heaven and hell. The
Reformed have quite a system of theology and I would think that
the question of the location of heaven and hell would be covered
somewhere in that system. You wrote: '
Some interpret questions like yours as 'doubt.' They think true
believers would not ask such questions.'
That’s a very good observation, and one that I did not take into
consideration. I consider myself to be a 'true believer' and therefore
I’m free to question any and all systems of theology. I feel that
I would be remiss, as a 'true believer', if I did not ask these
kinds of questions :o) We certainly should know what we believe
and why we believe what we believe. Again, I appreciate your personal
views on the nature and locations of heaven and hell but I’m looking
for the Calvinist or Reformed teaching on the subject. Sincerely,
ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: Gene
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 04:10:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Yes indeed! God does not have the 'sensitivities'
as some do. He does not get angry when people ask Him questions
(See the Psalms!). Hellenism is a big influence in the NT. Much
of their imagery concerning hell (hades, tartarus, etc.) in the
NT is borrowed from Greek Mythology. Hades, for example, is the
god of the underground. Keep asking those questions brother!
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: john hampshire
To: ShowMe
Date Posted:
Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:10:43 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
ShowMe, Everyone
knows heaven is in northern California and hell is in central Oklahoma.
As for the Reformed view of heaven and hell, I probably could research
10 reformed authors to get 10 opinions. Here's mine. Gehenna is
derived from the Hebrew 'ge' meaning land or valley, and hinnom,
a valley southwest of Jerusalem. It became the symbol of the place
of eternal torment (see Matt 25:30,46). Some would say, based on
the terms for 'hell' as 'lake of fire', 'furnace of fire', 'abyss',
'tartarus' that it must currently exist somewhere. Since there is
mention of the 'heart of the earth' as to where Christ likened His
death, and 1Ptr 3:19 says Christ freed the captives from the prison
house, it is inferred that 'hell' is down in the earth, and Christ
went there to preach to the saints or the wicked. I reject that
entirely. :0 There is not a lake of fire in the center of the earth.
The 'heart of the earth' describes the seperation which Christ endured,
as Jonah also was seperated from all blessing in the great fish.
Christ did not preach in 'hell', it is rather Noah and other believers
that Christ preached through in the OT, making proclamation of salvation
to the spirits then in prison, i.e., the wicked (slaves to Satan).
So where is the lake of fire? It is not anywhere. It doesn't exist.
It is a condition, a matter of being subject to God's wrath. It
is only upon Judgment Day, the last day of this earth, that the
wicked are judged, and thrown into the Lake of Fire. It is then
that the condition of being under God's wrath turns into a reality
as the sentence is executed. Then the Lake of Fire will be populated.
As for the location of heaven, that is easy. Heaven is wherever
the Father's throne is. The Bible speaks of the third heaven. The
first is the air, where birds fly. The second heaven is where the
stars shine. The third is where God dwells. It is not within this
created universe. It is there that the dead in Christ (saints) await
the end of the earth's existence. The new heavens and new earth
are what is created after this current universe is destroyed. It
is a totally different manner of universe than the present. It will
be as different as a seed is from a redwood tree. It is the eternal
dwelling place of the elect, angels, and God. Since I am Reformed
in Theology, you can consider this a reformed perspective. john
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: ShowMe
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 09:48:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
John, I’m not to keen on the use of symbolism when
it comes to actual places. I can accept it if you believe that heaven
and hell are purely symbolic but when you also describe them as
actual places then symbolism must give way to literalism and real
places that must be somewhere. I know where Gehenna, the Valley
Of Hinnon, is :o) It is located west and south of Jerusalem and
runs into the Kidron Valley at a point opposite the town of Silwan.
The Valley of Hinnom, a watercourse, is still know today as the
Wady (the streambed of fire), it is about fifteen miles long and
empties into the Dead Sea. As for the Lake of fire, literally, the
lake of THE fire, I can make a very good argument that it is the
same Dead Sea :o) that Gehenna empties into. You wrote: ' So where is the lake of fire? It is not anywhere.
It doesn't exist. It is a condition, a matter of being subject to
God's wrath. It is only upon Judgment Day, the last day of this
earth, that the wicked are judged, and thrown into the Lake of Fire.
It is then that the condition of being under God's wrath turns into
a reality as the sentence is executed. Then the Lake of Fire will
be populated.' Apparently you believe
that the lake of the fire does not exist at this time, it is yet
to be created, and that it then becomes a place of eternal or endless
torment? Even if I were to accept that the lake of fire does not
yet exit and therefore has no location I cannot accept that it is
to be eternal because the Book of Revelations says that when the
time of the Great White Throne period is over, God will then create
a new heavens and a new earth (Rev.21:1). All the former things
(including the Lake of Fire) will pass away (Rev.21:4,5).'Behold,
I make all things new' (Rev.21:5). On heaven you wrote: 'As for the location of heaven, that is easy. Heaven
is wherever the Father's throne is. The Bible speaks of the third
heaven. The first is the air, where birds fly. The second heaven
is where the stars shine. The third is where God dwells. It is not
within this created universe. It is there that the dead in Christ
(saints) await the end of the earth's existence.' Heaven is not in this created universe? I’m sorry but
that simply makes no sense to me, I mean that most respectfully,
I really don’t understand what you mean. You think that heaven is
in some un-created universe? Only God Himself is un-created, everything
else has its origin in Him. You also say that the 'dead in Christ
await the end of the earth’s existence' in this heaven that is not
within the created universe. That brings up another question about
the nature of these saints, do they have bodies? If so, how can
that be since the resurrection of the dead has not yet come to pass?
Do they have mass, as in weight? You say: '
Since I am Reformed in Theology, you can consider this a reformed
perspective.' To be honest, I’m not sure
that your 'perspective' is all that Reformed, far more symbolism
than I thought Reformed theology allowed. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Think about it
From: CMB 19
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 28, 2000 at 22:51:53 (PST)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
Can you see
someone's spirit? As in where it is going to go. No. The spirit
is inviable to the eye. And so are where they go (Heaven, Hell)
I believe that there are real places, but not within our world/universe.
If they where, than we could get there without having to die. And
the only way that will happen is when the rapture of the church
happens. As for your question about bodies. those in Heaven and
Hell will get eternal bodies. I believe the lake of fire is real.
If you burn this body it will pass away. But, an eternal body will
not. Think about that, being consumed by fire for ever and remembering
all the times you where witnessed to. That is Hell.
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: kevin
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 11:51:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
ShowMe, I ask my questions for a reason. That is
to better understand your question. But since you find it not necessary
to divulge any information as to where you are coming from then
I will answer your question. Heaven is in the presence of God. Hell
is in the presence of God. Both places are eternal and real since
God is eternal and real. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: ShowMe
To: kevin
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 12:44:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Kevin, If you ask me a direct question perhaps I
will be able to answer you. I’m not trying to keep from divulging
information, I’m just trying to understand the Reformed teaching
on the locations of heaven and hell. You wrote: 'Heaven
is in the presence of God. Hell is in the presence of God.' I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say. In a certain
sense everything is in the presence of God but that does not mean
that they don’t have locality. Jerusalem is in the presence of God,
but I also know where it is locally. Do you believe that heaven
is another planet? Do you believe that hell is beneath the earth?
Where do you, according to Reformed Theology, believe that they
are? That's all that I'm asking. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26,
2000 at 10:04:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
ShowMe,
Kevin has answered your question
simply and rightly. Heaven is a place where the souls of departed
'saints' dwell to await the final Judgment and the creation of the
New Heaven and New Earth. Hell is also a place where the souls of
the departed wicked dwell to await their final sentencing and casting
into the Lake of Fire on that great day of final Judgment. As to
their location, the Scriptures do not say. However, they are NOT
on, in or beneath this physical earth, that much we do know. They
are a part of the spiritual dimension. Angels exist, but are unseen
to the physical eye. God exists and has eternally, yet He is not
visible to the physical eye of man. Is it so difficult to accept
that heaven and hell also exist and are invisible to the physical
eye of man?
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Another Dimension?
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 12:45:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, You wrote: 'As to their location,
the Scriptures do not say. However, they are NOT on, in or beneath
this physical earth, that much we do know.'
Actually the notion that 'hell' is under the earth is a very old
Christian tradition. Likewise the idea that Heaven is above is also
an accepted Christian tradition. You wrote: They
are a part of the spiritual dimension. Angels exist, but are unseen
to the physical eye. God exists and has eternally, yet He is not
visible to the physical eye of man. Is it so difficult to accept
that heaven and hell also exist and are invisible to the physical
eye of man? I’m not so sure that Angels
are unseen to the physical eye, the Bible has several instances
where they are seen by people. As far as God not being visible to
the human eye, I cannot agree, as Jesus Christ, God in the flesh,
was very visible to the human eye after His resurrection. Do you
think that the resurrected Christ now dwells in another dimension,
one that excludes His resurrected body, a body that Thomas could
touch and feel, a real body? If Christ’s resurrected body was tangible
we then can conclude that heaven, His dwelling place is also tangible
and therefore has location. Your explanation that heaven and hell
exist in some other dimension, a spiritual dimension is simply not
acceptable, nor do I believe that it is Scriptural. For me, they
are real places and therefore they have location, even if they are
in some other dimension, they have location. Do you believe that
heaven and hell are superimposed upon this physical dimension that
we are in? That the heaven and hell dimension are all around us,
that angels and demons are all about us, going about their daily
existence in the same space that we occupy, only in another, different
dimension. If so, that’s way to science fiction for me. Sincerely,
ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Another Dimension?
From: Pilgrim
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:02:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
ShowMe, You wrote, 'That the heaven and
hell dimension are all around us, that angels and demons are all
about us, going about their daily existence in the same space that
we occupy, only in another, different dimension. If so, that’s way
to science fiction for me.' As so it must
be 'science fiction' to you and all those who are of the flesh.
The kingdom of God cannot be perceived by the flesh, but by the
spirit/Spirit alone. And I leave you to it to enjoy while it is
yet day. Pilgrim
|
Subject: What about His Body?
From: ShowMe
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 15:59:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, Am I then to deny that the resurrected body of Jesus Christ
is not truly touchable? That it is some 'spirit body' that dwells
in some other 'spirit demension'? I'm certainly not prepared to
do that. Sincerely, ShowMe
|
Subject: Re: Heaven and Hell, where are they?
From: kevin
To: ShowMe
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 13:19:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
ShowMe, I am answering your question. Heaven is in
the presence of God eternally. Hell is in the presence of God eternally.
In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: WELCOME BACK, ROD
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:01:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
This may not be 'theological' so sue me! hehe I just had to tell
Rod that I'm glad he's back and feelin' up to snuff....enough to
post on the Highway! Blessings, laz p.s. let me be 'legal' and make
this post theological.... Rod, you believe in God? LOL
|
Subject: Indeed, yes!
From: Anne
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:45:03 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com
Message:
So glad you're
home, and on both the mend and the Net! (severely) Do NOT overdo. Anne
|
Subject: Re: WELCOME BACK, ROD
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:43:17 (PST)
Email Address: na
Message:
Thanks, laz. I still really can't do this--typing
is hard and thoughts are too, so I'll just mostly continuue to lurk.
Do I believe in God? Yes! and He has chosen to allow me to continue
in that trust! :>) He is so wonderful to me/us. Bye for now.
|
Subject: Re: WELCOME BACK, ROD
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 17:10:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Rod, It was heart warming to see the fruit of our prayers at your
first post since your operation! :-) May the LORD our God continue
to bring healing to your frail body and to strengthen you in the
inner man through the indwelling Spirit of Grace, so that you may
continue to serve Him here on earth in whatever capacity He has
ordained for you unto His ultimate glory. In His Precious Blood,
Pilgrim
|
Subject: What is The Reform View?
From: Vernon
To: To All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 03:49:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The fruit of the Spirit refers to the virtues of love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness (meekness,
humility) and self-control. When you display irresponsible behaviour,
pride, expressions of enmity, lack of love, and other works of the
flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), you are lacking the fruit of the Spirit.
If you have been born again by the power of the Holy Spirit, you
are eligible to receive the things of the Spirit of God. You must
be willing to let the Holy Spirit produce these virtues within you
(Galatians 5:22,23). What is the view of Reform theology in the
Holy Spirit and do you believe that the Holy Spirit has a part in
bringing man to the understanding of his lost condition and seeing
Christ as the Redeemer of his soul? Why did the Father send Christ
into the world and when Christ left this world, what was the purpose
for the Holy Spirit to come? In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: What is The Reform View?
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:58:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern: not exactly sure what you're getting at but I will comment
on this your question: What is the view
of Reform theology in the Holy Spirit and do you believe that the
Holy Spirit has a part in bringing man to the understanding of his
lost condition and seeing Christ as the Redeemer of his soul? The irony is that it is us 'reformed' types that not only
beleive that the Spirit has a part in bringing
man to the understanding of his lost condition....' but that He does far, far more. It is the Spirit that
actually gives us the unshakable desire to irresistably grab hold
of Christ ...(none of this allowing us to pick between vanilla and
chocolate) so that once unconditionally
regenerated by the Spirit, we can do no
other thing than to recognize our falleness, Christ's atonement
for US and lay hold to that which our soul longs for most. Can a
'natural man' see Christ as the redeemer of lost souls? No way!
Only a 'born again', 'spiritual man', can see such a thing. Only
a regenerated person knows he's lost! Only the Spirit regenerates
and only those for whom it has been purposed in God from all eternity.
So, in the reformed view...salvation is ALL/100% of God. He has
seen to it that those whom the Father has elected and for whom the
Son has made payment....are mercifully saved - again, this grace
and ensuing act of faith both coming from God according to His purposes.
laz
|
Subject: Re: What is The Reform View?
From: Vernon
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:47:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Laz, I agree with you and said this to many of you but not in
theses words. Some time back I posted to Pastor Bro Bret's Site
outling the works of the Spirit . I have alway said that it is the
convicting power of the Holy Spirit who is God in Spirit that convicts
man to his knees and pleading for God's forgivenness. Otherwise,
how will man be convicted of his sin? In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: What is The Reform View?
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 17:39:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Laz, I agree with you and said this to many of you but not in
theses words. Some time back I posted to Pastor Bro Bret's Site
outling the works of the Spirit . I have alway said that it is the
convicting power of the Holy Spirit who is God in Spirit that convicts
man to his knees and pleading for God's forgivenness. Otherwise,
how will man be convicted of his sin? In Christ Vernon
---
Vernon,
Half a truth is no truth! And
some of us who have 'been round the block' for many years have become
very astute in recognizing deceit, whether intentional or not. I,
for one am very familiar with your Semi-Pelagian theology, couched
in modern 'Evan-jelly-cal' phraseology and therefore not easily
taken in with such statements as you have made immediately above.
'I have alway said
that it is the convicting power of the Holy Spirit who is God
in Spirit that convicts man to his knees and pleading for God's
forgiveness. Otherwise, how will man be convicted of his sin?
What is glaringly absent from
your statement is the most important part, i.e., that the Holy Spirit's
work in bringing a man to conviction is NOT the conviction of sin
whereby it INFALLIBLY brings a man to the Lord Christ in repentance
and faith unto Justification. Your view holds that once a man has
been brought to some place in his life where he knows of his sin(s),
he is at a juncture wherein he CAN either 'ask Jesus into his heart'
or 'reject the gospel'! This is NOT biblical conviction of sin sir!
True conviction is a spiritual grace whereby the sinner is brought
low to the point of despair. He realizes that not only has he committed
myriad sins but that he is a person who is helplessly bound by his
own willful SINFULNESS. His cry is like unto that of Isaiah's, 'Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man
of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean
lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.'. What is inextricably bound is the vision/knowledge of
one's true corruption and the holiness of the LORD God. It is at
this point that the Spirit also gives the sinner eyes to see the
loveliness and sufficiency of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only
Saviour of sinners. He is IRRESISTIBLY drawn/driven to the Lord
Christ and bows before God and pleads for mercy, resting his whole
heart, mind, soul and strength in the person and work of the great
Redeemer LORD; Christ Jesus. In other words, THERE IS NO CHOICE
that any regenerated sinner will or CAN make other than to flee
to the Lord Christ. In Him and Him alone is there any hope of life,
either temporal or eternal for an enlightened sinner. The Spirit
also gives the quickened sinner ears to hear, 'My
beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one,
and come away.' (Song 2:10), for 'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father,
which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck
them out of my Father's hand.' (Joh 10:27-29).
And the Spirit also enlightens the mind so that he understands 'It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all
taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned
of the Father, cometh unto me.' And so
the convicted sinner flies to the Lord Christ and his heart and
voice both exclaim, 'His mouth is most
sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this
is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.'
(Song 5:16). THIS
is what happens to each and every one whom the Spirit convicts of
sin; it INFALLIBLY leads one to the Lord Christ and in Him he puts
his entire trust and dependency FOREVER.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: You May Disagree,Pilgrim
From: Vernon
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 03:01:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, There is a large communication gap between us. I am not
sure why this is, but I feel there is. A man must see himself lost."Man
in his own power and natural state will never see this. then, how
will the man see? Pilgrim, 'What is the definition of Conviction?'........
I will supply with a definition give by Mathew Slick who is a Calvinist:
Conviction The work of the Holy Spirit where a person is able to
see himself as God sees him: guilty, defiled, and totally unable
to save himself (John 16:8). Conviction of the Holy Spirit of an
unbeliever reveals sinfulness and guilt and brings fear. Conviction
of the Holy Spirit of the believer brings an awareness of sin and
results in confession and cleansing. This conviction is produced
by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), the Gospel (Acts 2:37), the conscience
(Rom. 2:15), and the Law (James 2:9). Conviction of our sins brings
us to the cross. It shows us our need for forgiveness Do you understand
now by what I mean in bringing man to a place of understanding his
codition before God? For man to receive forgiveness, repentance
is necessary (Luke 17:3-4). For the holy God to extend forgiveness,
the shedding of blood is necessary (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11). Forgiveness
is based upon the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. I agree that
there are many who walk in this world and call themselves Christian
and are no more saved than satan himself. These people think they
are doing the will of God when in fact they do every work for there
own prideful will and not that of God's will.They base there Salvation
in there own personal act of repentance and walk before a local
Chruch saying they have repented. Come, Come Pilgrim, This is not
what I mean in repentance and I have expressed to you and the many
here who have disagreed with me.'A MAN MUST KNOW HE IS A SINNER
AND WITH OUT CHRIST, HE IS LOST.' Did you hear what I just said
to you? How can he see this and truly believe it unless it be by
the illumination of his spiritual mind by the power of the Holy
Spirit?' A man can never believe unless he has been 'Born Again'
from above (John 3:3 ) Repentance....To repent means to turn. In
the NT repentance means to turn from sin. We were called by God
to turn from sin. In fact, all men everywhere are commanded by God
to repent of their sins (Acts 17:30). God's longsuffering leads
us to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9) as does His kindness (Rom. 2:4). There
is true and false repentance, 'For the sorrow that is according
to the will of God produces a repentance without regret leading
to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death' (2 Cor.
7:10). You spoke of Justification, 'WELL!...Justify,Justification,
is to be made righteous. It is a divine act where God declares the
sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is not that the sinner is
now sinless, but that he is 'declared' sinless. This justification
is based on the shed blood of Jesus, '...having now been justified
by His blood...' (Rom. 5:9). When God sees the Christian, He sees
him through the sacrifice of Jesus and 'sees' him without sin. This
declaration of innocence is not without cost for it required the
satisfaction of God's Law, '...without shedding of blood there is
no forgiveness' (Heb. 9:22). By the sacrifice of Jesus, in the 'one
act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all
men' (Rom. 5:18 ). In justification, the justice of God fell upon
Himself--Jesus. We receive mercy--we are not judged according to
our sins. And grace is shed upon us--we receive eternal life. This
justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24), by faith (Rom. 3:28)
because Jesus bore our guilt (Is. 53:12). But how can man come to
this understanding? Pilgrim, I will use Paul's words to explain
to you.......Rom 10:6-11 But the righteousness based on faith speaks
thus, 'Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'
(that is, to bring Christ down),or 'Who will descend into the abyss?'
(that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).' But what does it say?
'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart'-- that is,
the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with
your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised
Him from the dead, you shall be saved;for with the heart man believes,
resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting
in salvation. For the Scripture says, 'Whoever believes in Him will
not be disappointed.' Paul continues with this statment....Rom 10:12-15
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same
{Lord} is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon
Him;for 'Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.'
How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?
And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And
how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach
unless they are sent? Just as it is written, 'How beautiful are
the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!' (NAS)
I hope you receive a better understanding in what I am saying to
you. But in any case. The man who hears God's there is a respone
made by the man in as much as you may disagree. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Vernon: Please answer the questions!
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 08:58:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Vernon,
Here we see your continued 'modus
operandi' which completely avoids the true issues and differences
between your unbiblical, man-made Semi-Pelagianism and the teaching
of the Scriptures which were the foundation of the Protestant Church
at the time of the Reformation and of the sporadically visible church
from the days of the Apostles. I didn't even hint at wanting to
know your or Matt Slick's definition of conviction, repentance or
justification. These are ancillary to the more basic question of
man's nature/condition after the Fall. The subject which I thought
was clearly brought up for your reply was the EFFICACY of true regeneration
which involves conviction. So I will but one last time ask you to
either confirm or deny the following: 1) Does regeneration precede
or follow faith? 2) Does regeneration ALWAYS and INFALLIBLY bring
a person to the Lord Christ whereby he/she is ALWAYS justified?
3) Does Holy Spirit wrought conviction ALWAYS AND INFALLIBLY result
in true saving faith being exercised in Christ? If you are unable
to understand these questions, please seek help in doing so that
you might be able to intelligently and directly answer them. I am
not interested in your alleged conversion, love of God, sincerity
in your beliefs or any other peripheral information. All I want
is a straight forward answer to these questions. Thank you, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Vernon: Please answer the questions!
From: Vernon
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 11:09:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I just do not understand.... There seem to be a real
communication gap with communicating with you. I believe I did say
a man must be illuminated spiritually. Would this be the same as
'Regeneration.' The truth is.... man can not be saved until he believes.
And he can not believe until the Holy Spirit illuminates his mind
to believe,,,, hmmmmmmm! In Chtist Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Vernon: Please answer the questions!
From: Tom
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25,
2000 at 12:53:19 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Vernon For the sake of clarity, can you do us all
a favour and answer Pilgrim's question in the order he gave you?
For example in number 1) use 'precede' or 'follow'. 1) Does regeneration
precede or follow faith? 2) Does regeneration ALWAYS and INFALLIBLY
bring a person to the Lord Christ whereby he/she is ALWAYS justified?
3) Does Holy Spirit wrought conviction ALWAYS AND INFALLIBLY result
in true saving faith being exercised in Christ? Tom
|
Subject: Hey Tom
From: Vernon
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 17:30:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
For the sake of clarity, can you do us all a favour and answer Pilgrim's
question in the order he gave you? For example in number 1) use
'precede' or 'follow'. 1) Does regeneration precede or follow faith?
2) Does regeneration ALWAYS and INFALLIBLY bring a person to the
Lord Christ whereby he/she is ALWAYS justified? 3) Does Holy Spirit
wrought conviction ALWAYS AND INFALLIBLY result in true saving faith
being exercised in Christ? : Please answer the questions! Message:
I just do not understand.... There seem to be a real communication
gap with communicating with you. I believe I did say a man must
be illuminated spiritually. Would this be the same as 'Regeneration.'
The truth is.... man can not be saved until he believes.Man can
not believe until the Holy Spirit illuminates his mind to believe,,,,
hmmmmmmm! In Chtist Vernon Tom: The word “Illuminate” as used in
the Bible means........ To be spiritually or intellectually enlightened.
In the BOOK OF hEBREWS 10:32 it referes to those who are knowledgeable
of the saving message of the gospel. Now... Having knowlege of the
message of the gospel in its self does not save anyone. But one
being been illuniated to the point where they believe in the truth
of the Gospel and see themselves as God sees them..... “Guilty and
lost with out Christ “ and putting full trust in Christ would mean
they have been “Regenerated.” They could not “Believe: with a saving
Faith unless they had been “BORN Again” This would be the sane in
saying “They could not believe unless they be regenerated first.”
Tom, the word “Regenration” is not in the Bible (I do not )” Is
this a man made term? I use the term "Born Again.” Using your
term..... If a person has been “Regenerated” He is saved. I do not
believe that every man who is convicted of sin is saved. Conviction
in its self is not salvation. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Hey Tom
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 19:18:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern: Regeneration in the Bible... Mt 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his
glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel. Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
What is so difficult about those three simple and direct questions,
meant to get to the very bottom of your understanding of grace and
salvation? Mind if I answer them for you and presumptively for everyone
who has a biblical understanding of the nature of FREE AND SOVEREIGN
GRACE...the very heart of the GOSPEL? 1) Does regeneration precede
or follow faith? ANSWER: Regeneration precedes
faith. Those DEAD IN TRESPASSES AND SINS
cannot exercise faith (faith also being a gift from God, Eph2:8-10)-
how can they possibly do this until there has been a sovereign act
of God upon the soul, an act rooted in His purposes in Election
(Rom 9:11)... whereby spiritual life is breathed back into it. For
the 'natural man' can't understand (1Cor2:14)the things of God...regeneration,
a bloody atonement clearly being among these things being either
foolishness, stumbling stone, or a rock of offense (Is 8:14,1Cor1:23,
1Pet2:8). Notice above in Titus 3:5 that it's God's MERCY, and not our thoughts,
words, deeds, NOTHING ELSE, not even a DECISION FOR JESUS that saves...it's
MERCY manifested in sovereign and unconditional regeneration. We
have NO PART in our salvation...other than our REACTION TO IT once
it's been given to us as a free gift BY grace THROUGH faith. God
saves some....God leaves others behind without consulting EITHER.
IT'S ALL OF GOD! 2) Does regeneration ALWAYS and INFALLIBLY bring
a person to the Lord Christ whereby he/she is ALWAYS justified?
ANSWER: ALWAYS AND FOREVER. All of those given to Jesus by the Father will come...(John
17). The ELECT are always found and saved. ALWAYS....God never misses
His mark. John 6:37 All that the Father
giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast
out. Notice how it implies that those
that come won't be cast out...as if it were possible for some NOT
to come - that we are given a CHOICE to come or not to come - but
in the preceding part of the verse it says that all that the Father
gives SHALL COME.
Salvation is ALL of God...none of the chosen ever get left out in
the cold to make some sort of a DECISION....they get saved....100%
of the time. 3) Does Holy Spirit wrought conviction ALWAYS AND INFALLIBLY
result in true saving faith being exercised in Christ? ANSWER: Answered
above. Yes. The Holy Spirit thru the washing of regeneration brings
about true conviction unto repentance unto salvation on behalf of
those elected by the Father and atoned for by the Son. laz Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh,
and whither it goeth: so is every
one that is born of the Spirit.
|
Subject: Re: Hey Laz
From: Vernon
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:42:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello , It matters not in what I post, I really believe that the
many of you will disagree with me for I do not adhere to your doctrine
in its useage and definition. This is way I have used different
people’s writingsto explain my self which many were Calvinist and
to my surprise, You have denied them also. Simply put it, “ Anything
I would post, You will disagree with it.” I have even posted “Paul”
and you have disagreed with him. Therefore, When I say that I agree
with the below, I know one of two things or maybe three will happen.
( No response from you, or total disagreement and lastly...kick
me from the site. ) All these have happened in the past because
I disagree in how you define predestination. I do not disagree in
predestination in its self. In Christ Vernon REGENERATION The spiritual
change brought about in a person's life by an act of God. In regeneration
a person's sinful nature is changed, and he is enabled to respond
to God in faith. The word regeneration occurs only in the New Testament
(Matt. 19:28; Titus 3:5), but the concept or idea is common throughout
the Bible. The literal meaning of regeneration is 'BORN AGAIN” a
first birth and a second birth. The first, as Jesus said to Nicodemus
(John 3:1-12) is 'of the flesh'; the second birth is 'of the Spirit.'
Being born of the Spirit is essential before a person can enter
the kingdom of God. Every biblical command to man to undergo a radical
change of character from selfcenteredness to God-centeredness is,
in effect, an appeal to be 'born again' (Ps. 51:5-11; Jer. 31:33;
Zech. 13:1). Great religious experiences like that of Jacob at Jabbok
(Gen. 32:22-32), Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3:1), Josiah on
hearing the reading of the Law (2 Kin. 22:8-13), or Isaiah in the
Temple (Is. 6:1-8) might well be regarded as 'new birth.' Thus,
regeneration involves an enlightening of the mind, a change of the
will, and a renewed nature. It extends to the total nature of man,
changing a person's desires and restoring him to a right relationship
with God in Christ. The need for regeneration grows out of humanity's
sinfulness. It is brought about through God's initiative. God works
in the human heart, and the person responds to God through faith.
Thus, regeneration is an act of God through the Holy Spirit, resulting
in resurrection from sin to a new life in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
|
Subject: Re: Hey Laz
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 05:52:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern - why then do you post material from other calvinist who DO
agree with the our view of predestination...YES, even Matt Slick
agrees with our (the historic reformed/calvinistic) view of predestination?
You obviously don't understand what Matt is REALLY saying for I
seriously doubt that he embraces arminianism. What's up with THAT?
Why the deception? You repeated say, 'I agree, I agree'...knowing
full well that our views are miles apart when we get down to brass
tacks? You agree with the 'end'... that it is God thru His Spirit
that regenerates...but then attribute the 'means' to man thus denying
the nature of grace. In a nutshell, you have the cart before the
horse and refuse to see it. Can't say I didn't try..... laz p.s.
I went back to read your post on regeneration above...and have no
problem with it... We all agree on what regeneration IS....the issue is WHEN AND WHY does it occur in the first
place?? You are correct about one thing...the
issue IS rooted in the definition of predestination....yours being
arminian. You have admitted that you deny biblical predestination
for a defn of your own liking...so I guess we all should just let
you be now that you've 'come clean.' ;-)
|
Subject: Re: Hello Laz
From: Vernon
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 10:07:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello Laz, I went back to read your post on regeneration above...and
have no problem with it... We all agree on what regeneration IS....the
issue is WHEN AND WHY does it occur in the first place?? You are
correct about one thing...the issue IS rooted in the definition
of predestination....yours being arminian. You have admitted that
you deny biblical predestination for a defn of your own liking...so
I guess we all should just let you be now that you've 'come clean.'
;-) Ps: Laz, you have called me arminian and you have said that
I reject the biblical definition of predestination. (1) If my view
is arminian, then, why do the arminians accuse me of being Calvinist,
Why do the Universalist call me a Calvinist? To be truthful with
you Laz, I am neither. I really care less about these lables. After
all, “I believe it is more important as to what the Father God call
me.” Amen! (2)You have said that I disagree with predestination
as told in the Bible. I am not assured that this is true. It would
be more accurated to say that I disagree with the condition and
defination as you have explained them. (3) Laz, Pilgrim and All,
do one have to believe in predestination to be saved? Why was Jesus
sent to this world? Who did He come to save? Who are the Lost? In
what way do we become a Child of God? Whom does God choose to be
children of His. (4) Would you explain (1 John 5:1-5 ) Laz, if an
Arminian or Calvinist stands in Faith and rest in the truth of these
scriptures, “Is he a Christian saved by the grace of God?” If you
would, Please explain (1 John 5:10-12 ) (5) Laz, Who is the word
of God speaking in verses ( Acts 2:22-24 ) and right above in verses
21 Peter said what ? Now in (Romans 10:13-17 ) Paul answers Peter,
and what did Paul say? Laz, man can not call upon the Lord unless
they what.......”Believe.” How shall they be able to believe or
have faith..... By the wonderful works of the Holy Spirit. The truth
is and I am sure you do not mean Predestination in the way I am
hearing it from you, Here is what I hear>>>>>It is
not necessary to witness for all who have been chose or Predestinated
will come to God regardless of witnessing. This is what I hear coming
from this site from some. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Hello? Vernon!!
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 22:41:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon,
Again you are expending all your
energy in trying to avoid the real issue(s), and some of us are
not buying it for a moment. We are not even close to being close
in our theology, PERIOD! What you believe is antithetical to what
I believe and what the Protestant Church has historically believed
up until the late 1800's when Liberalism and Finneyism came to the
fore. It is NOT JUST 'Predestination' that we disagree on. We disagree
on the fundamentals of the faith, especially redemption: 1) You
deny Total Depravity,
i.e., men are born: DEAD, dead dead! You believe that man is 'dead'
but yet alive albeit in a small way and thus has the ability to
believe without first being 'made alive' by the sovereign free grace
working of the Holy Spirit. 2) You deny Unconditional
Election, i.e., it is God's eternal and
immutable counsel that predestinated a remnant of Adam's fallen
race to receive mercy and be brought to salvation in Christ. You
say that 'predestination' is conditional; being determined by the
person's choice beforehand... [ala 'postdestination] and further
that 'predestination' never involves individuals as persons, but
only a generic 'plan of salvation' of which anyone who wills may
adopt. 3) You deny Definite Atonement/Particular
Redemption, i.e., that the Lord Christ
came to redeem a specific number of people, whom He knew by name
and who the Father gave Him to live a perfect life and suffer eternal
death in their place. You say that the Lord Christ died for everyone,
yet failed to actually secure their salvation. In your view Christ
only came to make salvation 'possible', and that determined by the
'free will decision' to ask Jesus into their hearts. 4) You deny
Irresistible Grace,
i.e., that those whom the Father predestinated to be in Christ,
those whom the Son atoned for and secured their salvation, the same
whom the Holy Spirit regenerates are infallibly brought to faith
in Christ and thus are adopted as sons, sons of the Living God.
You say that the Holy Spirit only produces a superficial conviction
and/or desire in all men which are then left to their own wills
to either 'accept Christ' or to 'reject Christ'. 5) As to Perseverence/Preservation of the Saints I have not been able to hear your views on this in detail
enough to determine if you actually hold to the doctrine as it is
stated biblically, or you again have some divergent view which is
contrary to it. Thus, you deny 4 out of 5 of the fundamental doctrines
of salvation by grace alone 'Sola Gratia'. And this being true,
if one who professes to be an Arminian calls you a Calvinist, he/she
is either totally ignorant of Calvinism, Arminianism or both. If
a Universalist calls you a Calvinist, it is because they are invariably
not a true believer, and thus true doctrine is not something they
have the ability to comprehend. The fact is that you are 4/5's in
agreement with the doctrine espoused by the Remonstrants which railed
against the doctrines of the Reformation churches and who were devoted
followers of Jacobus Arminius and his doctrines... aka ARMINIANS!
You don't like the label? Then change your doctrine. With the exception
of but one point, which is still questionable, you are a classic
Arminian in your theology, and thus more in line with Roman Catholicism
than Protestantism. And of necessity, your 'gospel' is the end product
of what you BELIEVE. This is true of everyone. Your view of God
will determine what you believe about salvation, and what you believe
about salvation will be what you tell others. Your doctrine of God
is in error, thus your doctrine of salvation is flawed and thus
your gospel is false. Lastly, your accusation against laz, myself
and my staff is also false! Any messages you have posted here that
have been deleted have been done so because they were in violation
of the stated guidelines. When you were banned it was for the same
reason; you were in serious breach of the guidelines set forth for
this Forum. When we disagree with you it is not because we don't
like you nor because we question your salvation necessarily, but
because this being a Forum whose stated foundation is the Reformation
doctrines of Free Sovereign Grace, you have openly rejected those
doctrines and tried to 'preach' a man-centered 'grace+works'- salvation.
The Protestant Church has heard your doctrines for centuries in
all its myriad forms and for centuries it has judged it to be heresy
and rejected. Lastly, you want to know if one has to believe in
Predestination to be saved! No, I don't believe that is true....
however, as I showed above, your problem is NOT just Predestination,
but as it is usually the case, it is not a matter of Predestination,
but all the other fundamental doctrines on which Predestination
rests and are inseparable. And as I have stated on numerous occasions
and even to you personally many times over, 'IF you believe sincerely with your heart those things which
I have enumerated above in regards to Total Depravity, Unconditional
Election, Definite Atonement and Irresistible Grace, then you CANNOT
be saved, for your basis for salvation rests not in SOLUS CHRISTUS,
in Christ alone, but rather a shared confidence in Christ AND your
free-will decision to 'accept Him'. To this, Paul says you are yet
'dead in your sins'. But whether or not this is the case with you,
only God knows. But God has given to the church and its members
the Spirit to be able to discern truth from error and to rebuke
those who profess His name and believe the devil's lies and the
doctrines of men, with the hopes that they will repent and trust
in CHRIST ALONE, through FAITH ALONE. May that be so with you! In
His Grace ALONE, 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: Dear Vernon
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:54:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern - not sure you will grasp all that Pilgrim has confronted you
with above (nothing new, however).... but in my view...the bottom
line in his message to you is this: If you truly believe that God
has left it up to you to decide for yourself whom you will serve...in
otherwords, YOUR DECISION APART FROM GRACIOUS
REGENERATION becomes your passport to
paradise, then your confidence has not been placed on Christ's FINISHED
work and His alone. Sorry to say but such a 'faith' ...a synergistic
one making you no different than a JW or a Mormon or a RC...CANNOT SAVE....your unbridled
sincerity notwithstanding. Which will it be....Christ ALONE...or Christ+Vern? Grace
ALONE ...or Grace+Vern? laz
|
Subject: Re: Hello Laz
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 13:11:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern: I will quote your verses for the very first one makes my point:
1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God: OK, this could mean; (1)that
those that believe are then born again (your position), OR, (2)
that those that believe, do so because they have already been born
again (regenerated). WHICH IS IT? I have shown on this thread that
it's God who has acted first, INDEPEDENTLY of the actions, thoughts,
will of man...this is FREE GRACE. God picking for Himself whom He
will save thru His ordained means, and whom will be left in their
sins. I have shown many verses to show that the second interpretation
is the biblical one. Again, we believe because we have been predestined
to be upon hearing the gospel. Your comment about predestination
making preaching the gospel of no use is NOT what anyone teaches
for the most prolific evangelists EVER have clearly been CALVINISTS.
You can now toss that silly argument aside. The preaching of the
gosple is God's MEANS of reaching his Elect. We preach to reach!
It doesn't happen by fiat...God calls us to preach to reach the
sheep. hmmm, startin' to sound like the Rev Jessie Jackson...SLAP
ME NOW! haha Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave
he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on
his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. We were born again on account of the will
of God...NOT of our own. NO ONE DECIDES IN ORDER THAT GOD
MAY REBIRTH US....NO ONE SIMPLY BELIEVES UPON GOD..UNLESS IT HAS
BEEN GIVEN TO HIM (JOHN6:65)...AND THEN IT'S A SURE THING. For all
given to the Son by the Father SHALL COME to Him. As I have shown
on this very thread. PREDESTINATION STANDS. IT CAN'T BE DENIED....
The very nature of saving faith rides on our confession, just as
Peter's did. Mt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I
am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is
in heaven. So it is with everyone that
ends up believeing ....GOD HAS REVEALED IT TO US THRU REGENERATION!!
PREDESTINATION DOES NOT SAVE ANY MORE THAN A 'DECISION' TO ACCEPT
CHRIST AS OUR PERSONAL SAVIOR SAVES....God
saves out of the riches of His mercy and
grace towards ELECT sinners. God saves. Why is this so hard for
you to grasp? Do you hate the thought of God not OFFERING salvation
to all men? Must God OFFER salvation, convict a man, allowing this
man to make a choice before He can legally sentence him to hell?
laz
|
Subject: Re: What is The Reform View?
From: Vernon
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 17:13:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I believe in the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy
Spirit. We are born in sin, without spiritual life. Behold, I was
shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm
51:5) Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is
not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they
that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8) 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. 1 Corinthians 2:14 ) By the new birth,
or regeneration, we receive spiritual life. But as many as received
him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to
them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John
1:12-13) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee,
Ye must be born again. (John 3:6-7) This new birth is the work of
the Holy Spirit. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit.(John 3:6) Not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he
saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost. (Titus 3:5) Following the new birth, the Holy Spirit dwells
in us. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of
his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Galatians 4:6)
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16) Our new life is characterized
by a change of behavior, empowered by the Spirit. Therefore if any
man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed
away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17) For
we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians
2:10) By:B.J. Creed In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: What is The Reform View?
From: Vernon
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 17:17:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I believe in the gift of eternal life by the grace of God. Salvation
is a gift, by grace (i.e., without our merit). For by grace are
ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the
gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians
2:8-9) For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is]
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23) It comes
to those who believe on Christ. And this is life eternal, that they
might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent. (John 17:3) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but
the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)
|
Subject: Fasting
From: Christopher
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 22:40:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Interested in Reformed views? Usually heard how one shouldn't fast,
but how do you feel one should fast? You folks managed to surprise me on infant baptism
(somewhat), so I thought I'd throw this out there, it being Great
Lent and all...
|
Subject: Re: Fasting
From: john hampshire
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 02:04:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Fasting, there's a concept. In Luke 5:34,35 Jesus speaks of fasting.
Yet He is not talking about going without food, which the Pharisees
implied was important. Jesus said, 'when the bridegroom is taken
away, then the companions of the bridegroom will fast'. Who is the
bride, and who is the bridegroom? Christ is the bridegroom, and
the church (the elect) are the bride of Christ. When Christ was
taken up, then salvation came, then the elect went out to bring
the gospel. In Matt 17:21 Jesus remarked concerning a demon that
couldn't be cast out, 'But this kind does not go out except by prayer
and fasting'. Would less food have moved the legions of Satan? No,
it is not food that Jesus is speaking of. In Isa 58:1-7 we find
that the Jews were fasting beyond any command required of Scriptures.
But they were not really humble in asking for forgiveness, they
liked the works they did in fasting. To this God says 'Will you
call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the Lord?' (vs 5). 'Is
this not the fast which I chose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the band of the yoke'. 'And to let the oppressed go free,
and break every yoke'. (vs 6). The meaning of fasting is in providing
for food for others. It is a spiritually hungry world, the fast
that God chooses is to break the bonds of wickedness. 'Is it not
to divide your bread with the hungry', 'and to bring the homeless
poor into the house'. The hungry are spiritually hungry for the
word of God. They are fed by the preaching of God's word concerning
salvation. It is by this, that the yoke of wickedness and the yoke
that binds one to Satan is loosed. That is, fasting involves the
spreading of the gospel (bread) and salvation. We share this bread
with the poor of spirit, those who have no spiritual home in the
kingdom of God. Fasting is 'when you see the naked, to cover him'
(vs 7). The fasting that God wants is to provide for the naked.
God provides the covering, it will be the robe of Christ's righteousness
that covers the sins of the naked. That is why when Christ, the
bridegroom leaves, the believers must fast. It is time for salvation,
it is time to bring the gospel of Christ. This is the fasting that
God wants. This is how the devil is cast out, as pictured by the
demon possessed man. How do you get the demon out? You pray for
salvation and fast, that is, bring the good news of salvation. God
does the work, we are His ambassadors. As Vs 10 says 'And if you
give yourself to the hungry, and satisfy the soul of the afflicted,
then you light will rise in darkness...'. We are the light that
shines in a dark, gloomy world. The afflicted are dying, they are
under the sentence of death-- even the second death. We give ourselves
to the hungry, feeding the multitude with the bread of life, that
once eaten, you will never hunger again. And the water of life,
which will forever satisfy your thirst. It is by this means that
God's elect are 'like a watered garden, and like a spring of water
whose waters do not fail'. (vs 11b) The world is dry and scorched,
we fast by bringing the gospel, it is like water. Out of our belly
shall come a spring of living water, as we bring the gospel to the
dying. We are each little buckets, filled with the Spirit, commissioned
and ready to nourish the spiritually dying. If we do these things,
then we are truly believers. For only believers are cups of water,
as the wicked are cups of poisoned water that kills. It is not about
eating, fasting is about speaking the word of God, providing hope
to the hopeless, food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes
to the naked, a house to the homeless, a Father to the fatherless,
and a Husband to the widow. It is all about Christ, and Him crucified.
That is what I believe fasting is all about. Bringing the gospel.
john
|
Subject: Re: Fasting
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 09:34:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, Thanks for your reply. You make some excellent points about
the 'positive' aspects of fasting, ie-not just abstaining from some
thing. If I may ask you a question: how did you end up at the conclusion
that the meaning of New Testament fasting was a completely 'spiritual'
thing? Christ's instructions in Mark 6:16-18 would seem to make
no sense if fasting did not have a literal component of physical
abstinence. Thanks, Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Fasting
From: kevin
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 15:08:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher, Hey there. I first want to state that this is my own
view of fasting and how the church I attend goes about fasting.
First we consider ourselves fasting towards something which is usually
bettering our relationship with the Lord. Once a month we abstain
from something that is normally fairly important to us, generally
meals (my wife and I will drink water and have fruit, we are not
very big people and to totally avoid eating may not be the best
idea). Anyway we do not eat our normal meals and snacks and the
like. Our church fast day falls on a Thursday and we usually spend
Mon thru Wed praying for God to reveal areas in our lives that need
more of Him and less of us, to put it simply. On Thursday, rather
than indulge ourselves we pray. And that is the point to us. It
is not really what we abstain but what we do instead witht the time.
That is fasting to something. It is a time when we put ourselves
aside and focus on the Lord. Our church is open that evening for
about 4 hours for prayer. Well that is my answer. I am not saying
it is the Reformed view. I honestly have never passed this one by
Calvin :) In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Fasting
From: Christopher
To: kevin
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 20:27:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi kevin, Forgot to thank you for your post. >>>>>I
honestly have never passed this one by Calvin<<<<<
I like that one! Christopher
|
Subject: Hey Christopher
From: Eric
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:30:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I think you mentioned that you are Orthodox. I am uninformed about
that part of the Body of Christ. I am familiar with the stereotypical
views of the Orthodox, but I would be interested in what you consider
to be the main areas of disagreement with Evangelicals.
|
Subject: Re: Hey Christopher
From: Christopher
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:23:51 (PST)
Email Address: mtl9904@yahoo.com
Message:
Hi Eric, I have observed your recent discussion here and am interested
as to where you come from, as well. However, answering your question
on this board will bring up issues that have been thoroughly discussed
between me and other members of this board. At this point, repeating
them here does not seem appropriate. Please do email me, if you
get a chance. I am interested to know how you came to hold some
of the views you have expressed here. If you don't feel comfortable
with email, continuing the discussion on another board of your choice
would be another good option. Thanks for your understanding. Hope
to talk to you again. Christopher
|
Subject: laz
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 08:53:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, In a post below, you put the words 'evidence of understanding'
in quotes. Apparently, I was too lazy that day to respond in a complete
sentance. Did you put that in quotes just for emphasis or is that
a Reformed theological term with which I am unfamiliar? I've missed
certain terms in past here that made conversation more difficult
than they needed to be, so if you could clarify, I would appreciate
it. Thanks, Christopher
|
Subject: Re: laz
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 08:58:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hey Christopher - I recall your post. Nothing formal about the expression
'evidence of knowledge'. Just my way of saying that I look for evidence
that someone understands the Bible by how they rightly divide the
'whole counsel of God'...not that I'm an expert, mind you...but
some doctrines are not difficult to dismiss as being in error, biblically
speaking. laz
|
Subject: Re: laz
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:24:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
OK, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss your meaning.
|
Subject: Two Natures
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 19:05:09 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Good article by R.C Sproul on the subject of the two natures of
Christ. http://www.fni.com/heritage/oct96/Sproul.html
|
Subject: Re: Two Natures
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:36:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
On this subject, though RC Sproul only gives a cursory background,
it often said that one of Christ's natures was responsible for His
miracles, another for His sadness at the misery of man. The effort
is to define Christ's natures as separate, then claim we can be
like Christ in our flesh. There is much talk of 'power' and how
the Holy Spirit gave the human Christ 'power', something we can
'plug into' today. Thus, we all can become miracle workers, raise
the dead, heal the sick, know the future, even walk on water...
if we 'plug in' to the Spirit. This all assumes Christ can be divided.
I think Christ was born of flesh, as we all are, yet in a body without
sin. He was without a human father to transmit the 'curse' of Adam
upon Him. His Spirit was the Holy Spirit, not a created spirit,
as in us. Thus, His body was free from corruption, His Spirit was
God. He could do all the will of the Father, because He was God,
He could heal because He was God, not because God 'gave' Him power.
His will and the Father's will were one, thus His thoughts were
the Father's thoughts, His desires were the Father's desires, but
He moved and had His being as God. His flesh nature could hunger,
tire, thirst... but it lacked the 'thing' (ego) that comes from
a sin-nature. His flesh was like Adam, but His volition (will) was
God, thus He could not sin. Unless we think God can sin. There is
no Spirit 'power' that we tap into to get all filled up with God
so as to go about doing things that Christ did. Certain charismatic
groups act as if Jesus was a dry-cell battery, charging and discharging.
They claim a Christian can get 'charged up' by God, and speak of
Christ in the same way. This is the problem with trying to split
Christ's natures to serve a predetermined purpose. john
|
Subject: Re: Two Natures
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:44:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>He was without a human father to transmit the
'curse' of Adam upon Him.<<<<< Now you sound like
a Roman Catholic, john! Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Two Natures
From: john hampshire
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 15:13:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris, I don't mean to imply there is some particle of sin that
is transmitted disease fashion from father (can we still call males
who have offspring fathers?) to child. Though biologically and genetically
we instill physical errors, but not a physical error that inclines
a child toward sin, that is a spiritual problem. I suppose an example
might help (or not). If we were slaves, we would be property of
our slave-owner. All our children born of each male slave is property
of that slave-owner. Now if Satan does own mankind by right of conquest,
our slave-owner is Satan, and we are slaves to sin. All children
born of man (beginning with Adam) are offspring of Adam and are
born as slaves. If this is so, and Christ's body was not in a male
line from Adam, then Christ is not owned as a slave to Satan. The
woman does not matter here, it was Adam who caused the fall, he
was the one given charge by God, only he is ultimately responsible.
The sin of Adam did not affect Christ, He was apart from it, God
could find no fault no reason to turn-away from Him, He was not
born a slave like the rest of us. But I would also say, that slavery
and death, even the second death, are related. The idea of death
in the Bible carries the idea of separation. We are dead because
our spirit is separated from the body. The second death would be
a separation from God. The dead spirit we possess apart from regeneration
is separated from fellowship with God. That does not mean we have
NO fellowship, we are not without some higher identity. Thus, when
Adam sinned, he switched allegiance, in my understanding. God turned
from him and Adam immediately died spiritually. He did not become
his own man, he became separated from God and immediately joined
as a slave to Satan. So in the day that Adam disobeyed, he did die,
and later he died again--physically. Jesus therefore was not born
under the ownership of Satan, nor was His Spirit ever without fellowship
with God (except momentarily to die for His elect). He was more
like Adam prior to the fall, in perfect fellowship with God and
with a perfect body (yet with a Spirit not a spirit). That is how
I see an unbroken transmission of a sin state from Adam onward.
Satan still has the pink slip on mankind, except those bought and
paid by Christ as given to Him by the Father as chosen before the
foundations. john
|
Subject: Re: Two Natures
From: Christopher
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 20:41:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
john, Thank you for your reply. I apologize for my flippant remark,
both for the fact that it was inappropriate and for the fact that
it would lead us into a discussion that we've already had. Neither
of us probably wants that. :) Christopher
|
Subject: Rudeness
From: Highway Monitor
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 18:28:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
It seems to me that some of you here feel
you may say anything that pops in your head. Including ungracious
remarks. I would remind you here that you are guests and if you
abuse our hospitality you will suffer the consequences. I FIRMLY
SUGGEST THAT ALL REREAD THE GUIDELINES. This also includes you Gene.
Thank you. Guidelines for
the Forum www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/discuss.html
|
Subject: Re: Rudeness
From: Vernon
To: Highway Monitor
Date
Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000
at 04:13:00 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello, I agree with you. Just plain
and simple....... Love one another John 13:34...... As I often said,
I may not agree with you in all that you post, but I should disagree
with you showning total respect without anger. I know in the past,
I have been guilty of being disrespectful, but at this point in
my FAITH and life, 'What does disrespect and anger prosper?' Those
of us who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. ( 1 Cor10:23).
In Christ, Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Rudeness
From: Chris
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:28:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern, Another hardy Amen to that:)
|
Subject: Papal Pardon?
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 17:46:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
As many of you know, Richard Bennett
is one of the most prolific and outstanding apologists against the
Roman state church today. Having been a priest for many years in
that blasphemous organization, his insights are unique. Recently
the Pope allegedly confessed to sins committed against mankind over
many centuries by the Roman church. Was this a sincere expression
of genuine godly repentance or something other? Richard Bennett
and Michael de Semlyen have written a response to the Pope's alleged
confession of sin which can be found on the The Highway web site
in the Roman Catholicism section or by clicking on the link here:
Papal Pardon or Papal Pride?.
In His Service, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Papal Pardon?
From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:08:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I thought the Pope was to make an admission of guilt, that is, that
the his church was responsible for the torture and murder of millions
of people, for the stealing of property and land holdings, for the
abuse of the populace and systemic ignorance and poverty that his
church created and demanded of all men, and lastly, beyond all the
crimes against humanity, the utter state of ignorance, violence,
and repulsion shown to the gospel by his church, its popes, as they
spread their false gospel of works; contrived doctrines that oppose
truth at every point. It is an amazing side-show, one the media
panders to, how anyone cannot see and be repulsed by such a apostate
church and their arrogant, apostate leader. This particular cult
is not different than any less visible cult, it simply has erred
longer and larger with more power than any of the many other 'whack-o'
groups that spew their fertilizer to the deceived masses. The Roman
Catholic church is notable for being the king-daddy of all cults,
all false gospels, all apostate churches. They do it wrong better
and with more arrogance than anyone else, Arminians, Mormons, JWs,
not withstanding. I suppose if the RC church were to disappear overnight,
the unblinking, psychotic masses would turn in need to the next
available psychopathic icon that presented itself -- how much the
deceived need a greater deceiver to lead them away into greater
deception; a more perfect deception. If not the pope, his horde
of adoring followers would crown some other psychopath leader, or
else rush headlong off a cliff into the sea. What a pathetic spectacle
of man-made religious futility. john
|
Subject: Re: Papal Pardon?
From: Christopher
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:22:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>The frosty relationship of earlier years with
the Russian Orthodox Church has warmed up and a Papal visit to Moscow
and a meeting with Patriarch Alexy II is being discussed.<<<<<
If your author wishes to imply that the Orthodox Church is about
to concede papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, the filioque
with its resulting theological errors, and all the other errors
in Rome that have resulted since its split from the Church almost
1,000 years ago, I can tell you that he is quite mistaken. The Pope's
recent reception in Georgia and the response by Orthodox clergy
in the Holy Land to his visit there are only two examples of the
extreme distance which still exists between Rome and the Orthodox
Church. The Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow may or may not meet.
If they did, and the Patriarch made some announcement that he agreed
with all the Roman errors of the last 1,000 to 1,500 years, the
response from the rest of the Church throughout the world would
be somewhat similar to the response of the American people if the
next President of the United States announced on his innauguration
day that he was declaring himself king and suspending the Constitution.
In any case, the Patriarch of Moscow is a Patriarch, not an infallible
guide similar to the Pope who speaks 'ex cathedra.' While there
are undoubtedly ecumenists within Orthodoxy who will or have compromised
the Faith for the sake of unity, they are only individuals who do
so to their own peril (and, unfortunately, those who listen to them).
Surfing Orthodox sites on the web only briefly will make the stance
towards Rome and its innovations clear. Just FYI Christopher
|
Subject: Pilgrim and Baptist Churches/Below
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim/All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:28:50 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Brother, I agree
with much of what you are saying. Certainly, if 'Baptists' believe
that 'Baptism' has nothing to do with salvation, than should it
indeed be a membership requirement? I put that in question form,
because I do still want to think on these things you have brought
up. I do think that your illustration of the baptist church being
the only one within 1,000 miles is extreme :^ ). Especially in North
America? Also, what is the position on Presbyterian Churches on
membership and those who do not believe in Infant Baptism? Finally,
as I think I have requested once before, I would love to learn more
about Ecclesiology in the historical church. Would you be willing
to share some things with me by e-mail? Let me know brother :^ )
Brother Bret
|
Subject: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: john hampshire
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 23:13:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
There was a case made in a post (way) below that water baptism is
apparently not required, as all baptism is one, and that being a
spiritual baptism. Other support was found in that the 'Great Commission'
in Romans 16:25-27 does not mention water baptism (nor church attendance
either, oh no) So the reasoning goes, the discussion of the mode
of water baptism is a moot point, it is only a spiritual baptism
done by God. Paul did say he performed some water baptisms, yet
less than others, so is this a prooftext: 'I give thanks to God
that no one of you did I baptize, except Crispus and Gaius --that
no one may say that to my own name I did baptize '(1 Cor1:14) Or
in Heb 6:2 '...of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands,
and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment'. This verse
implies there were at least two washings recognized in the early
church: spiritual baptism and water baptism. While there is mention
of water baptism and much more speaking to spirit baptism, where
can we conclude, from various Bible verses, that we should expect
to be baptized in water (by any mode)? Why do we do it, where's
the requirement? : | john
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 16:32:47 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John You said: While there is mention of water baptism and much
more speaking to spirit baptism, where can we conclude, from various
Bible verses, that we should expect to be baptized in water (by
any mode)? Why do we do it, where's the requirement? : | If I understand
your question properly, water baptism is commanded of each believer
by our Lord (Matt.28:19). The book of Acts repeatedly shows that
the early church practiced water baptism (Acts 8:12, 10:44-48, 16:31-33,
18:8) and that it was an external sign by which believers were publicly
incorporated into the Spirit-baptized fellowship of Christians.
Tom
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 00:28:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom and others, Well, that was my question. Yes water baptism is
spoken of here: Matt.28:19, Acts 8:12, 10:44-48, 16:31-33,18:8.
But is this the type of baptism done today? Matt 28:19 Jesus speaks
of 'all authority' being given to Him, which implies His ability
to regenerate (baptize) or spiritually clean the elect. Thus, the
baptism is into the Father (who elected), the Son (who redeemed),
and the Spirit (who regenerates). In Acts 2:38 we find Peter beginning
that mandate to make disciples of all nations. Here Peter tells
the mixed group 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins...'.
We could say there MUST first be forgiveness of sin (regeneration)
then water baptism. We could also say there must be a spiritual
baptism first for their to be forgiveness of sins. Thus, 'those
who received the word were baptized'. It is assumed that most of
those who received the word were first regenerated in order to receive
it. Certainly the souls that were added that day were saved. Thus,
the 'receiving the word' that Peter preached showed their converted
hearts. If water baptism is here at all, it is after they believed
the messsage. Perhaps there were more than 3000 who were baptized
that day, but only 3000 were clearly spiritually baptised by God.
In Acts 8:12, 16 we find Philip preaching and folks being baptized,
which must be water baptism. Notice, these folks believed Philip
(Vs 12), and some, such as Simon, clearly remained unregenerate
(vs 21), they certainly were not all spiritually regenerated. But
it is interesting, that despite this lack of a changed heart, they
were water baptized anyway, because some did SEEM to believe. It
was later, when John and Peter arrived, that the laying on of hands
sealed the REAL believers with the Holy Spirit. Laying on of hands
is not regeneration, it was a unique sign to show that regeneration
had taken place and they were qualified to bring the gospel. To
those who had already been regenerated the Spirit was given. Water
baptism had already been done, and apparenlty wasn’t repeated. So,
in this case, those who received the Spirit, were first regenerated,
then formally acknowledged by John and Peter by the laying on of
hands. Today we don’t need laying on of hands, regeneration and
the sealing with the Holy Spirit of God are together. It was only
for the early church, during the transition to this new economy.
If Acts 8 is an example of how water baptism should be done, then,
we should water baptize everyone who believes our message, men and
women alike, just as Philip did, right on the spot In Acts 10:47,
we find clearly those who believed had received forgiveness of sins
first (regeneration) (see Vs 43). There was no laying on of hands,
Peter was still speaking and they received the Holy Spirit. Those
who received this sign of their commission to bring the gospel certainly
were already regenerated. This receiving of the Holy Spirit, I think,
was like the pouring of oil on the head of a king, priest, or prophet.
It is a symbol of their commissioning. Thus the speaking in foreign
languages demonstrates the gospel message going to all mankind from
them. After this demonstration, who could doubt these were not believers,
so Peter says 'surely no one can refuse the water for these to be
baptized'. In this case, water baptism was done afterwards, in Acts
8 it was done prior, based on belief. In Acts 16 the jailer was
regenerated that night, perhaps prior to the earthquake, then acted
in faith and was water baptized by Paul and Silas. In this case,
there was no laying on of hands and no special languages. The jailer’s
baptism was done because he believed, made possible by his previous
regeneration (and his family too). We should also suppose, if the
water in his house was enough to wash his wounds, it was enough
to baptize (by sprinkling). In Acts 18:8 Paul baptized Crispus and
perhaps his household (1 Cor 1:14), and someone else baptized all
the Corinthians who believed his message. The consistent theme in
all this seems to be, if a person was an unbeliever, then gave evidence
they believed, he was baptized in water. Regeneration cannot always
be determined beforehand, except when a sign of the Holy Spirit
was given, which clarified the matter and baptism followed. Since
the household was baptized too, including we assume, slaves and
children, we find no limit to age or need of some confession. It
is not stated a baby was baptized, but certainly if the family had
one or two, they would have been. Lastly, it seems the job of believers
to baptize those who believe, not necessarily just a leader in the
church or teaching elder. Isn’t that what Matt 28:19 says all believers
are to do—- make disciples and baptize? Now I am ready to listen
to any comments? john
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 13:59:35 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John Sometimes I misunderstand what you are trying to say in your
post so keep that in mind as you read mine. As I look at Matt.28:18-19
I see Jesus saying that that 'All power has been given to me in
heaven and earth.' By this I think He is identifying His authority
to make the command He makes in verses 19-20. In verse 19 He commands
them to teach all nations, and to baptise in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. As you probably know, 'in the name
of...' means by the authority of... similar to a police officer
saying 'stop in the name of...'. Something else that I hope you
will notice is that it is not Jesus doing the water baptisms, it
is believers that do it. Therefore it could not be the baptism of
the Spirit that Jesus is talking about here. You said: In Acts 16
the jailer was regenerated that night, perhaps prior to the earthquake,
then acted in faith and was water baptized by Paul and Silas. In
this case, there was no laying on of hands and no special languages.
The jailer’s baptism was done because he believed, made possible
by his previous regeneration (and his family too). We should also
suppose, if the water in his house was enough to wash his wounds,
it was enough to baptize (by sprinkling). I think you are missing
something here. When you said: We should also suppose, if the water
in his house was enough to wash his wounds, it was enough to baptize
(by sprinkling). If you look closely I think you should find that
they didn't go into the house until after the baptism (verse 34).
In verse 13 you will see that there was a river close by, so I don't
think it is a stretch to say that is probably where the baptism
took place (not that I think it is a big deal). Tom
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire & All
Date
Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 06:57:10
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hi John, I am glad you started this topic, and not
me...:-) I do not see in the scriptures where 'water baptism replaces
circumcision' as you (and others here) seem to say. Also, may I
add (as I find in the messages below) that to 'follow the Lord in
believer's baptism' is really not found in the Pauline doctrines
of grace; but rather we find that we are made *members of His body*
by the *Holy Spirit* placing us into the Body of Christ. Romans
chapter six is all about the baptism of the Spirit, and not a 'water
baptism' as many people think. It is true that Paul baptised some
in the early part of Acts - but Acts is progressive revelation from
Jew to Gentile, etc. The gospel was to be sent 'to the Jew first'
and so this is why Paul baptised in the early part of his ministry.
This was *before* Paul's prison epistles were ever written -please
keep in mind. I believe it is an error to teach that Acts 2:38-39
is for us today, when Peter here is preaching to the nation of Israel,
and is calling for a *national repentance* for the crucifixion of
Jesus, their Messiah and King. At that time in history, all those
who obeyed *Peter's* message* were baptised and received the holy
spirit. Please note that (at that time) the calling of the Gentiles
and the calling of Saul of Tarsus had not yet taken place, so we
see that there is some progressive revelation for us to consider.
The Jews require a sign, and so this is why water baptism had all
of the signs and wonders associated with it. See Mark 16:15-20..!
(No wonder they try to remove these verses from the text!) freegrace
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Chris
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 04:49:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, Hmmmmm....... What about cornelius and his family, they
were Gentiles and wasnt they baptized in obedience to the Faith.
How about the Ethiopian Enuch? What about the Jailer in Philippi
that was baptized, him and his family? I hope you are not saying
there is no need for water baptism. Water Baptism does not save
you but shows a good conscience towards God. Also in Acts 2:38 I
agree with you in the sense that before the ministry of Jesus, John
was baptizing people that were signifying fruits of repentance?
(You may have to help me with this one:))Which would be the reason
for Peter and the disciples to use this type of language in these
verses. In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 21:08:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
So what ordinances are required for those that are under Paul's
commission? And are believers part of the New Covenant? Prestor
John Servabo Fidem.
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Prestor John
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 20:56:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The 'Great Commission' for the church is given to the apostle Paul,
and is found in Romans 16:25-27. (water baptism is not even mentioned
here). Circumcision is now *spiritual* and baptism is also now *spiritual*.
It is the operation of God alone, and is not the work of the hands
(of men). Colossians.2:11 --'made without hands' it says. therefore,
we cannot 'glory in men' and say so and so baptized me...for it
is written - 'Henceforth know we no man after the flesh' - or according
to outward appearance, station in life, etc. As you can see, this
does away with any 'apostolic succession'..etc freegrace _____________________________________________________________________________________________
On the contrary John I believe this goes way beyond baptism here.
Because baptism and communion are recognized as ordinances belonging
to the New Covenant and to its gospel. (Matt 28:18-20) However,
freegrace states here that
this gospel and commission belongs to the church and because of the lack of mentioning of
either baptism or communion then it could be argued that the covenant
here is different then the New Covenant. If that is the case we
have here 2 different gospels. The question needs to be asked is
that which gospel is the church under now? And what are its ordinances?
Prestor John Servabo Fidem.
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From:
Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 23:36:56 (PST)
Email Address:
ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by Phillip, and '.....came
up out of the water...........' [Acts 8:39] Also, as soon as Jesus
was baptized, he went up out of the water.......' If it meant only
sprinkling then what was Jesus and the Eunuch doing in the water?
Again personally speaking I don't believe that the mode is as important
as the fact that we should be baptised. But I think it is something
to ponder, especially in light of your question. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: john hampshire
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 00:05:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, Yes Phillip went down into the water with the eunuch, but they
both did not dunk under the water. They walked down to the bank
of the water, into the water, and then the eunuch was baptized.
When Jesus came straight ways out of the water, He did not pop up
like a cork, He was baptized by John and immediately left the water
went up the bank and departed. We musn't think that Phillip or John
baptised each member by going down into the water (immersion) with
them. I personally believe it makes more sense to understand that
they sprinkled the water over them, as I doubt dunking will be a
practical method away from a river (as in someone's house). But
the real question is: Why do we baptize in water, where is it found
that the church should do this? john
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Gene
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 02:48:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, The word 'baptize' literally means 'to immerse.' There is
a seperate word for 'sprinkle.' One would not 'bury' someone by
sprinkling dirt on their head (Rom 6:1-4).
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Vernon
To: All/Pilgrim from bel
Date
Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 03:48:57
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Gene, While I do not believe that a person needs
to be baptized to be saved, I do believe that a person who has been
'Born Again' should want to be baptized for it is an act of obediance
and Faith. We are to follow the example that our Lord set before
us. Being so, 'Was He baptized, and for what reasons did John baptize
anyone? Was Jesus sprinkled or immerse and who was it that came
down from heaven and landed upon Jesus as a dove?' Gene, some here
have said that the baptist et 'Baptizing as a requirement to join
the Church.' I belong to a baptize Chruch and you do not have to
be baptized to join.' The requirement to join is to confess Christ
as Lord and Savior openly before the Church. Now, I know many here
will jump on this with both feet. But the truth is , being a member
of the local building church just means that you are associated
with that local church. But, how does one become a member of the
real body church of Christ? This is more important than being a
Baptist or any other. 'Amen' In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Chris
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:27:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon, Amen, though I will add if I can. A person who wants to
join and they have never been baptized before, should be baptized
then. Like you said its the first step of obedience in following
the Lord. In anycase a true believer would want to be baptized,
because a true believer will want to be obedient:) Amen or Oh me!
In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:28:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, The word 'baptize' literally means 'to immerse.' There is
a seperate word for 'sprinkle.' One would not 'bury' someone by
sprinkling dirt on their head (Rom 6:1-4).
---
Gene,
Just where do you come up with
these truly ignorant statements? Did you go to school to learn how
to do this or does it come naturally to you? Dr. John Murray, in
his famous book, 'Christian Baptism' goes to great length to examine
the biblical words and derivations and concludes without question
that 'Baptizo, etc.' does not and cannot mean immersion. Personally,
that view is so silly, that I won't even waste my time refuting
it.... Baptists can just continue dunking and that's fine, but when
anyone says that Immersion or Effusion or Aspersion is the ONLY
mode, they are embracing error..... SERIOUS error that excludes
Christ's sheep from the fold.
Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Chris
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 09:36:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, I kinda wonder where you get off talking to another professing
Christian like that. Your words are very prideful, judgemental,
and destructive. I warn you as a brother to be more kind and gentle
in your wording. I wonder how you would feel if I told you that
refuting or instructing about the truth to you was wasting my time.
Did Jesus ever do that? ???? What is really Serious is whether our
hearts are settle with Grace or Works(sacrafice). In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Tom
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 16:24:03 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Chris Is not the doctrine of the Trinity an essential doctrine?
Gene does not believe in the Trinity. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Chris
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 18:39:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, The doctrine of the Trinity is one that must be accepted by
faith. If one truly has the Spirit of God, eventhough he may not
totally understand the Trinity, he will still accept it as true
by faith:) Chris
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Tom
To: Chris
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 16:12:56 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
That is my point! A true Christian believes the in the Trinity whether
or not they understand it or not. Gene clearly at his own admission
does not believe in the Trinity. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: a stuckee monitor
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 13:39:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, I kinda wonder where you get off talking to another professing
Christian like that. Your words are very prideful, judgemental,
and destructive. I warn you as a brother to be more kind and gentle
in your wording. I wonder how you would feel if I told you that
refuting or instructing about the truth to you was wasting my time.
Did Jesus ever do that? ???? What is really Serious is whether our
hearts are settle with Grace or Works(sacrafice). In Christ, Chris
---
************* Dear Chris - as Pilgrim mentioned, I
get to be the bearer of 'bad news' relative to your recent exchange
with him? If you are new to the Highway...you can not possibly appreciate
the longsuffering which has been shown our friend 'Gene' these past
many months (admittedly, we are 'firmer' in our rebuke at times).
Gene not only willfully and with forethought denies essentials of
the Faith, but is known for his mocking tone towards some of the
regulars - which isn't so bad... but he is clearly no friend of
the gospel of grace - which is, after all, why this website exists
in the first place. From our perspective, biblically, we are persuaded
that that makes Gene 'lost' and a fool. We have been 'loving' enough
to inform him of this fact, repeatedly. His presence is 'tolerated'
for the sake of illuminating others with the truth of grace as it
meets Gene's demonic doctrines straight from the pit. Let me add
that if we could 'shake the dust off our feet' relative to this
one who refuses to 'receive the Good News' as it's presented in
the Bible and defended by the Church, we would. Unfortunatly, Gene
continually returns to grace us with his unbelieving presence. ;-)
I don't think you meant to offend anyone....but can I ask that in
the case of Gene, that you simply sit back and watch any further
intercourse...not allowing yourself to be goaded into 'rebuking'
the webmaster or anyone else willing to 'answer a fool according
to his folly'? ;-) As for kindly, loving and gentle ... please consider
these words: (and don't forget that there is a time and place for
everything...and we believe it's time to take Gene to the woodshed,
sort of speak) Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 2Co 11:4 For if he
that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached,
or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or
another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with
him. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If
any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be accursed. Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision,
why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross
ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (OOOUUUCCCCHHHH!)
Having said all of this...Gene's 'confession' is of no value here...nor
would it be in any true Church. It is my conviction that we are
not unfairly and hypocritically admonishing a fellow sheep...but
merely keeping a wolf at bay. By His Grace, a monitor 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.
|
Subject: Re: Please use caution before judging ;)
From: Joel H
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 12:56:40 (PST)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu
Message:
Chris, Your post is the one that seems prideful and
judgemental to me. Who are you to judge him? Do you know Pilgrim
or know his intent towards Gene in making such remarks? Are you
completely familiar with the circumstances surrounding those remarks?
Perhaps Pilgrim was trying to 'spur' Gene to think more before he
posts? His post may seemed overly sarcastic to you, but you're the
one that seems prideful to have judged Pilgrim without at least
inquiring with him privately before rebuking him openly. Just my
humble opinion. Joel H
|
Subject: Re: Please use caution before judging ;)
From: Chris
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22,
2000 at 18:44:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Joel, You are right, in the sense I should have gone
to him privately. This is the second time I have done that and do
apologize and will try not to in the Future:) Its hard sometimes
to see the attitude behind the posts and sometimes its not:) Again
forgive me my brother. Chris
|
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 12:34:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, I kinda wonder where you get off talking to another professing
Christian like that. Your words are very prideful, judgemental,
and destructive. I warn you as a brother to be more kind and gentle
in your wording. I wonder how you would feel if I told you that
refuting or instructing about the truth to you was wasting my time.
Did Jesus ever do that? ???? What is really Serious is whether our
hearts are settle with Grace or Works(sacrafice). In Christ, Chris
---
Chris,
Again, you are new to this forum
and obviously haven't a clue as to who Gene is!! In the interest
of 'good manners' I'll refrain from rebuking you for your unwarranted
'ditz', especially of the forum owner and allow one of the 'regulars'
or the Monitors explain things to you. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Mandate for Water Baptism/?
From: Chris
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 06:54:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, Matthew 28:19-20, 1Peter 3:21(Baptism of the Spirit puts away
the filth of the flesh, where baptism of water shows a good conscience
towards God. Baptism in the water shows the death, burial, and ressurection
of Christ in You. Of course the reality of that is done through
the Holy Spirits baptism, but the outward show of the inward change
is through water baptism. I will have to agree with Tom and Gene
in the fact that full immersion does best signify the death and
burial of the Old Man and ressurecetion of the New Man. In Christ,
Chris
|
Subject: Kingdom Theology
From: cousin Earl
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 19:08:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim-I hve encountered a lot of people talking about Kingdom
Theology of late and would like to hear from someone who knows more
that I do on the subject. Is this something new and where did it
originate?
|
Subject: Re: Kingdom Theology
From: laz
To: cousin Earl
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 06:49:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Earl, You asked Pilgrim...but my curiosity got the better of me.
hehe In a nutshell and from my brief parousing, KT looks very 'messianic'
and 'earthy'.... This site is very informative. Enjoy. blessings,
laz Kingdom Seekers www.geocities.com/Heartland/Fields/2418/
|
Subject: Not Guilty in Christ
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim and All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 17:21:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim - thanks for your good reply today! I see what you are saying
now; however, Christ finds us as guilty in His sight at the first.....but
after we are clothed with the imputed Righteousness of the Lord
Jesus Christ, He then find us as *not guilty* in His sight. To be
found in Christ is to be found *not guilty*. It is *then* as if
we had never sinned in His sight. That is the meaning of justification,
from what I have read, anyway. I am not trying to find fault with
you, but I respect your tremendous Bible knowledge and God given
Wisdom. freegrace
|
Subject: Re: Not Guilty in Christ
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 07:50:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The little book entitled 'Not Guilty' by James Buchanan is available
from: http://www.cvbbs.com/ This is called a GREAT CHRISTIAN CLASSIC
No.10, and is a wonderful little study on justification, I think.
Now you can see why I thought Pilgrim had finally 'made an error'
here in the forum! His messages are for the most part so impeccable!
Of course, outside of Christ, we are by nature children of wrath
- as others, and are guilty of Adam's sin as well as out own sins.
freegrace
|
Subject: Re: Not Guilty in Christ
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:31:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Yes, wonderful book! :-) So do you feel I am still 'in error'??
:-) Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Not Guilty in Christ
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:15:08 (PST)
Email Address: freegracealone@yahoo.com
Message:
Yes, wonderful book! :-) So do you feel I am still 'in error'??
:-) Pilgrim
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
- Pilgrim, Who
am I that I should try to 'correct' you..? :-) To be truthful, I
just thought it was a typing error on your part. I have always thought
that God even removes our guilt (In Christ), but I have not done
as much reading and study as you have, so I will just drop it and
let you decide the 'issue'... It is clear that all of God's elect
are 'accepted in the Beloved', and so therefore , no longer guilty
in the sight of God, but we are still guilty in our own sight, that
is for sure. freegrace
|
Subject: Re: Not Guilty in Christ
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 13:36:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
Who am I to be above correction
even from a child within whom the Spirit dwells? Honestly, I think
you have misunderstood what I have said. I was speaking against
what is a very popular view that says, 'In the blood of Jesus Christ,
God clears the guilty'.
Therefore I attempted to point out by way of the Scriptures and
of reason that the Lord Almighty never 'winks at sin', nor is it
possible for Him to extend forgiveness or pardon apart from exacting
the punishment due to the offense. God cannot 'clear the guilty'
but must punish them according to His own divine and inexorable
holiness. For the LORD our God is a JUST God and therefore judgment
is essential to His nature and integrity. God looks upon a redeemed
sinner as having been 'set free' from the bonds of the debt owed
for the Redeemer has paid that debt vicariously for him. The guilt
that was ours became His and His righteousness became ours. Yet
we remain debtors in the sense that the payment made was done so
without our having a part in it. The canceled bond is thus a DECLARATION
of our being set free and not anything that is inherently ours to
claim. Thus Luther was so correct in saying that in Justification
we are, 'simul iustus et peccatore' [simultaneously just and sinner].
Our justification is forensic and not actual. We are not righteous
in ourselves, but remain sinners and will remain sinners until the
day Christ appears in our stead and we receive the glorification
of our bodies. Indeed, we are 'Guilty in Him', for if that were
not true, we are then yet guilty in our own sins and await the Judgment.
This entire matter is to show the lack of understanding of the cross
and what transpired there so many years ago. The propitiatory aspect
of the atonement is little known or even accepted today and even
its substitutionary element is diminished or out rightly rejected
by some. The cross was about JUSTICE and how it was executed by
God's wrath falling without restraint upon Himself, who having humbled
Himself, took the form of a man and a servant and living the life
which we are not able or even desirous to do and suffering the pangs
of death for OUR sins. A profound exchange took place that day which
we in God's good time come to experience when we are given to believe
upon the Great Redeemer God, the Lord Christ. May God grant you
a deeper understanding of the love of God in Christ Jesus as you
contemplate the cross and the justice which was carried out there
for the redemption of poor needy sinners like you and I.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Not Guilty in Christ
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 12:26:58 (PST)
Email Address: freegracealone@yahoo.com
Message:
Pilgrim, maybe you just 'threw us a curve' here on this one! You
said: >>>Secondly, we are indeed judged guilty in Adam<<<,
and then i was expecting to hear next>
|
Subject: Re: Not Guilty in Christ
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 01:10:08 (PST)
Email Address: na
Message:
freegrace. I'm very sorry this will be so brief.
It isn't meant to be curt, but must be so as my physical limitations
prevent more eleaboration. Maybe someone else can take it up for
me. I see two basic flaws with your stance. One is that God doesn't
just see us as gulity: we are guilty. And we are guilty irredeemably
outside the Lord Jesus. If our sins were judged as they deserved,
we'd be as lost as the rest of humanity. Instead, God has 'found'
a way to be both Just and the Justifier of His own saved people,
as outlined in Rom. 3:26 and other verses. God has by the principle/fact/miracle
of imputation assigned our deserved punishment to the Lord Jesus
and His righteousness to us. But it is much more than just 'seeing
it' that way, it is an actual accomplishment. Believer's sins have
been judged, finally, completely, in Christ. Though they are 'children
of wrath' until and unless they come to Christ in faith and receive
the imputation, that imputation is inevitable in God's Supreme and
supremely minutely edtailed planning. We are going to be (in predestination
and election) effectually called and justified. This is all the
concerted action of the One God, the living Triune God, Who is working
in concert within Himself in His three Persons to effect just what
He/They have already purposed in eternity. The bottom line is: God
gives saved people His own actual righteousness, the righteousness
of His Son, without which one can't enter the holy place. That gifting
by imputation is by justice, grace, love, mercy, all working together
to glorify God.
|
Subject: Re: Not Guilty in Christ
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:30:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
++++++++++++++++++ Amen! That is why I say that all those who are
*In christ* are found to be 'not guilty'. It is 'just as if' we
had never sinned in His sight; that is the meaning of justification.
God has now given us His perfect Righteousness which is far better
than the 'mutable righteousness' that Adam had at the first. freegrace
|
Subject: Who Are We
From: Vernon
To: All/Pilgrim from below
Date
Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 02:58:02
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Thank You, You have answered rightly my friend. Silly
games. Not sure how to take this statment.But Pilgrim, in the last
few weeks God has shown me a few things about my self. He showed
me that in all of my knowledge of Him ( At what ever level it may
be) it is nothing without Christ. He has shown me, anything we do,
and it is not by the leader ship of the Holy Spirit, it is nothing.Our
churches are filled with self-seeking Christians who want to befirst,the
greates ,and best. But the path Jesus walked was called the loss
of all and death of self. Jesus humbled himself, emptied himself,
and yielded his own self completely to the will of God,his Father.
Many come in the name of Christ and say,' Lord, Lord, have I not
did this and that in your name and He will say, 'Depart from me
for I never knew you.' Yes, many are seeking God's will but never
come to the place of laying down their own will first. The surrender
of our will, (is death of self). What I am saying to you is this
.... In those calling themself Christian today, many see themselves
before multitudes ministering. They have their eyes on the buildings,the
filled seats,the money, the croweds, the honor and the glory. They
think they have their eyes on the Glory of God,but their eyes are
only on themselves. Because when the opportunity comes for them
to talk to a shut-in, a prisoner, a drunk, or someone homeless they
can't (not unless it is on TV programs) or before the church so
they can be somebody. Many today are full of knowledge, but truly
do not have the love of God in them. On the outside, they look beautiful
on the inside they are what they are not. So, many today are doing
things in the name of the Lord. But how much of it is the will of
God? Piligrim, I have shared with you many times that I have been
saved by the mercy and grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
I have said over and over that it is God who caused me to hear the
message of Salvation and gave me the faith to believe. There is
no other way a man could ever believe unless it be that the Holy
Spirit be in the mist of it all. Now, is not the Holy Spirit God?
Pilgrim, I have the upmost respect for you and your knowledge. I
believe you are far ahead of me in your knowledge of the word of
God. I have no right in judging your salvation unless it is very
clear you place your hope in reaching the mark in the wrong methods
or it is not in Christ. I say without a doubt based in waht I have
read of you.....You are a man of God. I do not always understand
everything you post, for I am just a low common man and it is over
my head. But there are things I do understand and disagree. To disagree
in honor and respect is right. But to disagree does not always make
us right in that which we disagree. If we are found to be wrong,
then it is right to agree. Silly games, Seeking the Truth of God's
word is not a silly game with me. In my whole purpose here in this
Forum has been to learn,teach where possible,fellowship and share
the word of God, as He has given me in understanding. I ask once
again....'Who does God say that you are,And this question is for
all us to answer. If you are not seeking in its answer, then you
are not in the word of God. 'We are nothing without Christ.' In
Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Who Are We
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 05:22:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Who are we? Precisely those whom He 'hath raised (us) up together,
and made us sit
together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:' (Eph2:6) We are those
chosen/elect from before the foundations of the earth, God's beloved...who
have been made
to sit together in heavenly place IN CHRIST
JESUS. He MADE us sit...not 'asked us to sit'...MADE
US SIT....salvation being all of God from
first to last... We did not earn or cause this to be by the force
or power of our corrupted will, nor does God quicken only enough
to allow us to decide for ourselves...for it
is not of him that willeth, nor
of him that runneth, but of God
that sheweth mercy ..yes, US, who where
dead in trespasses and sins - his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk
in them. 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, You may still embrace a salvation rooted in possibilities
if only we believe...but I say salvation by grace thru faith is
for those IN HIM from before the foundations of the world... Joh
10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. In Him,
laz p.s. as always, Vern, this has nothing to do with YOUR salvation...but
everything to do with your soteriology, which I see has not evolved
much toward greater conformity to the plain teaching of scripture
since our last encounter. Or has it?
|
Subject: Re: Who Are We
From: Vernon
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 09:12:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz; No laz, I donot embrace predestination in the same way you
do. Yes, God did set down the requirement for a man to be saved
before the foundation of the earth. Who did Jesus say He come to
save......'The Lost.' Who are the lost? The lost is anyone who does
not believed that Jesus is the Son of God and that He has been resurrected
from the dead and is on the right hand of God. One does not just
wake up one morning and believes in Christ. Paul out lined how a
person comes to salvation in Chapter 9 or 10 of Romans. i do not
have my Bible before as I write this to you so forgive me for not
being more direct. Laz, a man's faith in Christ can be only true
if it meets that which is explained in the Bible. Salvation is given
only to those who believe and trust in the works that Christ has
done for them on the cross realizing they themselves could never
save them selves by any works good or bad which they do themselves.
Only one way to be saved, only one door to heaven and it is through
Christ. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Who Are We
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 13:11:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern: you wrote: Laz, a man's faith in
Christ can be only true if it meets that which is explained in the Bible. I guess you still fail to grasp that at the end of the
day, your view is tantamount to WORKS salvation....for a condition
on our part (and apart from God) MUST BE MET. Besides, I thought
faith came from God...Eph 2:8-10....Heb 12:2? Your view that God
quickens ALL (prevenient grace?) is simply nowhere to be found in
all the pages of holy writ. In your view, the only difference between
the saved and the damned, the distinquishing factor is .... THE
INDIVIDUAL....and not Christ Jesus and God's free grace. The 'vote
breaker' is man....and his 'will'...again, and NOT God. Man has
been enthroned. Men/women who want to occupy heaven are the ones
making it....not men/women whom God has chosen...a people for Himself.
What you have is works my good man, odious works, filthy rags even....and
man being the sovereign one and not almighty and merciful God. The
Bible, especially Rom 9 preaches sovereign and unconditional election.
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: Could Jesus sin?
From: Delta Boy
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:48:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
As we are told in the book of Hebrews, Jesus was tempted at every
piont yet was without sin. My friend believes that Jesus could have
sinned if He chose to. Could He have? I dont believe so. I would
like for someone to help me out here, perhaps a website location,
book or something. Pilgrim anything you might have on this would
be appreciated, I really enjoy your biblical insight. Your methodical
explaination of original sin and Adam's federal headship to Eric
was great. I hope eric see's the problem with his thinking, especially
in light of imputed righteousness. Delta Boy
|
Subject: For the Bible tells me so.
From: CMB 19
To: Delta Boy
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 30, 2000 at 13:50:45 (PST)
Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
You have a good
question. Let me give you some scripture to answer your question.
Romans 3:23, 6:23, 8:8-9&13 James 1:15 1st John 2:15-17, &
3:8 Read these and think about your question. By the grace of GOD
your eyes will be opened to the truth. - CMB19
|
Subject: Re: Could Jesus sin?
From: David Teh
To: Delta Boy
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 05:23:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
A partial reproduction from 'THE PLEASURE OF GOD IN ALL HE DOES'
by Pastor John Piper. Psalm 135:6 'Whatever the Lord pleases he
does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.' Two assumptions
lie at the foundation of this new series of messages on the pleasures
of God. 1. The first assumption is that 'The worth and excellency
of a soul is measured by the object of its love.' (Henry Scougal).
If we apply that to God, then one way of beholding the worth and
excellency of God is to meditate on what he loves. Another way to
put it would be to say that the measure of God's dignity is determined
by what he delights in. Or another way would be to say that the
greatness of God's excellence is registered by his enjoyments. What
he takes pleasure in signals the beauty and the preciousness of
his character. 2. The second assumption is that when we fix our
mind's attention on the worth and excellency of God, that is, when
we meditate on his glory, we are changed little by little into his
likeness. And we all with unveiled face, beholding the glory of
the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of
glory to another. (2 Cor. 3:18) So my goal in these next 12 weeks
is to direct your attention to the pleasures of God revealed in
Scripture; in the hope that you will see in them some of the infinite
measure of God's worth and excellency; and in seeing this glory
that you might rise one step at a time into his likeness; so that
at home and work and school people will see your good works and
give glory to your Father in heaven. Portray his pleasures in preaching.
Behold his glory in listening. Approach his likeness in meditation.
Display his worth in the world. May God be gracious to bless the
ministry of his word in these weeks. Last week we focused on the
pleasure that God the Father has in his Son. The most important
lesson to be learned from that truth is this: God is and always
has been an exuberantly happy God. He has never been lonely. He
has always rejoice with overflowing satisfaction in the glory of
his Son. You might say that the Son of God has always been the landscape
of God's excellencies or the panorama of God's perfections. And
therefore from all eternity God has beheld with overflowing satisfaction
the magnificent terrain of his own radiance reflected in the Son.
A second lesson to learn from this truth is that God is not constrained
by anything outside himself to do anything he does not want to do.
If God were unhappy, if he were in some way deficient, then he might
indeed be constrained from outside in some way to do what he does
not want to do in order to make up his deficiency and finally to
be happy. That is the way we are. We come into the world knowing
almost nothing and have to spend years and years going to classes
or learning in the school of hard knocks. Parents and teachers tell
us to do things that we don't like to do because we need to do them
to overcome some deficiency in ourselves -- to increase our knowledge
or strengthen our bodies or refine our manners. But God is not like
that. He has been complete and overflowing with satisfaction from
all eternity. He needs no education. No one can offer anything to
him that doesn't already come from him. And so no one can bribe
him or coerce him in any way. You can't bribe a mountain spring
with bucketfulls of water from the valley. Therefore God does what
he does not begrudgingly or under external constraint as though
he were boxed in or trapped by some unforeseen or unplanned situation.
On the contrary, because he is complete and exuberantly happy and
overflowing with satisfaction in the fellowship of the Trinity,
all he does is free and uncoerced. His deeds are the overflow of
his joy. This is what it means when the Scripture says that God
does something according to the 'good pleasure' of his will. It
means that nothing outside God's own pleasure -- the pleasure he
has in what he is, nothing but that pleasure -- has constrained
his choices and his deeds. This brings us to the focus of today's
message -- 'The Pleasure of God in All that He Does' -- and today's
text: Psalm 135. The Psalm begins by calling us to praise the Lord:
'Praise the Lord. Praise the name of the Lord.' Then, starting in
verse 3 the psalmist gives us reasons for why we should feel praise
rising in our hearts toward God. It says, for example, 'Praise the
Lord, for the Lord is good.' The list of reasons for praise goes
on until it comes to verse 6, and this is the verse I want us to
focus on this morning: Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven
and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. Psalm 115:3 says the same
thing: Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. This
verse teaches that whenever God acts he acts in a way that pleases
him. God is never constrained to do a thing that he despises. He
is never backed into a corner where his only recourse is to do something
he hates to do. He does whatever he pleases. And therefore, in some
sense, he has pleasure in all that he does. Isaiah uses the same
Hebrew word (as a noun) in Isaiah 46:10 where the Lord says, My
counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my pleasure. On the
basis of these texts and many others we should bow before God and
praise his sovereign freedom -- that in some sense at least he always
acts in freedom, according to his own 'good pleasure,' following
the dictates of his own delights. He never becomes the victim of
circumstance. He is never forced into a situation where he must
do something in which he cannot rejoice. This is a glorious picture
of God in his sovereign freedom -- to do whatever he pleases and
to accomplish all his pleasure. "THE PLEASURE OF GOD IN ALL
HE DOES" www.soundofgrace.com/piper87/jp870006.htm
|
Subject: Re: Could Jesus sin?
From: john hampshire
To: Delta Boy
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 22:28:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
If Jesus could sin, what was IN Jesus to be attracted to such disobedience?
How could God be attracted to breaking the Law of God? I have heard
some say that there was some things Jesus did in His humanity, and
some that were via God. The reasoning used here is to exclude such
things as are considered pentecostal gifts, determining those things
as such any Christian should have, Jesus being an example for us.
The reasoning apparently behind this division is it keeps the pentecostal
gifts viable today. Such a division really doesn't feed the bulldog
anyway, especially if the gifts ceased by God's decree. Such an
argument doesn't help support the idea that Jesus could sin in His
humanity but not in His Spirit. Sin in the flesh and spirit cannot
be separated, otherwise on Judgment Day we might find some folks
going to heaven in their spirit, but 'hell' in their bodies. But
then the argument becomes that Adam was perfect in body and spirit,
yet he sinned. But Adam could be enticed by a foreign idea, Jesus
had perfect communion with the Father, no foreign idea would distract
Him from the Father's purpose. The major difference: Jesus is God,
and Adam was not. Thus, Adam could sin for he could be enticed,
but Jesus could not. The final analysis: I think Satan wasted his
time trying to make Jesus fall, it was a test, but not one that
Jesus could fail. However you look at it, if Jesus could sin, then
God can break His own rules, which makes Him violate His own character,
and He ceases to be God.... a perfect, unchanging God who is imperfect,
not even remotely possible. john
|
Subject: Re: Could Jesus sin?
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 07:05:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John - you asked? If Jesus could sin, what
was IN Jesus to be attracted to such disobedience? How could God
be attracted to breaking the Law of God? The
same 'stuff' that 'very good' Adam had in him ... the ability to
not sin...(whereas Adam ALSO lacked the ability to not sin forever).
Let's not forget the fact that Jesus had a complete 'human nature'
(untainted however, as Adam originally had). Let's not loose the
mystery in all of this as well. The historic creeds are clear...
Where is Pilgrim when you need him? hehe I believe that angels CAN
sin also (perhaps we too in our glorified state will theoretically
have the 'ability' but will not indulge - ever ... just like I currently
have the 'ability' to kill but have no desire or compulsion to ever
do it)... but have absolutely no desire to do so (they choose to
not sin, as Jesus in His humanity did)....at least those angels
that remained after the original cosmic rebellion in which Satan
fell. It may not have been much of a test for Jesus to be tempted
(which I don't believe is true since the Bible clearly says He was
TEMPTED)... but it was temptation nevertheless. Someone can try
to give me $10M to kill a person...but in reality, for me...it would
not be much of a temptation. ... actually, depends on who the victim...naaaaaaaaah!
;-) laz
|
Subject: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 08:08:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>This statement appears to be a direct contradiction of the position
you are espousing here. If it is true, which it surely is, that
only a regenerated soul can bring glory to God, then is it not also
necessary that infants be regenerated before they can 'bring glory
to God'? When did Adam die spiritually? When he sinned. It was at
this point that his fellowship with God was severed. Now God knew
all along that Adam would sin, and yet He still had fellowship with
him until He did. So, it was inevitable that Adam would sin. This
is similiar to an unborn child or infant that in time they will
absolutely sin, and then they will become spiritually dead. I am
aware that this analogy isn't perfect. Also, I apologize for being
sloppy in my language. When I said that people need to be regenerated,
I was speaking of people who have actually sinned, and not embryos
or infants. >Thirdly, You deny that infants, even at conception
have a corrupt nature. So when do they acquire this corruption?
Does an 'act of sin' produce the corruption? (cf. Matt 7:17-19;
Lk 6:43-45; Eph 2:1-3). No, I don't deny that they have a corrupt
nature. I deny that an embryo with a corrupt nature can sin when
it doesn't even have a brain stem. >Fourthly, you reject the
biblical teaching that all Adam's progeny inherit a corruption of
nature, but you do affirm that they have inherited guilt? If this
is so, assuming I have understood your view correctly (I am open
to correction here!), I think you have misunderstood my position.
I affirm that all men are born with corrupt natures. I deny that
anybody will be judged eternally for somebody elses sins. I will
be judged by mine, you will be judged by yours, Adam will be judged
by his. >...on what basis is any man found guilty? And guilty
of what? Biblically, guilt is ALWAYS associated with the act which
brings the guilt. Thus since all men are indeed guilty before God
(Rom 2:11ff; 3:19-23; Jam 2:10; et al) and are subject to condemnation
by virtue of who they are by nature, which is expressed outwardly
and inwardly and completely. You are making my point. Guilt is associated
with the act--sin. Do you really think the verses you quoted refer
to eggs that were just fertilized? Is that what Paul and James had
in mind? I don't think so, unless you want to go through the Bible
and make 'all' always refer to every living being since creation,
both in the womb and out. I hope I have answered your questions.
|
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20,
2000 at 09:04:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Eric,
I believe you have clarified a
few salient points for me so thanks. But the end result is the same.
:-) You affirm that all men, even embryos are born with a 'corrupt
nature'! But you then deny that anyone is condemned for being corrupt
in nature. You rather state that people are condemned ONLY on the
basis of overt sins committed in the body. But this is a total contradiction
of what Paul states in Rom 5:12-14:
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:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed
when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam
to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to
come.'
Death is the 'wages of sin' (Rom
6:23) and thus death came upon ALL MEN because ALL MEN SINNED. And
from whence came this sin? Not from a 'tabula rasa' that somehow
was influenced to do that which is against the law!! But sin flows
from a CORRUPT NATURE. Thus it is essential that ALL MEN, including
women, children and embryos need to be 'born again' (regenerated/quickened/resurrected/made
alive). Their natures need to be dramatically and radically changed,
which only God in His sovereign good pleasure can and does do. One
does not break the Law of God and thereby die spiritually or 'become
a sinner'! One is born/conceived in sin (Psa 51:5; Gen 5:3; 6:5;
8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Joh 3:19; Eph 2:3) and out of that CORRUPT
NATURE flows sin (Jer 13:23; Matt 7:17, 18; 12:33-35). WE SIN BECAUSE
WE ARE SINNERS! It is erroneous to think that the same situation
that existed with Adam, that being innocent before his disobedient
act applies to every person who is conceived and brought into this
world. This was a singular and unique situation which the LORD God
created for a purpose; to test the Federal Head of the human race.
That 'head' failed and brought corruption and GUILT upon all men.
All men are conceived as GUILTY before God because of the very fact
that they are Adam's progeny and have inherited both the corruption
and guilt which befell their forefather and 'head' Adam. Thus all
who are conceived are 'by nature children of wrath'!! The fact that
some die in the womb proves that they are sinful by nature, for
'death is the wages of sin' for 'all die for all men sinned'! Notice
that Paul didn't say 'because all men SIN', but because 'all men
SINNED!' There is an inseparable union between what Adam did and
the punishment incurred and all that flow from him. What one does
is determined by one's NATURE. And thus a 'corrupt nature' can only
do that which is corrupt. Therefore all human beings being born
with a corrupt nature are sinners and 'by nature, children of wrath'!
You wrote: 'I affirm that all men are born
with corrupt natures. I deny that anybody will be judged eternally
for somebody else's sins. I will be judged by mine, you will be
judged by yours, Adam will be judged by his.'
This statement contains both truth and falsehood. We are indeed
judged for what we do in the body, but not just for overt sins,
but also in thought, word and deed. As the clear teaching of the
Lord Christ shows in His Sermon on the Mount, it is not just murderers
who are guilty of breaking the law, but also those who have anger/hatred
in their hearts that are guilty of breaking the law. It is from
out of the heart that such acts are done. The acts themselves are
but the fruit of a CORRUPT NATURE, and thus we are all guilty as
law breakers BY NATURE. We must follow the biblical teaching here
and reject any attempt to EXTERNALIZE sin. Sin is a 'heart problem'
and not just a 'hand or head problem'! Secondly, we are indeed judged
guilty in Adam! And it is upon this profound truth that we are also
saved. We are not saved due to our own perfection, but upon the
basis of an ALIEN RIGHTEOUSNESS; that of another. This is Paul's
point in Romans 5:12-18 exactly! There are two representatives 'heads'
that have come; Adam the first who brought corruption and condemnation
upon all men who are of him, and Adam the second who brought justification
upon all men who are of Him. In both cases, men are either condemned
or justified by the acts of another. Reject the corporate solidarity
of Adam the first and you are forced to reject the corporate solidarity
of Adam the second. The entire premise of imputed righteousness
by virtue of the vicarious substitutionary atonement of the Lord
Jesus Christ is founded upon the imputed guilt and corruption of
Adam to the human race. Therefore we are conceived as sinners, having
inherited a corruption of nature and the guilt of Adam and therefore
are liable to the just Judgment of God. Likewise, we who have been
'born again' by the Spirit of God are made to be partakers of the
atonement of Christ and His righteousness by imputation and are
thus pronounced 'guilty in Him' and justified freely by grace. Sola
Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and therefore Soli Deo Gloria
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 09:57:09 (PST)
Email Address: freegracealone@juno.com
Message:
Pilgrim said: >>>Therefore we are conceived as sinners,
having inherited a corruption of nature and the guilt of Adam and
therefore are liable to the just Judgment of God. Likewise, we who
have been 'born again' by the Spirit of God are made to be partakers
of the atonement of Christ and His righteousness by imputation and
are thus pronounced 'guilty in Him' and justified freely by grace.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and therefore Soli Deo Gloria
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim <<< Greetings Pilgrim, You
probably mean to say we are pronounced 'not guilty in Him'... Am
I correct on this? - just wondering -- thanks! freegrace
|
Subject: Re: Found Guilty in Him!
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 16:40:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
This is a much misunderstood truth
which I stated correctly, 'We are found GUILTY IN HIM!' Paul put
it this way, 'I have been crucified WITH
CHRIST. . .' It is the common misconception
that in Christ God clears the 'guilty'. But this is impossible for
God cannot clear the guilty for He Himself has declared:
'for the LORD will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.' (Ex. 20:7) 'And the LORD
passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God,
merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness
and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin, and that
will by no means clear the guilty;
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and
upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth
generation.' ( Ex. 34:6, 7) 'The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy,
forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing
the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generation.'
(Num. 14:18)
According to the immutable holiness
and justice of God ALL transgression MUST be subject to punishment.
And so the Judgment to come. A proper understanding of this profound
truth doubtless brings one to comprehend the depth of not only the
vicarious and substitutionary nature of the atoning work of Christ,
but the marvelous union that exists between the Saviour and the
sinner for whom He gave Himself on the cross. Although our finite
minds are incapable of comprehending the depth of these things,
it has been the LORD's intention that we should know something of
it and therefore He has seen fit to write of these things through
His appointed Apostles. In one place Paul speaks of that inseparable
and inexplicable union between the elect and Christ Jesus:
'For he hath made
him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him.'
(2Cor. 5:21)
This single statement is but a
summary of what the prophet Isaiah wrote in much detail:
'Surely he hath
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem
him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes
we are healed. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the
great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because
he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered
with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors.'
(Isa. 53:4, 5, 12)
Upon that cursed cross the Lord
Christ bore the punishment due those whom the Father gave to Him;
to suffer in their place. The death which the Son of God died was substitutionary; in Him we
received the full wrath of God and died with Him. We were found
GUILTY and sentenced to death for our sins IN
HIM!. Can anyone who professes to rest
in the Saviour not be overwhelmed with both profound sense of both
grief and joy? Grief because it was MY SINS which He bore. Joy because
I have a Saviour Who loved me and gave Himself for ME. Yes, freegrace,
we are found GUILTY IN HIM:
'I am crucified
with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by
the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself
for me.'
And thus God is pleased
to declare us JUSTIFIED, for the eternal debt has been rendered
in full; the ransom has been paid; God's wrath has been propitiated;
the sacrifice has been offered up and found acceptable.
'Being
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance
of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness:
that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth
in Jesus.' (Rom. 3:24-26)
'O
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of
God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding
out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been
his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall
be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him,
and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.'
(Rom. 11:33-36)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000
at 13:52:35 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
A couple of passages that also must
be considered. Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will
die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the
father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous
man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will
be charged against him. Inspired passage, right? Deut. 24:16 Fathers
shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to
death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (This is
God’s law to man, but it is patterned after His holiness and character.)
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: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.'
I think a case can be made that Paul is referring to physical death
being pronounced on all mankind because of Adam’s sin. This is different
than eternal judgement. Also, how can sin not be imputed if there
is no law, if sin was imputed to every person by Adam prior to the
law being given. Paul is making a distinction in verses 13 and 14
between death and sin—Adam sinned, but death spread to all mankind.
I admit, I don’t know how to deal with the last part of verse 12
in a definitive way. Could not Paul be speaking about all men historically
have died because all men have sinned? >It is erroneous to think
that the same situation that existed with Adam, that being innocent
before his disobedient act applies to every person who is conceived
and brought into this world. I agree, I thought that I wrote that
the analogy couldn’t be taken to far. >>What one does is determined
by one's NATURE. And thus a 'corrupt nature' can only do that which
is corrupt. Therefore all human beings being born with a corrupt
nature are sinners and 'by nature, children of wrath'! If what you
say is true, then Adam must have been created with a sinful nature,
otherwise he couldn’t have sinned. >You wrote: 'I affirm that
all men are born with corrupt natures. I deny that anybody will
be judged eternally for somebody else's sins. I will be judged by
mine, you will be judged by yours, Adam will be judged by his.'
>This statement contains both truth and falsehood. We are indeed
judged for what we do in the body, but not just for overt sins,
but also in thought, word and deed. As the clear teaching of the
Lord Christ shows in His Sermon on the Mount, it is not just murderers
who are guilty of breaking the law, but also those who have anger/hatred
in their hearts that are guilty of breaking the law. I agree wholeheartedly.
But, here again Jesus is defining sin as an action, whether in thought
or deed. And we will be judged by those thoughts and deeds. >Secondly,
we are indeed judged guilty in Adam! And it is upon this profound
truth that we are also saved. We are not saved due to our own perfection,
but upon the basis of an ALIEN RIGHTEOUSNESS; that of another. This
is Paul's point in Romans 5:12-18 exactly! There are two representatives
'heads' that have come; Adam the first who brought corruption and
condemnation upon all men who are of him, and Adam the second who
brought justification upon all men who are of Him. In both cases,
men are either condemned or justified by the acts of another. No.
We are saved by Christ’s work. We are condemned by our own work.
How else do we bear any responsibility. People will not be cursing
Adam in hell, they will be cursing themselves. >Reject the corporate
solidarity of Adam the first and you are forced to reject the corporate
solidarity of Adam the second. The entire premise of imputed righteousness
by virtue of the vicarious substitutionary atonement of the Lord
Jesus Christ is founded upon the imputed guilt and corruption of
Adam to the human race. Well, we are told that we must have faith
to be saved, there is a conditionality to salvation—even if it is
God who causes us to meet the condition, I don’t think you will
deny that. So, the imputation of guilt and righteousness, are not
the same. Unless you maintain that all men would have made the exact
same choice as Adam, hence he was THE perfect representative of
humanity. (a theory not supported by the Bible) Don’t forget, in
the same passage you quoted in Romans, Paul says: Romans 5:18 Consequently,
just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men,
so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
that brings life for all men. Are you prepared to accept Universalism?
>Therefore we are conceived as sinners, having inherited a corruption
of nature and the guilt of Adam and therefore are liable to the
just Judgment of God. Likewise, we who have been 'born again' by
the Spirit of God are made to be partakers of the atonement of Christ
and His righteousness by imputation and are thus pronounced 'guilty
in Him' and justified freely by grace. Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus
Christus and therefore Soli Deo Gloria I guess I never did ask you,
what do you think is the eternal destiny of all the aborted babies?
If you maintain that some are saved and some are lost, how do you
differentiate the two? Since infants can’t produce faith as defined
in the Reformed Confessions, it would seem that the logical position
is that all are in hell. This may in fact be the case, but for personal
reasons, I hope it is not.
|
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: Christopher
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20,
2000 at 20:29:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
>>>>>I think a case can be made that
Paul is referring to physical death being pronounced on all mankind
because of Adam’s sin.<<<<< Which is exactly what
the Greek Fathers taught, contrary to Augustine. I now wonder what
the Reformation would have looked like if Luther and Calvin had
looked to John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa (to name two) for
their interpretations of Rom 5 instead of the Bishop of Hippo. Christopher
|
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 05:01:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
>>>>>I think a case can be made that
Paul is referring to physical death being pronounced on all mankind
because of Adam’s sin.<<<<< Which is exactly what
the Greek Fathers taught, contrary to Augustine. I now wonder what
the Reformation would have looked like if Luther and Calvin had
looked to John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa (to name two) for
their interpretations of Rom 5 instead of the Bishop of Hippo. Christopher
---
I wonder what errors John Chrysostom and Gregory of
Nyssa (to name two) would have avoided if they'd relied more heavily
on the whole counsel of God (Is 28:10-13)...as the 'Sola' people
have been doing since antiquity? ;-) laz
|
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 11:14:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hi laz, Always willing to look at evidence from antiquity
that would support your claim... Christopher
|
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 13:17:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hi laz, Always willing to look at evidence from antiquity
that would support your claim... Christopher
---
No, always
willing to look at 'evidence of understanding' from antiquity to
see if it reflects faithful consistency with God's complete
and infallible testimony to us. ;-) laz
|
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21,
2000 at 13:59:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
'evidence of understanding?'
|
Subject: Re: A response to Pilgrim, from below
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20,
2000 at 16:41:43 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Eric, Aside from personal reasons, why would an aborted
human life be let into heaven? Damnation comes as a result of the
state of the individual. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it did
not bear fruit. Why does a tree not bear fruits? Because it is corrupt
from the beginning. The same holds true with human beings. We are
by nature sinners, corrupt in nature. An unregenerated person cannot
ever bear good fruits that are pleasing to God. Never. This inability
comes from their nature. A person sins because he is a sinner. One
does not become a sinner when one sins. That is original sin. Sin
is not an action but an attitude, or our nature. Chaff is chaff
by nature and wheat is wheat by nature. One other example. Jesus
told Nicodemus that unless a man be born again he cannot enter the
kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus questioned how a person could re-enter
his mother's womb. We are told by Christ that this is a born again
of the water and the Spirit. So obviously Jesus is not speaking
of physical birth here (in regards to your brainstemless embryo).
However it is interesting that Jesus would use birth in his teaching.
Let's look at what Paul stated in Romans about Adam and how all
are sinners by his transgression. By our natural birth we partake
in his sin. We are created corrupt because of sin that entered into
the world with Adam's transgression. Jesus is the second Adam. We
are spiritually reborn with Christ as our head. Adam is no longer
our head or authority. As believers we no longer have Adam's corruption.
We are imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. (I am speaking
of justification here and not sanctification, I do not hold to perfectionism).
So the one birth that was both natural and spiritual via Adam is
put away with the new birth which is in Jesus Christ. At the moment
we experience the spiritual but we will one day receive new glorified
bodies, our natural rebirth. So with that said what does it matter
as to what God does with aborted babies to us? God is soveriegn
and God is just. He will not wrongly send any individual to Hell,
especially since every person conceived deserves it due to their
corrupt, anti-God nature. The only injustice is that Jesus Christ,
blameless and holy, had to die for my sinful, corrupt soul. Praise
God for the mercy of sending His only Son to accomplish what would
take me an eternity in Hell to do. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: a reply to kevin
From: Eric
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 08:08:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I know you weren't trying to be callous in your post, but you asked:
Why should we care about aborted children, and the death of infants?
Have you ever had a close friend or relative lose a child? Do you
have any idea of the grief and anguish? Do you have kids? If not,
then you can’t imagine, if you do, you know what I am talking about.
How do you console a parent. Do you tell them that their infant
was an object of wrath who will spend an eternity in hell? Do you
stick to your theology at that point, and say that God may or may
not be merciful with the child? Now, let’s get back to the subject.
If we are all guilty of Adam’s sin, how do you explain this verse
from the same passage? Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from
the time of Adam to the time of Moses, ***even over those who did
not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam***, who was a pattern
of the one to come. Doesn’t that say that we are not guilty of Adam’s
sin? I did not hear an explanation as to the verse I quoted from
Ezekiel which clearly says that we will all be judged for our own
sins, and not the sins of another. Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins
is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the
father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness
of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness
of the wicked will be charged against him. Another interesting passage
that touches this subject: Acts 17:26-27 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 Now, how can God say that He determined the time and places
they will be born FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE THAT THEY MIGHT SEEK HIM,
if He created them with a corrupt sinful nature that CANNOT SEEK
HIM. Do you see the contradiction? If God is the sovereign creator
of life, and also is not the author of sin, how can he create sinful
creatures? Again, what sin has a fertilized egg/infant committed?
Please be biblical in your answer, being sure to include refutation
of Ez. 18:20 and Rom. 5:14. Maybe you can also touch on the reasons
why Jesus rebuked his disciples for hindering little children and
babies from being brought to Him, if they were objects of wrath,
detestable in His sight. I have provided many verses in this thread
that say that we will be judged eternally by our sins, and not the
sins of another. I have yet to be shown one verse that says that
we will be judged eternally by Adam’s sin.
|
Subject: Re: a reply to kevin
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 13:47:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric - there are some of us familiar with death of children....but
if you trust God's testimony...why should we be concerned with what
God does with fetus, infants, young children? He is God! He is Holy.
He is merciful and just. End of argument. Deut 29:29 As for paying
for others sins...context, context, context. Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me; Firstly, the ultimate sin that
resulted in DEATH (spiritual/physical) was committed by Adam...and
we all share in it! While we are 'charged' for our own sins (i.e.,
we pay for our own sins, unless justified) the consequences of our sins do impact our progeny and God says that such
consequences will be visited upon our kids, and their kids...is
this not a historically verifiable fact of life? But again, Adam's
sin is OUR SIN...and so...ALL DIE. As for children and Jesus CHrist...how
could Jesus the God-MAN think any differently about those He came to represent?
Did He not spend time with gross sinners? He was a MAN with a heart
for the lost! But we also know God hates sinners (Ps 5:5, 11:5 and
7:11). Are we to presume that all those kiddies on Jesus' lap went
to heaven...that they all confessed Christ in adulthood...that they
were all of the Elect? Context. And what of the kiddies killed by
the invading Israelites as they obeyed God/Jesus in possessing their
inheritance? Poor kiddies.... God has judged ALL men according to
Adam's sin. Also Romans 5:12-13 shows clearly that all
will die (but WHY???)....law or no law
(i.e., even if God can't charge us for OUR sin where there is no
law) ... BECAUSE Adam's ONE and original sin has
been imputed to all even if there may
be (or have been) some who did not know 'the law'... but again,
we DO know that they knew enough (Rom 1 & 2) such that NONE
HAVE AN ESCUSE (Rom1:20). Therefore as
by the offence of ONE judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation;
Rom 5:18) There you have it...what could
be plainer... Your case is completely baseless in light of scripture.
laz A fertilize egg is corruptable and not fit for heaven...unless...
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Only those specifically shown mercy by God...made FIT for heaven
according to His purposes and good pleasure, adult or fetus, will
be there....grace, grace...sweet grace, it is a gift, therefore
none can boast.
|
Subject: You make my point
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:10:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>but if you trust God's testimony...why should we be
concerned with what God does with fetus, infants, young children?
He is God! He is Holy. He is merciful and just. Amen. >>>
Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me; >>>Firstly, the ultimate sin that
resulted in DEATH (spiritual/physical) was committed by Adam...and
we all share in it! >>>While we are 'charged' for our own
sins (i.e., we pay for our own sins, unless justified) the consequences
of our sins do impact our progeny and God says that such consequences
will be visited upon our kids, and their kids...is this not a historically
verifiable fact of life? This is my point exactly. We suffer temporally
because of Adam’s sin, but not eternally. The consequences of Adam’s
sin is death. The consequence of David’s sin was the death of his
son, but the son went to heaven--temporal/eternal. All of humanity
suffers because of Adam’s sin, however, we are judged eternally
for our own sin, and not others. My parents got a divorce-I suffered
greatlly from it many years ago, but I won’t be held accountable
for my parent’s sin—temporal/eternal. >>>But again, Adam's
sin is OUR SIN...and so...ALL DIE. No, Adam’s sin is his sin. However,
Adam’s disobediance brought a curse upon all humanity, which we
all suffer for. Adam chose for mankind to be disobedient and trust
in themselves instead of God. We all suffer for that choice. That
is one of the reasons why faith is the key for salvation. Faith
in God is a return to our intended place, where we rely wholly on
God for our guidance. In effect, we return to the Garden of Eden,
and deny what seems right to ourselves, but trust in our Creator,
Jesus Christ. Since we are all subject to Adam’s choice, it takes
a sovereign move of God to restore us to a reliance upon Him, for
we know no other way but to trust in ourselves. Now at what point
do we assume responsibility for not trusting in God? I don’t know.
Scripture doesn’t speak on this issue. I suspect it is a lot earlier
than most people think. >>>As for children and Jesus Christ...how
could Jesus the God-MAN think any differently about those He came
to represent? Did He not spend time with gross sinners? He was a
MAN with a heart for the lost! But we also know God hates sinners
(Ps 5:5, 11:5 and 7:11). Are we to presume that all those kiddies
on Jesus' lap went to heaven...that they all confessed Christ in
adulthood...that they were all of the Elect? I think Christ came
to represent the elect, and not the reprobate. Your argument is
with The Christ. Matthew 18:3 And he said: 'I tell you the truth,
unless you change and become like little children, you will never
enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:13-14 Then little children
were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray
for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. [14]
Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder
them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' I will
use your words here….”There you have it...what could be plainer...
Your case is completely baseless in light of scripture.” : ) >>>And
what of the kiddies killed by the invading Israelites as they obeyed
God/Jesus in possessing their inheritance? Poor kiddies.... God
has judged ALL men according to Adam's sin. They suffer temporally,
I do not deny this at all. Do you have a verse that says that these
children that were slaughtered are in hell? >>>Also Romans
5:12-13 shows clearly that all will die (but WHY???)....law or no
law (i.e., even if God can't charge us for OUR sin where there is
no law) ... BECAUSE Adam's ONE and original sin has been imputed
to all even if there may be (or have been) some who did not know
'the law'... but again, we DO know that they knew enough (Rom 1
& 2) such that NONE HAVE AN ESCUSE (Rom1:20). Again, temporal
judgement. >>>Therefore as by the offence of ONE judgment
came upon ALL men to condemnation; Rom 5:18) >>>There you
have it...what could be plainer... Your case is completely baseless
in light of scripture. Why did you cut off that verse laz? Let’s
not stop there, lets continue on in the verse: …so also the result
of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for
all men. Crystal clear huh? So you are a Universalist? What could
be plainer? The following verse is: Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins
is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the
father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness
of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness
of the wicked will be charged against him. >>>A fertilize
egg is corruptable and not fit for heaven...unless... >>>1Co
15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
We will all undergo a change before heaven, we will receive incorruptible
bodies. >>>Only those specifically shown mercy by God...made
FIT for heaven according to His purposes and good pleasure, adult
or fetus, will be there...grace, grace...sweet grace, it is a gift,
therefore none can boast. I agree.
|
Subject: don't flatter yourself, ;-)
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 21:31:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
eric - please, universalism is clearly not biblical so the 'all men' being justifed can not possibly
mean every single person...as you recognize, so, it MUST mean the
Elect...the only ones who ever believe, those IN CHRIST. Same argument
for Jn 3:16 and the term 'world'. However, the part of the verse
I quoted DOES mean that Adam's sin is imputed to ALL men. Therefore
as by the offence of ONE judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation;
Rom 5:18 again, what could be plainer???? laz p.s. as for Jesus
Christ and children....the Kingdom belongs to SUCH
AS THESE, not literally or necessarily
children ... but a spiritual point is being made using a physical
analogy. The 'children' in view are THE ELECT...the sheep who hear
the Master's voice....babes in the Spirit...adopted children of
the Most High.
|
Subject: What could be plainer?
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:30:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
laz, The portion of the verse you cite as perfectly clear nowhere
says that Adam's sin is imputed to us, only that we are under judgement
due to it. Yet the verse *clearly* says that all men are justified.
What other verses do you read this way? I have given you verses
that *clearly state* that we will not be judged by another's sin,
and the best you can do is take a confusing passage and insist that
it is clear, when you don't even treat it as such. Interesting hermenutical
approach. :) Your response to Jesus and the children really doesn't
make any sense since Jesus rebuked the disciples for not allowing
them to be brought. Read it again. Did Jesus really rebuke the disciples
because they were hindering his object lesson? I have read some
of your other posts in other threads, and found you to be pretty
sharp, however, it should be obvious that you are really stretching
on this one. :)
|
Subject: Re: What could be plainer?
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:10:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
I can agree with you on one point,
and one point only: that the text in question is not as clear as
many others found in Holy Writ. However, having said that, your
understanding of the text is clearly in error. What IS clear, is
that Paul is setting up a comparison between many things, a couple
of them being the condemnation, 1) The condemnation which comes
upon all mankind, they being descended from Adam and the justification
which comes upon all men as they are descended from Christ. 2) The
federal headship of Adam over those who are descended from him and
the federal headship of Christ over all those who are descended
from Him. Now, the actually relational bond which exists between
the descendants of Adam and those of Christ is entirely different
matter. All mankind, without exception are descendants of Adam according
to the flesh. But those who are related to Christ are so not by
the flesh but by virtue of the Spirit through the faith given to
them and the consequent Justification received. One need not be
a theological scholar or academician to be able to read through
the Scriptures, especially the N.T. and see that the vast majority
of mankind will be consigned to eternal damnation and that only
a remnant will be saved. Those who are saved are those who have
been JUSTIFIED by grace through faith in the Lord Christ and Him
alone. This justification includes their ADOPTION into the kingdom
of God whereby they are given to be heirs of eternal blessing and
glory. In addition to this future aspect, they now, in the body
are given to be partakers of the divine nature and thus are made
one with Christ relationally, in body, spirit and as 'joint heirs'
with Him. To suggest, as you clearly have, that the 'all men' in
the passage is a universal phrase which includes all men all inclusively,
without distinction would be a flat contradiction of the doctrine
of the final Judgment and eternal punishment. For it would of necessity
conclude that 'all men' are in Christ and thus justified and destined
for eternal glory. Therefore, the 'all men' phrase is to be rightly
understood as referring to 'all' who are under the headship of the
respective individuals; Adam and the Lord Christ and are the recipients
of either the condemnation or justification which each brings. One
other note: The Apostle Paul writes,
'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.' Eph 2:3
If all mankind are born without
sin, and continue to be without sin until their first act of transgression,
as you have so stated, on what basis is God wroth with them? Further
Paul says this state of being under the wrath of God is one which
is inherent with all men, for it is 'by
nature'. Unless you are wanting to redefine
what 'by nature' means; i.e., that there are various morphisms of
nature through a person's life, then I cannot see anyway of escaping
the obvious truth here, that at conception, there is a radical rift
between a person and God which warrants God's eternal wrath. We
know that God's wrath never is shown to the righteous but only to
the wicked, for He is a just God and always does right (Gen 18:25;
cf. Ps 1:4-6; 5:4, 5; 7:11; 11:5-7; Eph 1:4-13; etc.) One cannot
have imputed 'guilt' without also having that which is responsible
for that 'guilt', i.e., the sin itself. This would be far more of
a case of injustice than what you are objecting to. There is nothing
in all Scripture which would suggest that anyone is born anything
other than sinful and under the just condemnation of God. All are
in need of the new BIRTH, for their first birth which is of the
flesh in corrupt and therefore cannot even 'see the kingdom of God'.
What amazes me is that even Semi-Pelagianism acknowledges that all
men are born with a corrupt nature, while they err in saying that
there is yet a very small part of that nature that remains untouched
by sin and therefore is able to respond to the Gospel if it so will.
But what you are espousing is nothing less than humanism, which
relegates sin to something external to man and therefore cannot
be held accountable until some overt transgression has been committed.
This is hardly a biblical or a Christian view.
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Universalism-NO!
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:46:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You probably weren't closely following my posts with laz, I deny
Universalism. You are right, it is foreign to scripture. I was making
a point that one needs to be careful in how we interpret that passage.
I was trying to be absurd. (Insert your own comment here)--talk
about a softball! :) As to the verse in Ephesians. It seems to me
that Paul is referring to the fact that we are under judgement because
of the way we walked in our former lives. I haven't thought this
through totally, but when we sin(which we all do), we confirm Adam
as our representative. When we have faith in Christ, we confirm
Him as our represntative. I deny semi-pelagianism. There is no part
of us that isn't corrupted, and that can exercise faith in Christ
without the power of God. As to Humanism, I don't get how you come
to that conclusion from reading what I have posted. We are all sinners,
it is who we are. We are not good people who happen to make mistakes.
Now, will you tell me how you reconcile Ezekiel 18:20 with the imputation
of Adam's sins. Perhaps you have thought of a way to do this, credibly.
I haven't. I was hoping that somebody would provide it, but nobody
has yet.
|
Subject: Re: What could be plainer?
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 12:37:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
laz, The portion of the verse you cite as perfectly clear nowhere
says that Adam's sin is imputed to us, only that we are under judgement
due to it. Yet the verse *clearly* says that all men are justified.
What other verses do you read this way? I have given you verses
that *clearly state* that we will not be judged by another's sin,
and the best you can do is take a confusing passage and insist that
it is clear, when you don't even treat it as such. Interesting hermenutical
approach. :) Your response to Jesus and the children really doesn't
make any sense since Jesus rebuked the disciples for not allowing
them to be brought. Read it again. Did Jesus really rebuke the disciples
because they were hindering his object lesson? I have read some
of your other posts in other threads, and found you to be pretty
sharp, however, it should be obvious that you are really stretching
on this one. :)
---
Eric, we both know that Rom 5:15-16
can't 'clearly' be talking about universalism...it's not even being
hinted. Rom 5:15-16 But not as the offence, so also is the free
gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more
the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus
Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is
of many offences
unto justification. CLEARLY, justification is imputed from ONE person
to those found IN the second Adam....as condemnation has been imputed
from ONE person to those found IN the first Adam. Again, what part
is not clear....and pls forget the argument for universalism...it's
getting kinda silly. laz
|
Subject: okay
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:51:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You are right, Romans 5:18 does, which was the verse you quoted
at first. Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass
was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness
was justification that brings life for all men. You are right it
was silly. It was meant to be. My only point was that the passage
must be interpreted in light of others, which you have done with
the **all men*** portion of it, but IMHO, failed to do with the
first part of it. I think the horse is dead, I will put down my
whip.
|
Subject: Re: You make my point
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 19:33:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric, You posted: ///This is my point exactly. We suffer temporally
because of Adam’s sin, but not eternally. The consequences of Adam’s
sin is death. The consequence of David’s sin was the death of his
son, but the son went to heaven--temporal/eternal. All of humanity
suffers because of Adam’s sin, however, we are judged eternally
for our own sin, and not others. My parents got a divorce-I suffered
greatlly from it many years ago, but I won’t be held accountable
for my parent’s sin—temporal/eternal. 1) What is your scriptural
basis for the temporal/eternal suffering? It can't be Ez. 18:20
because it mentions that the sins of the fathers will not visit
their children, yet you agree that they do temporally, however,
that is not what Ezekiel is dealing with. It seems he is speaking
for God against those who use 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
adn the children's teeth are set on edge' as an excuse for their
condition. There is correction here to an error that simply because
sins are passed down (ie. alchoholism, spouse abuse, child abuse)
the children are still accountable for their actions. Basically
God is correcting a problem that is prevelant in our society today.
'it is not my fault.' 'If I was only raised in the proper environment.'
Look at Ez. 18:14. I think that is what Ezekiel is dealing with.
This is not the issue of federal headship being disputed but the
issue of children seeing the sins of their parents and then commiting
the same sins and then the children blaming their parents for their
own sin. 2) With the above in mind how does this relate to Adam's
transgression and our fallen, sinful nature? The two are not the
same, but they are not mutually exclusive either. To believe that
we can do nothing but sin until the Holy Spirit enlightens our hearts
to repent and believe ont he Lord Jesus Christ is (1) grace and
(2) the truth that we witness Adam's transgression by nature of
our being and still commit sin as Adam did does not mean that we
can point to Adam and say it is his fault. That is how Ez 18 fits
into original sin and Adam's sin passed down to us. 3) I will admit
that I do not recall but may be wrong, where does it say that the
first child of David and Uriah's wife went to heaven? ///No, Adam’s
sin is his sin. However, Adam’s disobediance brought a curse upon
all humanity, which we all suffer for. Your statement is not really
in disagreement with laz. Because of the curse of Adam, which you
have stated you believe was put upon all humanity (however inclusive
you deem humanity to be) Jesus Christ had to become a curse for
us redeeming us from Adam's curse (Gal. 3:13). Therefore all humanity
is subject to the penalty of the curse received from Adam. That
penalty is eternal damnation. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Answers to kevin
From: Eric
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:15:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
kevin, Thanks for your thoughtful questions, it is refreshing. I
will try and answer your questions completely. I get my view of
temporal vs. eternal judgement from my underlying assumption that
the Bible is the Word of God, and inerrant in the original autographs.
So, when I run across statements that SEEM to contradict themselves,
I assume that I am not understanding the original intent of the
author, and I seek to reconcile the apparent contradiction to the
best of my ability. If you remember how this thread got started,
I asked for what sins would an infant be sent to hell for, and I
was told Adam’s sin. I looked through the scriptures, and I find
no mention of that, but I do see direct statements that say that
people will not be judged for the sins of others, only their own.
But the scriptures are also clear that death entered the world because
of Adam’s sin. Based upon experience, and the Biblical record, it
is obvious that everybody does suffer due to the sins of others
in this world. The only way that I can reconcile the two, is to
affirm that we suffer temporal punishment as a result of other’s
sin, and we suffer eternal judgement for our own. In this way, there
is no contradiction, when we keep in mind that the word death is
used differently. As to David’s child being in heaven, I confess
that the only person I have ever heard on this topic was R.C. Sproul.
He said that in 2 Sam.12:23 when David says he will return to his
child, but that the child will not return to him, is referring to
David seeing the child again after he dies. On to Ezekiel 18. I
see where you are coming from in your interpretation of this passage,
but I did not notice this until just now, but this seems to directly
refer to the notion of imputed guilt. Read verses 14-20 carefully,
pay particular attention to verse 19, and the question that was
asked. [14] 'But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins
his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such
things: [15] 'He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to
the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's
wife. [16] He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a
loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked. [17] He withholds his hand
from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws
and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he
will surely live. [18] But his father will die for his own sin,
because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what
was wrong among his people. **** [19] 'Yet you ask, 'Why does the
son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what
is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he
will surely live. [20] The soul who sins is the one who will die.
The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father
share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man
will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be
charged against him. Did you see it? Verses 14-18 talk about a son
whose father was wicked, but the son was righteous, it goes on to
list all the righteous thinks that the son does. And then verse
19 says ***YET YOU ASK…*** So the author carefully spells out that
the son is righteous, and the questioner asks why does he not share
the guilt of his father, this can’t be referring to imitated deeds,
it has to refer to imputed guilt. The author then goes on to say
that we will be judged for our own sins. We confirm Adam’s representation
of us every time we sin. I am a firm believer in the Providence
of God. I started out this thread by stating that it is my belief
that it is an act of God’s mercy upon infants who die, it isn’t
by accident, it has been determined from long ago. I think I have
answered your questions, now will you answer mine from the previous
post?
|
Subject: Re: Answers to kevin
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:23:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
The truth here is so clear. .
. 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die. . .' (Ezek 18:4, 20). Since
infants die; since unborn children die; since miscarriages occur
whereby the 'embryo' dies; then one must conclude that sin is inherent?
'The wages of sin is death!' and 'for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die.' (Gen 2:7). Physical death is but
the outward manifestation of the inward spiritual death which brought
it about. Did God therefore lie? He said, 'in
the day that thou eastes thereof thou
shalt surely die.' Yet we see both Adam and Eve still drawing breath
and afterwards hiding their nakedness with leaves and thereafter
conversing with God. This doesn't fit the description of 'physical
death'!! Either they died that day as God said they would or they
didn't!
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Last Post
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 05:13:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, We all know that when the bible speaks of death, it has
a variety of meanings. When God said that Adam shall die in the
day that he eats of the tree. I think it is valid to interpret that
as being the time when Adam's body was subject to decay, and he
ceased to be immortal. Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you
will eat your food until you return to the ground,since from it
you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.' Nowhere
does God say that it would be a spiritual death. In fact, God has
to send Adam out of the garden because he now has the knowledge
of good and evil. Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, 'The man has
now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be
allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life
and eat, and live forever.' Any further discussion on this topic
will probably be unfruitful. God bless you and yours.
|
Subject: Re: Last Post
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:44:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
For once we can agree on something.
. . any further discussion will be unfruitful. You have failed to
deal with many passages I have offered to you personally, eg., this
last text where God said Adam would die 'on the day he ate. ..'
Your constant attempts to skirt such texts is unfortunate. Secondly,
you have failed to reply to my logical reasons which are the result
of my exegetical study of various texts, eg., Rom 5:12-18. What
I have heard echoing through your posts is, 'I haven't been shown
one passage that says that Adam's sin was inherited by anyone else.'
This is childish and ineffective. Do you also deny the Trinity because
there isn't one passage that states that God is one and three persons?
You haven't offered any support whatsoever for your view that infants
die but are found guiltless, even though you admit they are born
with a corrupt nature. You have also failed to offer any support
for your view that spiritual death occurs only afterward and as
a result of a person's first actual overt sin. You have also failed
to give any support whatsoever that 'sin' is restricted to actual
physical action and not as the Scriptures teach that sin is the
fruit of one's nature. If one's nature is corrupt, then the 'fruit'
will also be corrupt. Therefore condemnation is due to the nature
one possesses and not how much, how little or even if it isn't expressed.
Men, women, children, unborn infants will be condemned because of
WHO THEY ARE, and not simply on what they have done or not done
in life. There are but two TYPES of people; sheep and goats! Each
will evidence their natures of who they are by what they think,
feel and do. James sets forth the nature of the redeemed when he
says, 'faith without works is dead'. A regenerated nature is given
faith which will and must show forth its existence by good works.
But God doesn't have to see a person's 'good works' to know his
nature, for it is God who sovereignly recreates the new nature,
or by-passes a person and leaves him/her in their corrupt nature,
which will and must express itself in 'bad works'! Those who are
yet in the womb and have been destined to die in the womb are not
subject to the scrutiny of men as to whether or not they are elect
or reprobate. We know that all men die physically because they are
GUILTY OF SIN, else they wouldn't die. Those unborn infants who
God has set His eternal love and mercy are regenerated and taken
home. All others are left in their natural state and will receive
their just reward as all others like them. Lastly, you may not like
having someone point out the fact that your view of Original Sin,
which you deny, is humanistic in origin. You can deny it all you
want, but it's just the facts as it is true that your potpourri
of ideas are a mishmash of Pelagianism, Humanism and Arminianism
and simply aren't biblical and/or Christian.
Enjoy the day, Pilgrim |
Subject: Hopefully the last post
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 09:10:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You might think that my asking to be shown from scripture that we
are judged eternally for Adam's sin and not our own is childish,
I do not. I have answered every verse you have quoted, because I
don't interpret them the way you do, does not mean I haven't dealt
with them. I did not deal with verses that you referenced without
posting the text though, I do not have the time. I don't deny the
Trinity because it isn't explicitly mentioned in scripture, rather
I affirm it, because it is mentioned in numerous passages that can't
be reconciled in any other way, and they don't need to be because
they don't contradict scripture. I have given numerous verses that
say that we are judged eternally for *our* sins, and have not found
one that says we are judged eternally for the sins of Adam. I have
also given crystal clear passages of scripture which say that our
sould will not die because of somebody elses sin, but only it's
own. I have also given you Jesus's words about infants and young
children, and your view, as presented by laz, is really weak. As
far as the New Testament interpreting the Old Testament, as a general
rule is the best way to go, but not when passages are unclear or
confusing. All scripture is profitable..., and remember, Paul is
talking about the OT here, as you are aware that the NT wasn't available.
The most sound approach, is to let the clear interpret the unclear.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, nobody takes Romans 5:12-18 completely
at face value. As far as your notion that my ideas are a mish-mash
of Arminianism, Humanism, Pelagianism, and Anti-Christian, I really
have no reply. I would be curious though if you think I am not a
Christian because I disagree with the Reformed view of Original
Sin. Didn't Martin Luther say something about it not being safe
or right to change his views unless convinced by scripture and reason?
You have not convinced me my brother. I have repeatedly posted that
all men are sinners and in need of a Saviour, and cannot come to
Christ without the life giving power of the Holy Spirit. If that
makes me a heretic, well then I guess I am.
|
Subject: Re: Answers to kevin
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:49:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric, First, what questions were asked that I did not address? Second,
where is it written in scripture that David and Bathsheeba's first
child went to heaven? Third, I am not in disagreement with your
interpretation of the passage in Ezekiel. It seems to me that we
agree that it is dealing with those who pick up their parents sins.
However, I fail to see how this supports your view of an age of
innocence. Why did the child of the wicked father not commit the
sins of his father? Was it because God gave him a heart of flesh
for a heart of stone? If this is the case when did God do this?
The passage is silent. You assume that people are born with no inclination
towards sin. That is what the view of all babies go to heaven must
believe. You must deny that all people are conceived with a sinful
nature to maintain a salvation that saves all infants and unborn
babies. THis brings us back to an earlier question. Are we by nature
of who we are in Adam sinners? Or are we not? Look again at James
and his view of what comes out of the heart being spout from the
mouth. Look at Jesus' when he tells the Pharisees they are the children
of the devil. With the fall of Adam sin entered into the world.
God creates us to be in this world and as a result of us being born
into this world we are imputed with Adam's sin. Basically, if you
hold to the salvation of all unborn and young children then you
do not hold to original sin as described in the scriptures. In Him,
kevin sdg
|
Subject: More answers to kevin...
From: Eric
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 13:12:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Here you go kevin, this thread has pretty much run it’s course,
perhaps after you answer the questions below, we should wrap it
up. >>Second, where is it written in scripture that David
and Bathsheeba's first child went to heaven? I answered that in
the previous post, re-read it—it was early on in the post. >>>It
seems to me that we agree that it is dealing with those who pick
up their parents sins. It is dealing with our being judged for our
own sins, and not the sins of others. >>>However, I fail
to see how this supports your view of an age of innocence. Why did
the child of the wicked father not commit the sins of his father?
Was it because God gave him a heart of flesh for a heart of stone?
If this is the case when did God do this? The passage is silent.
Not the issue in question. We are in substantial agreement on this
topic. >>>You assume that people are born with no inclination
towards sin. That is what the view of all babies go to heaven must
believe. You must deny that all people are conceived with a sinful
nature to maintain a salvation that saves all infants and unborn
babies. Absolutely not. I have repeatedly said that we are all destined
to sin because of Adam. It can’t be avoided. We have a corrupted
nature, we all do what is right in our own eyes as opposed to trusting
in God. My view is that we will be judged for our sins that flow
out of this corrupted nature as opposed to being judged by this
nature. Again, Christ says that we are judged by our works. >>>This
brings us back to an earlier question. Are we by nature of who we
are in Adam sinners? Or are we not? Look again at James and his
view of what comes out of the heart being spout from the mouth.
Look at Jesus' when he tells the Pharisees they are the children
of the devil. With the fall of Adam sin entered into the world.
God creates us to be in this world and as a result of us being born
into this world we are imputed with Adam's sin. What is the heart
that James is speaking about? Is it not our thoughts and attitudes?
How does this apply to an embryo? >>>Basically, if you
hold to the salvation of all unborn and young children then you
do not hold to original sin as described in the scriptures. No,
I don’t hold to Original Sin as described in the Reformed confessions.
You have yet to provide me a scripture that says Adam’s sin is imputed
to all men which they will then be held accountable for. I would
say that you don’t hold to Original Sin as described in the scriptures.
Now, for the questions from before. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death
reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, ***even over
those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam***, who
was a pattern of the one to come. Doesn’t that say that we are not
guilty of Adam’s sin? Didn’t you say that babies are suffering in
hell because of Adam’sin. This seems to suggest that our sin is
not the same as Adam’s. I did not hear an explanation as to the
verse I quoted from Ezekiel which clearly says that we will all
be judged for our own sins, and not the sins of another. You affirm
that we suffer both temporally and eternally for or ancestor’s sins.
What option do you have other than to say that this verse isn’t
inspired? Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die.
The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father
share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man
will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be
charged against him. Another interesting passage that touches this
subject: Acts 17:26-27 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 Now,
how can God say that He determined the time and places they will
be born FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE THAT THEY MIGHT SEEK HIM, if He
created them spiritually dead. Do you see the contradiction? If
God is the sovereign creator of life, and also is not the author
of sin, how can he create sinful, dead creatures? Please touch on
the reasons why Jesus rebuked his disciples for hindering little
children and babies from being brought to Him, if they were objects
of wrath, detestable in His sight. Matthew 18:3 And he said: 'I
tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children,
you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:13-14 Then
little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands
on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought
them. [14] Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and
do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as
these.' I have provided many verses in this thread that say that
we will be judged eternally by our sins, and not the sins of another.
I have yet to be shown one verse that says that we will be judged
eternally by Adam’s sin, because there isn’t one. We both agree
that scripture is not explicit on the issue of the fate of the unborn
or infants. We both agree that it is only by God’s wonderful mercy
that anybody will be in heaven, and we both agree that if everybody
was left to do what seems right to them, they would deservedly end
up in hell. This issue is really very minor, and my position is
only slightly different than yours. However, I do thank you for
causing me to read the scriptures more closely—something that I
should do more of, more often. I do hope that you have read my posts
in the manner that they were intended-sincerity and respectfully.
Thank you.
|
Subject: Re: More answers to kevin...
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 19:42:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric, I am unable to answer your questions for a couple of reasons.
1) I feel I already have in regards to original sin. 2) So has Pilgrim
and laz. 3) In one of your posts to Pilgrim you affirm agreement
with him on original sin, yet you tell me that scripture does not
teach imputation of Adam's sin. Do you find a difference between
the two? I do not. 4) What answer do you want to hear regarding
Ezekiel? I will try one more time to give you my view on Chapter
18 of Ezekiel. The prophet just finished explaining the purposes
of God in respect ot the future of His kingdom and glory in the
world. He now is getting on them about their sin by pleading the
case of the righteous. All of 18 is to be seen in light of the parable
that Ezekiel is refuting. The Isrealites are claiming that their
state is not a result of their sin but of their misfortune. The
quoted false proverb supports their thinking. However, this is not
the case and that is whay Ezekiel is telling them. It is the same
with us. Our death, spiritual and physical is a direct result of
Adam's transgression (the Romans verse you and laz have been discussing).
We can try to say 'why does God still find fault? For who has resisted
His will?' (Rom. 9:19) Paul replies by saying who are we to reply
against God? Indeed who are we. Since death has always reigned over
everyone, even those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression,
who is the type of Him who was to come. The free gift is not like
the offense. (Rom 5:14) Look at all of Romans 5. Notice that vs
12 begins with therefore. Read what leads up to Paul's therefore.
I hope that you do understand that original sin and the imputation
of Adam's sin are virtually synonymous. I also hope you see what
I am stating in regards to Ezekiel and how it coincides so nicely
with Chapter 9 of Romans. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Last post on the subject
From: Eric
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 05:01:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
We have reached a dead end my friend. You interpret Ez. 18 in light
of Romans 5:12-18, and I interpret Romans 5:12-18 in light of Ez.
18. I think it was Augustine who said in essentials-unity, in non-essentials-liberty,
and in all things charity. Take care and God bless.
|
Subject: Re: Last post on the subject
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 14:48:41 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Take care my brother and I hope to see you in future posts. Thank
you for the challenge. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Last post on the subject
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:10:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
We have reached a dead end my friend. You interpret Ez. 18 in light
of Romans 5:12-18, and I interpret Romans 5:12-18 in light of Ez.
18. I think it was Augustine who said in essentials-unity, in non-essentials-liberty,
and in all things charity. Take care and God bless.
---
Eric,
1) Augustine also said, 'The New
Testament is in the Old Testament contained, the Old Testament is
in the New Testament explained! ie., your hermeneutic is not that
which the Bible itself teaches. You've got it backwards my friend.
2) The 'essentials' to which Augustine referred to included Original
Sin, as his prolific and sober arguments against Pelagius and his
followers clearly show. The result with an official declaration
of the church in the Council of Orange. This same heresy in modified
form came and went for centuries afterward, always being rejected
and it came to be debated once again during the Quinquarticular
Controversy in 1618-19 at the great Synod of Dortrecht and again,
it was exposed as unbiblical and pronounced heretical by a unanimous
vote. Thus this subject is not one of the 'non-essentials' which
is what most heretics are quick to cry out in their own behalf so
as to not have their error exposed for what it is....... heresy
clear and simple! |
Subject: Re: Last post on the subject
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:08:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
We have reached a dead end my friend. You interpret Ez. 18 in light
of Romans 5:12-18, and I interpret Romans 5:12-18 in light of Ez.
18. I think it was Augustine who said in essentials-unity, in non-essentials-liberty,
and in all things charity. Take care and God bless.
---
OK, just one last pt...the NT is clearer than th OT...so, we should
interprete the OT in light of the NT. ;-) laz
|
Subject: Re: a reply to kevin
From: kevin
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 08:51:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric, You still fail to understand original sin. We are condemned
to hell by our nature. Our actions are only the outworking of that
nature. Bad tree. Bad fruits. Good tree. Good fruits. We obtain
salvation once again by our nature. Unless God changes a persons
heart of stone to one of flesh then that persons nature will not
be changed. Unless one is born again of the Spirit then that person
does not have a new nature. In Adam's sin all of the human race
received the nature of sin, hence we sin. Adam is our representative.
Now Jesus Christ has become our representative. His nature is imputed
upon us. We are no longer slaves to sin unto death but slaves to
righteousness unto eternal life. So it is not a matter of what we
do and do not do. That is only sin in practice. Sin is not simply
an action. Remember Jesus' statement to the men wanting to stone
the woman caught in adultery? If someone sins in their heart then
they sin outwardly. James affirms this by stating that the tongue
only puts forth that which is in the heart. If the heart is one
of stone and enmity towards God then it naturally spouts forth sinful
actions. If it is one that is quickened by the Spirit of God then
faith that is pleasing to God is brought out. That is faith with
deeds that is not dead. Whereas our works do not save us but our
faith in Christ produces works, also neither do our works condemn
us but our sinful nature that is within us which produces the sinful
actions. As to what do I tell my friends. God is sovereign and the
same hope and grace that saves small children, adults, everyone
is the same that saves unborn children. The only other option is
to state that God has a different plan for unborn infants and really
young children than he does for those who are older. Jesus Christ
is the only propitiation for our sins. Nothing else. If one's name
is written in the book of life from the foundation of the world
then that person is saved. Unborn infants acquire salvation the
same way their parents (if they are Christians) did. By the grace
and mercy of God our Father who, while we were yet sinners sent
His only Son to die for us. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: a reply to kevin
From: Eric
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 09:56:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
All I have asked for is one verse that says we will be judged eternally
by our nature as opposed to our actual sins(both outward and inward).
You are emphatic that it is not our sins that send us to hell, but
our nature. Is this nature than sin? If so, this contradicts Ezekiel.
If Adam's sin is imputed to us, in which we will be judged, then
we better rethink inerrancy. In actuality kevin, it is you who has
set up two systems of salvation. One for infants/and the mentally
impaired, and one for adults. For adults must have faith in Christ,
which is expressed outwardly in confession, and inwardly in the
mental process of believing. Unless you hold to all who die in infancy
are in hell. How did David's child enter heaven? Did he exercise
faith, or was he saved apart from faith in Christ alone?
|
Subject: Re: a reply to kevin
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 10:21:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
Faith is that which resides in
the heart and is expressed outwardly by the mouth and evidenced
in the acts of the body. One is saved by GRACE through faith. The
Spirit of God is He who implants faith in the heart at the time
of regeneration. Men, by nature have only unbelief and NO FAITH
in God. Faith is more than an assent to facts or truths... it is
a personal resting in and dependency upon Christ which flows out
of a hatred of sin and a love of holiness. Regeneration is given
to only the Elect and was foreordained before the foundation of
the world to be implemented in God's good time to those whom He
foreloved. Faith, being part and parcel of regeneration is not therefore
dependent upon anything of man. Man simply responds in believing
upon Christ AFTER faith has been given. Thus, NO ONE is unable to
receive faith in regeneration, including infants and those who are
born with diminished capacities, who are unable to outwardly express
that faith in ways which 'normal adults' are expected to do. Therefore,
elect infants, indeed all the elect are saved by faith in the same
manner. The expression of that faith obviously differs with the
state of the individual. There is no dual salvation involved in
any of this. Pelagians of course cannot comprehend grace, nor will
they for it would mean a total abandonment of their self-appointed
autocracy.
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Sharing the Gospel
From: Chris
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 14:21:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello All, I want to say something in response to all the talk about
Witnessing on the Job. That is since when does sharing Christ become
forcing? When you share Christ with someone and they either change
the subject or tell you they dont want to hear it, then dont talk
to them about it! Very simple to understand, but if that individual
does not say anything and continues to listen, whether or not they
will agree, then its your responsibility to share it. I do pray
and wait of the Lord, but you have to remember the commission given
by the Lord in Matthew 28:19-20 and in Mark 16:15-16. Jesus says
GO! Why are we so quick to say 'wait on the Lord' when the Lord
already said 'GO!' If we are living in the Spirit and walking in
the Spirit, yes the Spirit may direct our thoughts, paths, etc.
But the courage and ability to share the Gospel is always there.
WE MUST OR WE WILL BUST:)
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Vernon
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:03:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello To All, May I ask a question....'Good.' What is the meaning
of the word 'Witness' and what is 'Sharing?' Also, is the word 'Go'
in the original context of (Matt. 28:19-20 )? Chris, I am never
against sharing the gospel with anyone,but there is truth to the
fact that it is God who prepares the man's heart to believe. This
I believe. Otherwise, man would never be able to believe. He may
hear you but never believe. We do not know whom God has prepared,
so, pray and ask God to lead you to that heart whom He has prepared
to hear and receive your sharing of the gospel so that it falls
not on closed ears. Hang in there and keep seeking and sharing the
truth of the gospel. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Chris
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 04:47:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon, To be a witness is to be able to testify to the account
of Jesus Christ. We have that testimony shed abroud in our hearts
by the Holy Spirit that He has given to us. My understanding of
Go in Matthew 28 is that instead of waiting for them to come to
us, we need to go and share with others the gospel that those who
may hear will be saved. We share with all(universal call), so that
those who are Gods sheep will hear and come out from among the world(effectual
call). I can pray and seek His guidance, which my Wife and I do
everyday, but the gospel will always fall on people who will not
hear, but through sharing with all, it could fall on the one who
will hear and that is why we are here(Along with becoming Spiritually
mature.) You are right it is not for us to know who God has prepared,
but its our responsibility to obey the Great Commission. In Christ,
Chris
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 15:20:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris,
I certainly agree with much you
said, but I must correct this misunderstanding and thus misuse of
Matt 28:18-20. I realize that this is like trying to sell freezers
to the Eskimos when one questions the contemporary understanding
of this text and others, e.g., John 3:16, Rev 2:20, etc. The errors
have been so ingrained in the minds of people, that to root them
out is nearly impossible humanly speaking, of course! :-) The current
and popular misunderstanding of this passage is exactly as you have
rendered it, 'Jesus says GO! Why are
we so quick to say 'wait on the Lord' when the Lord already said
'GO!'' In the original Greek text,
the word 'GO' is not the main verb at all, but rather a participle.
The main verb is 'make' with it's object being 'disciples'. Thus
'make disciples'
is what the Lord Christ is emphasizing in that passage. In other
words, if I may be so bold as to paraphrase what the Lord Christ
said there, 'As you are going [about your daily lives], MAKE DISCIPLES,
of those people who the Spirit brings in your way. Teach them all
I have commanded you, and if they should be given repentance and
faith, baptize them with the Trinitarian formula of 'Father, Son
and Holy Ghost'.' The main thrust in this passage is the injunction
to instruct people in the Word of God who have shown a genuine interest
in the Lord Christ. There is no mention of beating people over the
head with the '4 Spiritual Laws', or handing out neato 'Gospel Tracts'
to people indiscriminately on the street, only to have them littering
the byways with them. The passage isn't dealing with those called
to be Evangelists or Preachers of the Word of God, who do so at
designated places and times. The command is not then to 'GO!'; to
run helter skelter throughout parking lots, stores or even places
of employment making rude and/or boisterous proclamations about
the Lord Christ, salvation, damnation, etc. The command of the Lord
is to make sure that the opposite is done; to preach/teach the WHOLE
COUNSEL of God over a period of time as the Lord providentially
brings people into your daily life.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: PesterBrat
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 16:02:26 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Yada, yada,
yada :^ ). Come on brother. Don't put everyone in the same boat!
Not everyone is boistrous and obnoxious, anymore than everyone here
is heartless, rude and insensitive :^ ). There is nothing wrong
with TRACTS, if they are done in the right manner. Now I used to
have one that was done improperly. And thanks to the Lord (and you)
that got changed. Now I will be the first one to admit that TRACTS
ARE NOT TO REPLACE WITNESSING AND DISCIPLING!!! But I hope that
you aren't saying that God cannot use His Word that is on a Tract
as He regenerates one of His sheep! If it contains the printed Word,
and doesn't have the 'prayer formula' and promise assurance of salvation
just because someone did pray, there is nothing wrong with it. Especially
if a person who lovingly embraces the doctrines of sovereign grace
writes them :^ ). By the way, how dost thou feel about the commissioning
of the 70 as it relates to door-knocking today? Anything wrong with
door knocking my brother? Brother Bret
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: laz
To: PesterBrat
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 19:44:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Dear PesterBrat...you do have a point about tracts...I've seen reformed
ones...great for doctor's offices or public toilets. That gives
me an idea! ;-) About door knocking....good question. It's actually
worse than getting a call at dinner time from AT&T (if you're
a happy MCI customer)...hehe What do you say to people? KNOCK, KNOCK
Hello, I'm Pastor PesterBrat...do you know
that you're a wretched sinner beyond human hope? hehe blessings, laz
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: PesterBrat
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 19:40:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret,
I sense that there is a personal
element in your reply, no? :-) But to the object questions you asked.
No, there is nothing wrong with tracts. But there is much wrong
with the popular way of using them, that is indiscriminately handing
them out to complete strangers as they happen by a 'zealot soul
winner' on a busy street. Certainly this cannot be seen as a productive
method of evangelism, not is it conducive to 'making disciples'.
We have become a very impersonal society in the Western world and
tossing out tracts is just another vain expression of it. Tracts
used rightly can be an valuable tool, eg., leaving a relevant tract
with someone you have been discussing biblical things with as 'food
for thought' to be followed up on at a later date. As to the commissioning
of the 70, I think it would be presumptuous to assume that the Lord
Christ sent them out primarily to 'knock on doors'. Can you please
direct me to any portion of Scripture where we read that Paul, Peter,
James, or any disciple of Christ randomly entered a town and 'knocked
on doors'? Having the elders, deacons and/or pastor of a church
along with godly and knowledgeable laymen go into the surrounding
neighborhood of their church and knock on doors to make themselves
known and to speak of the Lord Christ as the Spirit would provide
opportunities is an entirely different matter, and a practice that
I surely endorse. For this is far more personal and it has a reasonable
goal and expectation of gathering people for discipleship under
the tutelage of the appointed pastor/teachers of a sanctioned local
church. There is no 'yada, yada, yada' to be seen here whatsoever,
but a valid disdain for the methods and those who would profane
the name of God Incarnate; the LORD Jesus Christ by placarding his
name on bumper stickers in the same manner as many put such things
as 'I love country music' or an advertisement for their local Rock
radio station. Is this a practice which should even enter the mind
of one who professes to have a profound understanding of the majesty
of the King of Kings? Can you honestly say that 'Honk if you love
Jesus!' is honoring to the precious name of the Lord Christ; God
Almighty come in the flesh? God struck dead many for doing even
less for 'taking the name of the Lord in vain'. The Madison Avenue
mentality has infected even the best of saints I fear. And the proliferation
of 'seeker friendlyism' throughout Christendom only goes to show
how little true knowledge of the Most High is owned by those who
would profess to be children of God. Easy Believism, which you find
odious is but one fruit of the rotten root. The 'tree' is in dire
need of a radical pruning, but in doing so, many will take offense
when it is THEIR branches that are cut away.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim It is an inexpressible
grief to me to see the church spending its energies in a vain attempt
to lower its testimony to suit the ever-changing sentiment of the
world about it. — Benjamin B. Warfield |
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Vern
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:07:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Pilgrim, You are correct in that the word 'Go' is not there.
But the word to 'make' Disciples is. Sharing the truth is ok. Why
not just see that this all Chris is really saying. Can you agree
we should share the story of Christ with others. In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Chris
To: Vern
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:55:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern, Thankyou for that short response, really that is all I have
been trying to defend. Everyone in here seems to know my heart and
motives better than God. I will leave it up to him to Judge. Dont
get me wrong, I have learned alot from all this and you alls opinions(some
even Biblical instructions). I have taken to heart alot of things
and by Gods grace will make the appropiate changes. But I will not
listen to all this Judging of motives. When we do that we are no
better than Jobs friends:( And you know the outcome of that! In
Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: laz
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 13:35:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris - has everyone really presumed to know your heart? Have I?
laz
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Chris
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:39:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, At times it sure sounds like it. But I must confess, sometimes
my zeal is not according to Knowledge. So if I have seemed to misjudge,
forgive me please:)
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Vern
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 08:09:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern,
I do not believe in 'sharing the
story of Jesus', but rather proclaiming the great appearing of the
Lord Christ as LORD and Saviour Who has accomplished reconciliation,
redemption and propitiation as the perfect sacrifice for all those
who will come to Him in repentance and faith. The Gospel is not
a 'story' but a DECLARATION of God's entrance into history to redeem
for Himself a particular people. These people can and do receive
the remission of all their sins, a new nature by the sovereign work
of the Holy Spirit which transforms them into the new people of
God. Therefore God 'commands all men everywhere to repent' and to
flee to the Lord Christ, confessing their sinfulness and their sins,
trusting in the person and work of the Lord Christ as LORD [GOD]
and Saviour. Again, the mandate in Matt 28:18-20 is to MAKE DISCIPLES,
which surely includes the initial proclamation of the Gospel, but
as an integral part of the whole, that is to teach those who have
ears to hear the WHOLE COUNSEL of God. It is the imparting of a
biblical cosmology and ideology. Where we once all walked according
to the dictates of our own wicked hearts, the pride of life, the
lusts of the world and the influences of the Evil One, the regenerated
sinner is given a new heart which hates all that once was and is
not desirous of the good and the doing of all that God has commanded.
They need instruction in the new ideals, commands and ways of the
Kingdom. This is discipleship! What I am objecting to mainly here
is the contemporary mentality that thinks that simply telling people
indiscriminately that 'God loves you! and/or 'Christ died for you!'
and to simply have them recite a little 'prayer' from the back of
a card results in salvation. Of course, there is that '4th Law'
that says that they are to now read their Bible, and tell everyone
about Jesus. This is NOT 'making disciples'! If anything it is hardening
the hearts of those who are disciples of the Devil and followers
of their own wicked hearts. Making disciples is a long-range agenda,
not a 5 minute recitation of some man-made 'spiritual laws'. The
Gospel, rightly presented with be an OFFENSE to most who hear it.
But the offense will not be because some zealot of 'winning souls'
has confronted them on the street, etc., but it is an offense due
to it's CONTENT. 'God loves you' is NOT offensive. It is the Devil's
lie to be sure and thus it is soothing to the depraved sinner. That
there is an accounting and a Judgment coming to all who are not
justified in Christ Jesus is an integral part of the Gospel as well.
The Law of God is part of the Gospel and normally the initial part
of it's presentation. One must impress upon the hearers that they
are dead in sin and enemies of God. They are rebels and hopelessly
imprisoned by their own wickedness, being therefore under the just
judgment and wrath of God. Until an individual is smitten with a
sense of his/her own SINFULNESS, and realizes how HELPLESS and HOPELESS
their situation is, they will have no need of a Saviour and no desire
to bow before the LORD. 'As you are going, make disciples of all
nations. . . .' If you or anyone doubts my or The Highway's commitment
to the proclamation of the gospel to the world, the many articles
I have included on The Highway web site on evangelism and discipleship
should be evidence enough to the contrary!
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: PesterBrat
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 16:16:51 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
I agree with
most of what you are saying brother! I'm sure that when some folks
put those recommendations on the back of a tract, they may think
that is discipling. But not 'all' do, and I certainly do not. HOWEVER,
there is certainly nothing wrong with telling a potential new Christian,
that if they did indeed 'see' their sin and sinfulness, and repent
and embrace Christ and the cross, to recommend that they start praying,
reading the word of God, start attending a good reformed baptist
church (haha), and get baptized (sorry, had to throw this in there
to). But that of course is just the beginning. I hope that your
church situation is not coming through in some of your views :^
). May God bless you according to His will and good pleasure my
friend :^ ) Brother Bret
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: PesterBrat
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 19:56:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
PesterBrat,
I would not generally object to
what you would like to see on the back of a tract, but would not
YOUR PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER, serve far better than the advice you
suggested? I have little to commend for 'hit and run' tactics in
evangelism; not that you are suggesting that here. But I believe
the clear example we have given us in God's Word is a personal witness
that is enduring. You also wrote: ' I hope
that your church situation is not coming through in some of your
views :^ )' I suppose this is supposed
to be a negative comment? But unfortunately I have failed to grasp
it's meaning. You are going to have to expound on this if what you
are intending to say to me is to have any effect. :-) In His Precious
Blood, Pilgrim PS: I'm afraid you would never find me darkening
the doorway of a Baptist church for to be a member (public recognition
of my salvation in Christ) I would be required to be baptized by
immersion, even though I was baptized as an infant AND as an adult,
albeit not by the 'sacred dunking'! And if I refused, based on cogent
arguments from God's Word, I would be rejected and thus a pronouncement
of 'not one of Christ's body' would be voiced upon me. Baptists
too often fail to realize that it isn't THEIR church that they bring
members into, but CHRIST'S church. If baptism by immersion is the
TRUE requirement of believers, then all us Presbyterians, Congregationalists,
Anglicans etc. are apostates and destined to hell. :-) |
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 16:50:37 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim I would like to try to talk about a misconception you have
about the Baptist Church (at least from my experience). I do not
put this out for debate, but to try to clarify a misconception.
You said: PS: I'm afraid you would never find me darkening the doorway
of a Baptist church for to be a member (public recognition of my
salvation in Christ) I would be required to be baptized by immersion,
even though I was baptized as an infant AND as an adult, albeit
not by the 'sacred dunking'! And if I refused, based on cogent arguments
from God's Word, I would be rejected and thus a pronouncement of
'not one of Christ's body' would be voiced upon me. Baptists too
often fail to realize that it isn't THEIR church that they bring
members into, but CHRIST'S church. If baptism by immersion is the
TRUE requirement of believers, then all us Presbyterians, Congregationalists,
Anglicans etc. are apostates and destined to hell. :-) When you
said: And if I refused, based on cogent arguments from God's Word,
I would be rejected and thus a pronouncement of 'not one of Christ's
body' would be voiced upon me. Although it is true that in order
to become a member of a Baptist Church one must be baptised by emmersion,
but if they said you were 'not one of Christ's body' they would
be saying that from their own understanding, not the Baptist possition.
In the Church I attend we have some people that were baptised as
infants, and are not members of our Church as a result. But they
are concidered to be believers and are very active in the Church.
We do not take the possition that anyone who is not baptised by
emmersion are not saved. Although we do believe that emmersion is
the correct method, we do not believe that baptism saves anyone.
So if you have ever been told or proclaimed what you said, it is
from oppinion, not official Baptist dogma. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 22:29:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
Wrong!! Sorry brother but you
have failed to understand what Baptists officially believe and practice.
I'm not surprised, but unfortunately this is fact. When someone
is rejected for membership on the basis of a non-salvific and/or
non-sin issue, then the ones doing the rejection are in violation
of biblical teaching and Christ's command. Look at this situation
and maybe the 'lights' will go on? Let's say your good old typical
Baptist church is the ONLY 'Christian' church within 1000 miles.
And I come along and want to join your church. Let's say I am in
agreement with 95% of the doctrines preached and taught. But I can't
accept immersion as the ONLY TRUE MODE of baptism, although I certainly
believe that adults who give a valid profession of faith, and whose
lives are consistent with it should indeed undergo baptism and be
admitted into the local church. But the church says that unless
I violate my conscience and submit to a teaching which cannot be
proven from Scripture, I will be denied membership and all the 'benefits'
which go with it, eg., the Lord's Supper, appointment to office,
teaching positions, etc. You have to grasp the significance of what
church membership is. Being admitted into membership of a local
church puts one not only into a body where 'fellowship' is experienced
on a deeper level than that of non-members (and it better be that
way), but one is alienated from the body of Christ and is not under
the leadership and/or authority of God's appointed undershepherds.
To be 'outside the church' is to be outside of the ministry and
authority of the Lord Christ. And to be outside of the church is
akin to being outside the Kingdom for the keys of the Kingdom are
entrusted to the church. As I've said in this Forum and elsewhere
myriad times, there is a horrid lack of knowledge today of Ecclesiology
(doctrine of the church). People do not have even a elementary knowledge
of church history, the history of dogma nor of the biblical teaching
concerning the church itself, its essense, offices, sacraments,
liturgy/worship, or it's importance in the eyes of God. Nor is there
much interest with most in learning about the church. THIS ignorance
of the church is probably the most significant contributor to the
influx of 'seeker friendly' heresy, worldliness, lack of discipline,
and doctrinal and practical heresy today among many other problems.
You just don't tell someone to 'go somewhere else because you ain't
been dunked' or 'you can't be one of us, but you can still come
here and listen to the preaching!' This is sheer nonsense and ignorance.
The church is no 'social club' or 'mutual admiration society' which
people can 'enjoy' whether they are members or not. What difference
is there between one who is refused admittance into Christ's church,
although they have been baptized and make a credible profession
of faith, because they haven't been 'dunked' and one who is a member
and has been excommunicated? There is no essential difference brother!!
One is not allowed in, and the other is cast out. Both are relegated
to being OUTSIDE the Church. :-).
Thanks for listening! Pilgrim PS: What I said
in my first post on this topic was not only my experience with certain
individual's opinions, but the written guidelines of the Baptist
Convention to which they belong. And this is not the first time
I have experienced this either and with other Baptist conventions.
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 23:18:02 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim That is news to me, since I am a board member at a my Church,
and I interview for membership. We sepperate membership and baptism.
Meaning we will not turn anyone one away from baptism as long as
we are reasonably sure they are Christians. But as to membership
we (I personally don't believe that the mode is as important, my
Pastor says the same thing, but we obviously can not go against
the Church's policy) we don't allow it unless the membership candidate
has been baptised or is willing to become baptised first. We do
not stop non members from things like the Lord's Supper we instead
make sure all persons participating know what they are doing from
scripture, then leave it to them on whether or not they participate.
Non-members would not be able to do things like teach, but we would
not stop them if they wanted to have a home Bible study provided
they didn't teach anything that is not approved by the Church. As
to disciplinary matters, I would agree that it does put us at a
disadvantage. Although we try to disipline in the same manner to
all the congragation, a few times I have seen incidents where the
effectiveness wasn't the same as a non-member. But I am sure that
in every Church there are people that are not members, but still
attend. Either from true devotion or for other reasons. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Brother Bret
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:32:44 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Yes Brother
Tom: I have some in my church that attend regularly, but will not
become mebers while we are associated with the Free Will Baptist
Denomination :^ ) BB
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:17:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
You missed the point unfortunately!
:-( For a Christian, being a member of a local and visible body
is not an option, if there is a viable church body that is doctrinally
sound; preaching the true gospel, administering the sacraments and
exercising church discipline. But even you said you would NOT take
into membership anyone who would not submit to adult baptism, and
I am assuming, if your church is consistent with 99.99% of most
other Baptist conventions, it MUST be done via the mode of immersion
or else IT ISN'T A VALID BAPTISM!! Thus IMMERSION is the determinate
factor for a person's acceptance into the Body of Christ.. this
simply isn't biblical! It is discriminatory against Christ's sheep
and a serious matter. Secondly, I had to laugh when you wrote: 'Non-members would not be able to do things like teach,
but we would not stop them if they wanted to have a home Bible study
provided they didn't teach anything that is not approved by the
Church.' Now Tom, brother. . . on what
authority would your church prohibit a non-member from holding a
Bible study at his home if you didn't approve of what he/she was
teaching? If I was in your town and attending services there, but
obviously denied membership, because neither by infant nor adult
baptism is worth anything in your church's eyes and I am living
in overt disobedience to Christ, according to your church's policy,
and I decided to hold a Bible study at my home where the subject
was the atonement of Christ? I would obviously be teaching Particular
Redemption and showing how Universal Redemption, which is taught
by 95% of the contemporary churches, and I am assuming even yours
at present, is heresy. If I am not a member of your church [by exclusion],
what authority would your church have to forbid me to hold the study
and/or teach what I believe to be true? Would your church put a
guard at the front door and block my entrance on Sunday morning?
Would they call the police and tell them to arrest me for teaching
an unauthorized Bible study at my home? hehehe. Yes, there are non-members
who attend most churches. Their reasons for remaining non-members
however may or may not be valid. If the teaching is sound, the practice
of the church biblical, then what reason would someone NOT apply
for membership? I have NEVER witnessed nor heard of any person who
held to CredoBaptism denied membership in a Presbyterian-type paedobaptist
church. The last church I was a member of, we admitted several families
who had just left the Reformed Baptist church in the city [a very
dictatorial pastor, who I know personally to be so]. The majority
of these men were previously elders and were gifted teachers. Not
only did we admit them into membership, but gave them teaching responsibilities
as well. On what grounds could we forbid these men from membership?
Would we be justified in saying, 'Sorry, but you cannot be admitted
in our 'Saint of the Sectarian Reformed Church' because your baptism
isn't valid! You were immersed and only sprinkling is the true mode.
Your profession of faith and faithful service to the Lord Christ
is commendable, but you cannot be 'one of us', but you are welcome
to come and hear the preaching and maybe attend a Saturday night
gathering if you like!' Sorry my dear brother, but this just isn't
what Christ intended for His church. Each denomination has their
own peculiar distinctives, and rightly so, but when these distinctives
discriminate against true believers from entering into the fellowship
of CHRIST'S CHURCH, on grounds that cannot be clearly shown from
Scripture, this is a serious matter. To tell someone such as myself
that I meet all the biblical qualifications of profession and life
but because I was not immersed I have no part in Christ Jesus' church
is a travesty and a serious grieving of the Spirit.
In His Grace, Pilgrim PS: Nothing personal here
Tom! :-) |
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Chris
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 20:15:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, You are only destined for Hell if you believe that by being
baptized as an infant and later saves you. Of course we realize
that that is not so. Only by Christ and the Cross, right? Not all
Baptist Churchs are bad and being immersed is not wrong. That is
the way we prefer to do it, so what is wrong with it? The problem
with the Church seems we tend to look at what we can criticize about
each other instead of doing what is right in the Lord. Being used
for His honor and glory in being a witness of His Death and Ressurection.
In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 21:25:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris,
You are obviously new here and
haven't been exposed to my biblical views, so I will simply regard
your queries as being rhetorical only. Some of my fondest memories
of corporate worship go back to when I was regularly attending a
Reformed Baptist church. :-). There is nothing wrong with immersion.
But the view that dogmatically states that immersion is the ONLY
method of baptism and dismisses the validity of either aspersion
or effusion is sectarian and exclusionary without biblical warrant.
If you will read my post a bit more carefully, you will then see
that my criticisms are toward those Baptist churches that reject
a valid testimony of saving grace as the singular qualification
with the commensurate godly life for membership in Christ's church.
These particular churches make immersion/adult baptism equal with
what Christ required to be a part of the Kingdom of God. If immersion
as an adult has not been experienced, then the individual is denied
membership; access to Christ's table and active participation within
the body of Christ wherein his/her Spirit-wrought gifts can be used
as Christ has commanded to be done. This is no less than pronouncing
such an individual as being 'unqualified' and 'outside the camp'.
It is akin to being excommunicated. It never ceases to amaze me
that so many Baptists are quick to deny baptismal regeneration,
yet their denomination is named 'Baptist', membership rests on immersion
in water as a major requirement, and baptism by any other means
is summarily rejected. I find this rather hypocritical. And please,
don't reply that I am judging you! However, 'if the shoe fits, wear
it!' hahaha... and if not, then a simple Amen will suffice. :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Pilgrim
From: Chris
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:44:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, This seems in some cases to bring out areas in our lives
we seem to fall so short in. Again my friend I thank you for all
the Wisdom the Lord has given to you and will look at some things
further. I want to grow up, for I am a King of Kings kid:) I really
want to do what is right in the Lord and to follow Him. Please pray
that I will do so to the fullest of His calling:) May the Lord bless
you and may you increase in knowledge and wisdom of the Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:32:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, AMEN! If only that is what the church would do...make disciples
instead of trying to 'evangelize' the world, then the visible church
would not be in the lousy fragmented state it is in now. The humanistic
doctrine of Arminianism would be non-existent or at least hated
and seen as a corupt gospel (that makes man his own god and decider
of his own salvation) Five Sola
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Prestor John
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 15:30:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
AMEN! PREACH IT BROTHER
If we obeyed the injunction to make
disciples instead of seeking converts we wouldn't be in half the
mess the church is in now.!!! Prestor John Enthusiastically in agreement!
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From:
Chris
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 18:45:39 (PST)
Email Address:
Not
Provided
Message:
Brethren, I want to take this time to encourage you all to make
sure you dont end up like Jobs friends. I have been told by former
bosses, like my dad, that i should drive the gospel down anyones
throat or try to convert catholics, but to be silent and keep my
beliefs to myself. I have never intentionally tried to jam the gospel
down anyones throat, I share the Faith, whether one starts the conversation
or I start it, either way I will follow by Gods grace His command
in Proclaiming the Gospel. You all can say what you will, but I
cannot but speak what I have both heard and seen with my heart.
And thus, whether its by Gospel tracts, personal witnessing one
on one, doorknocking, etc. I will do it as a follower of Christ.
No matter what anyone says. I do not say this haughty but in humbleness
remembering my responsiblity to THE LORD AND SAVIOR Jesus Christ.
We live and speak the Words of Life. You dont have to agree, that
is ok. Its between you all and the Lord. I have decided to follow
Jesus and not man nor his unbiblical laws. I will submit until they
try to get me to compromise the Word of God and then I will not
submit! In Christ, Brother Chris
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Prestor John
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 22:57:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hey Chris may I point out something here. First, if your going to
talk to all the respondents don't address it to me. Second if you
recall the conversation originally started at Brett Lovitz board
where you were complaining about being persecuted at work for standing
up for your beliefs. Now don't get me wrong here but if you were
my barber and I asked you a general question in regards to what
you believed and you started preaching Christ to me while holding
a pair of clippers/scissors I'm sorry you have just made that audience
captive. If however, you say to me well I'm going on break at such
and such a time if you really want to know meet me here. Then you
are doing two things: One those with real interest in hearing the
Gospel will be there. And if they have a real interest it will lead
to discipleship which is what we're commanded to do. Two those that
are not interested, won't come, and that way your employer has nothing
against you and you have obeyed the Word (Rom. 12:18) But the way
I see this is that your not really interested in what we believe,
or what we have to show you from God's word in regard to what we
are suppose to do or how that by doing our work well we glorify
God. (I suggest you do a study of Eph. 6:5-8) Especially notice
that part about with fear and trembling in singleness of your heart,
as to Christ. Prestor John Servabo Fidem
|
Subject: Prestor John
From: Chris
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 15:47:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Prestor John, I guess I will have to tell you the same I told Anne.
The reason I got pushed out of my last job was because I would not
cheat the Government and because I would not agree to not witness
or share the Gospel with customers. The reason I go fired from my
last Job was because I asked my coworker if he would Please try
to not use the Lords name in vain. Then I ended up in the middle
of Persecution because I was a Christian. The only person I really
witnessed to while I was there was a customer who wanted me to share
my Testimony with him. My boss and coworkers didnt even Know I did
so. The pt. of the matter is they didnt want me there so I could
be a witness. That my friend is religious discrimination:( Doesnt
matter much, I was able to share the Gospel with them anyway and
will leave the results up to the One who only can give the Increase.
One sows and another reaps, but God gives the increase. Another
thing, I have taken in alot of what you all said to me and want
the necessary changes to be in my life. Also I am very familar with
the Ephesians passage and I will do so unless they try to get me
to compromise the faith in Christ Jesus. 'Including being a witness
with my life and mouth:) In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Keep preaching!
From: Gene
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 02:49:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris, Yes, Indeed! The scriptures do say to make disciples but
it does not designate a method! It does not say HOW we are to do
it so if you want to do it with tracts/door-knocking etc. then GO
FOR IT! Keep preaching the Word.
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 20:21:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris,
Brother, you can do as you wish,
but please don't try and justify what YOU deem as being right as
being equal to what the LORD of Glory has commanded. In this case
I feel you are the one who is hiding in the 'belly of the whale'
under pretense that you have been commanded to be so. For many years
I laboured in Gospel Missions, jails, prisons and in areas where
the Gospel was disdained and ridiculed. I for one, have never shrunk
back from proclaiming the wonders of God and salvation in Christ.
But what is at issue here is the proper interpretation and application
of Matthew 28:8-20! THAT was your query. It is neither biblical
to 'shove the Gospel done the throats of those uninterested' (Matt
10:11-14), nor to remain cloistered and silent in our words or deeds
(Matt 5:15). The Gospel is a holy thing (Matt 7:6) and is not to
be profaned by indiscriminately nor indiscreetly casting it before
men. Such practices as placarding the precious name of Jesus on
bumper stickers, lapel buttons, etc., ad nauseam is not fulfilling
the commandment of the Lord Christ to bring the Gospel into all
the world. I think that the majority of contemporary practices of
this nature flow out of the heretical views of Charles Finney, Billy
Sunday, Billy Graham, et al, whose theologies are corrupt and deceitful,
relying more on psychological manipulation and emotional ploys that
relying upon the sovereign and efficacious work of God the Spirit
in the hearts of men, women and children whom the Lord will call.
There is NO DISAGREEMENT that the Gospel is to be preached and brought
to all, but the ways and means that it is done so IS to be questioned.
It is quite evident that the corruption of the Gospel message itself
most often is complimented by corrupt means of displaying it. You
may indeed do as you feel 'you are being led', but this begs the
question as to WHO is doing the leading? If it is indeed the Spirit
of God, then it will be in perfect harmony with the inscripturated
Word which the Holy Spirit entrusted to us through the writings
of the men He inspired. Let us never be so presumptuous to quickly
accredit our actions to the promptings of God or be so bold as to
utter such claims as, 'God told me to do such and such!'. For God
speaks to us and perspicuously in His infallible and inerrant Word
and that working in our hearts by the Spirit. There can be therefore
no contradiction between what 'God says' and what God says in His
Word.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Chris
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 04:27:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, My friend, I understand what you are saying but in some
aspects I do not agree. You seem like you want to Judge those who
have bumper stickers on their cars, etc. I have two on my car and
am not ashamed of it. My intentions are sincere and my conscience
is clear. The Bible says not to Judge lest you be judged, that means
Intentions or motives. My concern for many who have responded is
you all respond with so much criticism that you dont realize that
you could be playing the same part as Jobs friends. The Lord has
blessed us in many ways to spread the Gospel and I am thankful for
being apart of His wonderful plan. Also might I add that Paul said
that whether in sincerity or pretense he rejoice that the name of
Jesus was being proclaimed. Now I know that is not exactly how it
goes, but is pretty close. You say so much about Gods sovreignty,
then why not believe that God in His sovreignty can use the different
methods to reach His sheep? Either way His sheep will hear is voice,
right? The main thing is that we who are of the truth need to share
it more one on one so we can direct them to a Bible Believing, Gospel
Preaching, Grace Embracing Church. This is one of the awesome things
about being a barber, you speak to people one on one. I have alot
of growing to do when it comes to people and John Prestor made some
good pts. that stepped on my toes abit(thanks John:)), but the pt.
is that sometimes its better to obey God than man. Even if it costs
you your job, family, or life. In Christ, Brother Chris
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Anne
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 06:33:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
If all Christians were as . . . . gosh, what's a tactful word? .
. . . insensitively enthusiastic (I'll just use two) about their
faith as you have apparently been, then they'd all be getting fired.
Let's keep in mind that the ubiquitous fish symbol came into being
when Christianity was outlawed, and believers would casually scratch
it out with their foot, to see if the person to whom they were speaking
recognized it. We can infer from that that Christians, as a group,
did not feel compelled to get themselves thrown into prison or killed.
Yet the faith grew and flourished because nonbelievers observed
and envied some of their neighbor's inherent joy and serenity, and
inquired as to its source. Now there's your witnessing opportunity! Reeling from job to job,
getting canned for irritating the heck out of everybody along the
way, does not appear to me to be giving glory to God, or representing
His Word properly. In fact, it borders on giving scandal. Is your
previous employer going to be willing to hire a committed Christian
from here on out? Or have you convinced him that we're a bunch of
flakes who don't know when to shut up? Gee, thanks. There is no
denying that you mean well, and your intentions are good. But all
kinds of damage has been done to Christianity by folks with the
absolute best of intentions. Look, I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but
I've been pestered by people who were intent on 'sharing' the gospel
with me at work before. (I was Catholic, and that didn't count to
them.) You said that all someone has to do is walk away (not an
option at the time) or tell you that they don't want to hear it.
Well, sport, I am a Southern lady, and I can tell someone that about
as easily as I can fly. It seems rude. Especially about Christianity.
How could I tell someone I don't wanna hear about it? So I was stuck
with either being rude, plus sounding as if I was denying my Christian
faith, or suffering in silence, being forced to listen to someone
'witness' to me. Day after day. Ad nauseum. Wouldn't agree with
her version of Christian theology. Couldn't get her to shut up! It was dreadful.
You have been sounding like her twin brother. On a slightly different
topic, as one who has been a manager and had to fire people, I can
tell you that one or two days of your backing off wouldn't do any
good. Once the decision to let someone go has been made, that person'd
have to haul a customer out of a burning building or something to
avert the firing. More people think they can keep doing what they
have been doing wrong (or not doing what they should be doing) until
the point of dismissal, and then decide to change their spots, and
everything'll be fine! It won't. Deciding to fire someone was one
of the most traumatic decisions I had to make, and by the time I
reached that point, the Rubicon had been crossed, so to speak. This
is just for your future reference, that's all. Seriously, good luck
in your job search! Very likely you'll wind up with a much better
one, perhaps in more congenial surroundings. I'll pray for it, anyway!
Anne
|
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel
From: Chris
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:49:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Anne, Are you familiar with Jobs friends, if not read the account
in Job and see if your response may be familiar:( I will pray for
you in return:) In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: I love the book of Job! ;->
From: Anne
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 13:20:20 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com
Message:
I am quite familiar
with the book of Job, as a matter of fact. It is one of my particular
favorites, and I read it regularly. How Job's friends, who were
convinced that, boy, ole Job musta been some kinda wicked to have
caused all those ghastly events to befall him, are germane to your situation, beats me.
OTOH, I am hardly renowned for my Biblical knowledge and expertise,
so I might easily be overlooking something. Perhaps you have a special
verse or two or three in mind? My Bible's right here on top of the
scanner, so fire ahead. Listen, Chris, I have a 23 year old son,
and I'm very fond of him, naturally, but he has been fired over
and over. He's growing up at last, though! Last summer, he finally
admitted he was in the wrong, and deserved it that time. We were
stunned to hear such an admission from him. One of his problems,
bless him, is that he is very poor at deciphering non-verbal cues.
The kid would get me so mad, when he was younger, that smoke would
be pouring from my ears, and he wouldn't get it till the explosion of wrath came. Even now he doesn't
grasp when one of us doesn't want to talk about a subject, or that
he interrupted a conversation, or the like. Unfortunately, he wouldn't
pick up on his employer's unhappiness with him, either, till he
was given the old heave-ho. It's no sin to not be able to pick up
on the subtle, non-verbal nuances that we all give off, this is
true. But surely your experiences should be suggesting to you that
perhaps you aren't especially good at it, yourself? If you aren't,
then you are missing all the signals being given that your co-workers
or customers or whoever are not interested in being witnessed to. Simply saying that they can just
tell you straight out if they aren't interested is not good enough.
Why should others be put in the unhappy position of having to either
listen to you when they don't want to or else be rude? Here's a
deal . . . . . you pray for me (if you'd care to pray that I find
the discipline to start walking like the doctor ordered me to, I'd
be grateful) , and I'll pray for you to find a nifty new job! Sound
good? Anne
|
Subject: Re: I love the book of Job! ;->
From: Chris
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:37:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Anne, The prayer part sounds good, but the rest, well, you just
dont know my situation. I have NEVER intentionally driven the Gospel
down anyones throat. Whenever I talked to a person, if they didnt
want to hear it they would either tell me or make t quite obvious.
I would procede to tell them no further. The situation with my last
boss, was a suprise, because I never witnessed to any of my coworkers
the whole two weeks I was there. I shared my Testimony with a Customer
that asked me and I nicely asked my coworker if he would PLEASE
TRY to not use the Lords name in vain. You would have to be there
to understand why I would ask an unbeliever such a favor. That was
all it took, one thing led to another and boom, I found myself fired.
He even admitted that he liked me and my work, for I do give my
bosses or try to anyway, 100%. The fact of the matter is the one
certain coworker didnt like Christians, so either I went or he did.
He made more money for the shop than me, so I was the one who had
to go. Now please tell me that I am an abnoxious driven gospel down
peoples throat Christian, and I will say no sir or ma'am:) I love
the Lord and His Word and want to tell all about him, I am young
in the Lord and sometimes my zeal gets me in trouble more ways than
one, but I by His grace do want to be used by Him and be Sincere.
Anyway I just wanted to clear the air on my part. In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Mea culpa!
From: Anne
To: Chris
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 15:15:23 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com
Message:
Ah, that was
an awkward position, wasn't it? Good for you, to try and stop the
blaspheming by your co-worker. I know that can be a very hard thing
to bring up, and I honor you for doing it, indeed I do! There is
no doubt at all
that God will find you a more than suitable job, since you were
so adamant for His honor. He appreciates that tremendously, as Scripture
asserts on many occasions. My apologies if I butted in where I didn't
belong, with my previous comments. They were not applicable in your
particular case, it seems. My fault! Having a son who has a depressing
tendency to get himself fired, coupled with his fondness for telling
people stuff they don't want to hear, made me jump to an unwarrranted
conclusion, I guess. Forgive me, please? Anne
|
Subject: Re: Mea culpa!
From: Chris
To: Anne
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 20:18:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Anne, Forgiven and forgotten my dear friend in Christ:) I will pray
for your situation and your sons. Chris
|
Subject: Re: Mea culpa!
From: Tom
To: Chris
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 17:36:40 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Chris One of the things that I have found out about a lot of people
who use the name of the Lord in vain, is that if you react in an
offended manner, you have just made their day. Instead I have found
if I react, with a comment like 'He is Lord' then give them a smile,
or ' I didn't know you knew my Lord'. This either makes them stop
saying things like that around you or, they will gain a new respect
for you, and who knows what that may lead to? Bottom line, if you
decide to comment when someone uses our Lord's name inaproppriately,
say something possitive rather than letting them know you are offended.
It sure has helped me. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Mea culpa!
From: Chris
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 20:15:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, Thanks for the Instruction, but all I asked was if he would
please try and I asked nicely. He would have been offended either
way because only him, I, and the Lord know the whole story of what
took place, I just shared the overview of the situation. In anycase
thanks, I have heard that before and do try to do that, though you
could still get the same results either way. If you are a Christian
and are walking in the Light, it shines on them and those who hate
the light will either run or try to get rid of you. If they persecuted
Jesus, they will persecute us. In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 14:11:16 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Someone told me recently that the Eastern Orthodox Church was not
Trinitarian, and they were also one of the reasons why the doctrine
of the Trinity was formed in the early church. Can anyone tell me
whether or not this is true o not? Tom
|
Subject: Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
From: Christopher
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:15:40 (PST)
Email Address: mtl9904@yahoo.com
Message:
Hi Tom, >>>>>Someone told me recently that the Eastern
Orthodox Church was not Trinitarian,<<<< very false.
>>>>>and they were also one of the reasons why the
doctrine of the Trinity was formed in the early church<<<<<
Check out Basil the Great's On the Holy Spirit. Check out almost
anything by John Chrysostom. Or Athanasius. Or Gregory of Nyssa.
Or Gregory the Theologian. John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian.
The very Fathers who defended the Trinitarian nature of God are
still honored in the Orthodox Church today. If you require some
20th century writing, I suggest Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology
of the Eastern Church, Timothy (Bishop Kallistos) Ware's The Orthodox
Church or Sergei Bulgakov's The Orthodox Church. Better yet, go
find an Eastern Orthodox Church and listen to the service! This
will dispell, quite quickly, the idea that the Eastern Orthodox,
the Orthodox, are not Trinitarian. Just flipping through my prayer
book, I find on page one of my morning prayers: 'O Most
Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. O Lord,
blot out our sins. O Master, pardon our iniquities. O Holy One,
visit and heal our infirmities for Thy name's sake.' Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
From: Tom
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 14:42:32 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Thanks I am wondering if my friend was getting another group mixed
up with Eastern Orthodox. Is Greek Orthodox the same as Eastern
Orthodox? Tom
|
Subject: Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
From: Christopher
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 18:26:28 (PST)
Email Address: mtl9904@yahoo.com
Message:
Hi Tom, The term 'Eastern' Orthodox is generally used as a term
that includes Greek, Russian, Serbian, Romanianan and the Orthodox
Churches of several other countries. Different countries, same Church.
So, yes, Greek Orthodox is the same thing in the sense that it is
part of the (Eastern) Orthodox Church as a whole. The term is also
geographical in the sense that the 'Latin West' has always been
differentiated from the 'Greek East,' with Greek meaning Greek-speaking.
When Rome split long about 1054, there were five traditional 'sees'
of Christianity. The other four--Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem
and Antioch--were and are Orthodox, although there are also 'Latin
Patriarchs,' in some of these places, meaning Roman Catholic, which
were set up during the Crusades. You can find about every nationality
of Orthodoxy in America due to the immigrant nature of our country.
This makes for some very nice things that don't occur elsewhere,
like the fact that my own parish has about as many differnent brands
of people as the United Nations, and some not so nice things--the
immigrant nature of the American Church has created some bewildering
jurisdictional problems (compounded by the Russian Revolution) that
haven't been completely sorted out yet. Hope that helps. Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
From: Tom
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 22:44:17 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Thanks Christopher I kind of thought my friend was wrong about that.
The reason why I didn't question him right there is because he has
taken Church history at seminary. I personally think he has Eastern
Orthodox, mixed up with something like Montanism or Sabelianism(sp?).
I will have to show him what you said about this subject. Thanks
again Tom
|
Subject: Re: Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian?
From: Christopher
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:20:01 (PST)
Email Address: cparks99@mindspring.com
Message:
Not a problem, Tom. Glad to help. Please let me know if I can be
of further assistance. Christopher
|
Subject: John Brown Sermons
From: Gary Griffith
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:32:39 (PST)
Email Address: ggriffith@desupernet.net
Message:
Can anyone help me find a copy of John Brown's srmon on the Parable
of the Talents (Matthew 25)? Pastor Gary Griffith
|
Subject: Re: John Brown Sermons
From: Pilgrim
To: Gary Griffith
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 18:14:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Can anyone help me find a copy of John Brown's srmon on the Parable
of the Talents (Matthew 25)? Pastor Gary Griffith
---
Pastor
Griffith, I have the Sayings and Discources
of Christ, 3 Volumes published by Alpha
Publications and it doesn't appear in there. Have you tried an Internet
search for this particular sermon? In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: John Brown Sermons
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 18:18:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Can anyone help me find a copy of John Brown's srmon on the Parable
of the Talents (Matthew 25)? Pastor Gary Griffith
---
Pastor
Griffith, I have the Sayings and Discources
of Christ, 3 Volumes published by Alpha
Publications and it doesn't appear in there. Have you tried an Internet
search for this particular sermon? In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
I found this site earlier...did not find John Brown's
on Matthew 28 and the talents... laz Sermons, Lots of 'em www.geocities.com/Athens/4938/dbrge45.html
|
Subject: Witnessing on the Job
From: Chris
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:14:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Prester John, Could you share with me any verses that say we are
not to witness on the Job? In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: Vernon
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 11:10:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello Chris, I do not believe there is scripture which will support
a person not speaking of Christ or the sharing of the Gospel during
working hours. How ever, there are regulation in the government
work place which states that it is against regulation to do so.
But I have always had the chance to do so and have seen the spiritual
reward for doing so. One should never force the word of God on no
one. We should always be in prayer asking God to lead us to the
person whom He as prepaired to hear the gospel. To witness in our
own power is a sounding brass which is only noise. The truth is,
we may be up-to-date in all the modern methods of soul winning,
and able to quote the necessary Scriptures without a flaw; but if
you do not evangelize in the power and leadeship of the Holy Spirit,
your soul winning efforts will be ineffective. The importance of
witnessing ( Ro. 10:13-17) The qualification of a witness ( Col.
2:6,7) The approach ( John 1:40-42 ) The Follow - through ( (Matt:
13:3-8 ) How to share the Gospel ( Acts 4:12 ) How to give the Invitation
( rEV. 22:17 ) How to follow up ( Acts 2:31-47 ) In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Witnessing/John
From: Vernon
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 19:10:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello John, I believe you missed my point. Plus, I did say that
a man who desire to share the gospel must must be in prayer asking
God to lead him to the heart He (God) has prepared to receive the
truth of the Gospel. Anything we do for God must be by the power
and under the direction of Holy Spirit. If it is not, it is being
done in our power not of God. I really do not have the energy nor
the will to debate you in the process of salvation. All I know is,
'I am saved by the mercy and grace of God and what Christ has done
for me on the cross.' I could not save myself. Gor regenerated my
heart and now I believe. God Bless Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing/John
From: laz
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:10:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vern: you said: God regenerated my heart
and now I believe. I like the way you
said that.... So let me get this straight, God acts FIRST in effecting regeneration
on whomever He pleases based soley on His
purposes in sovereign Election, and then
and only then do any of us exercise our (free)will in believing
the Gospel and grabbing hold of our Savior. Is that how you believe?
Please say 'yes'....and actually mean it! LOL In Him, laz
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing/John
From: Vern
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 02:48:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I really do not know how man could believe in God without God changing
the man's heart. For man in his natural sinful state can not believe
nor want to seek God's ways. In Christ Vern
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing/John
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 23:07:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
laz,
How quickly one forgets about
Vern and his Arminianism! shame on you! Of course Vern will give
his assent to God working first, etc..... but HIS definition of
'regeneration' is far remote from yours. Because for Vernon, a regenerated
man does exactly that, 'exercise his free-will' but to either 'accept
or reject Christ'!! It's not a true 'regeneration' but sort of a
partial 'awakening' or 'helpful nudge' on the part of God, which
still leaves a sinner capable of saving himself by believing or
rejecting Christ, and on the basis of that rejection being damned
to hell! UNLESS, some time in the future, the person changes their
mind and decides to 'let Jesus into their heart'!
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Witnessing/John
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:12:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Golly gee, I thought I asked my question clear enough so as to preclude
just what you stated.... ...but since Vern did not rebuke you for
not giving him the benefit of the doubt, like I did, you MUST be
right. Silly me! ;-) blessings, laz p.s. Vern, here is your chance
to set the record straight. Has Pilgrim accurately articulated YOUR
defn of 'regeneration'...where all men are quickened sovereignly
ENOUGH TO MAKE A DECISION...and those that choose wrongly get barbequed?
What say you?
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing/John
From: Vernon
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 15:10:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Who does God say that I am? In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Vernon
From: Pilgrim
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 20:03:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Who does God say that I am? In Christ Vernon
---
Vernon,
Only God knows the answer to that question! And please don't start
with your silly games again. Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Vernon
From: Vernon
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 02:32:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Thank You, You have answered rightly my friend. Silly games. Not
sure how to take this statment.But Pilgrim, in the last few weeks
God has shown me a few things about my self. He showed me that in
all of my knowledge of Him ( At what ever level it may be) it is
nothing without Christ. He has shown me, anything we do, and it
is not by the leader ship of the Holy Spirit, it is nothing.Our
churches are filled with self-seeking Christians who want to befirst,the
greates ,and best. But the path Jesus walked was called the loss
of all and death of self. Jesus humbled himself, emptied himself,
and yielded his own self completely to the will of God,his Father.
Many come in the name of Christ and say,' Lord, Lord, have I not
did this and that in your name and He will say, 'Depart from me
for I never knew you.' Yes, many are seeking God's will but never
come to the place of laying down their own will first. The surrender
of our will, (is death of self). What I am saying to you is this
.... In those calling them- self Christian today, many see themselves
before multitudes ministering. They have their eyes on the buildings,the
filled seats,the money, the croweds, the honor and the glory. They
think they have their eyes on the Glory of God,but their eyes are
only on themselves. Because when the opportunity comes for them
to talk to a shut-in, a prisoner, a drunk, or someone homeless they
can't (not unless it is on TV programs) or before the church so
they can be somebody. Many today are full of knowledge, but truly
do not have the love of God in them. On the outside, they look beautiful
on the inside they are what they are not. So, many today are doing
things in the name of the Lord. But how much of it is the will of
God? Piligrim, I have shared with you many times that I have been
saved by the mercy and grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
I have said over and over that it is God who caused me to hear the
message of Salvation and gave me the faith to believe. There is
no other way a man could ever believe unless it be that the Holy
Spirit be in the mist of it all. Now, is not the Holy Spirit God?
Pilgrim, I have the upmost respect for you and your know- ledge.
I believe you are far ahead of me in your knowledge of the word
of God. I have no right in judging your salvation unless it is very
clear you place your hope in reaching the mark in the wrong methods
or it is not in Christ. I say without a doubt based in waht I have
read of you.....You are a man of God. I do not always understand
everything you post, for I am just a low common man and it is over
my head. But there are things I do understand and disagree. To disagree
in honor and respect is right. But to disagree does not always make
us right in that which we disagree. If we are found to be wrong,
then it is right to agree. Silly games, Seeking the Truth of God's
word is not a silly game with me. In my whole purpose here in this
Forum has been to discuss,learn,teach,fellowship and share the word
of God as He has given me in understanding. I ask once again....'Who
does God say that you are,And this question is for all us to answer.
If you are not seeking in its answer, then you are not in the word
of God. 'We are nothing without Christ.' In Christ Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing/John
From: Vern
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 02:51:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello Pilgrim, You know at one time I would have scorn you, But
now I will say that I love and do pray for you. In The Peace of
God Vernon
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: Prestor John
To: Vernon
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 15:54:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Vernon, Vernon, Vernon here you are again preaching that decisional
regeneration. When will you learn that we don't base salvation upon
whether or not a man says yes to God, but rather whether or not
God calls that man. Spurgeon never gave an invitation, that was
an invention of Finney. Spurgeon preached Christ and called for
repentence. Those that God wanted to regenerate repented. Share
the Gospel! Rather show them the Law of God, make them aware of
their sin and God's wrath upon them.(Rom. 1:18; Eph. 2:3; ) Then
preach Christ! (1 Cor. 1:23; 2 Cor. 2:12) Call for repentence! (Acts
17:30; 26:20) As many as God calls will come! (1 Cor. 3:6-7) Prestor
John
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: john hampshire
To: Chris
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:12:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
If we are to give to Caesar what belong to him, then we owe our
best effort to fulfill our employer's labor contract, witnessing
doesn't earn an employer a living. Giving to God what is God's is
best done during breaks when our time is our own. The best way to
witness during (or after) work is to do and say what you should,
rather than pursue people needfully. The Arminian form of witnessing
is a blight. We are to be ready with an answer but we are not to
be an insufferable pest to a captive audience in the work place.
That's my take, john
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: Gene
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 17:25:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Let me see, I think the verse goes something like this...'Go and
make disciples of all nations (except when at work)...' Is there
a 'spiritual' interpretation to Matt 28:18-20 that we are not aware
of?
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: Brother Bret
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 15:07:09 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Brother John:
I agree with what you are saying. We certainly cannot 'ram the gospel
down people's throat.' :^ ). However, depending on the type of job
it is, if there exists other forms of conversation then discussions
about the Lord and His grace should be allowed also. If a customer
doesn't 'have ears to hear' then so be it. But what if the customer
initiates questions about the Lord, salvation, etc? Or even a co-worker?
Are you saying that the reply of the Christian should be 'Sorry,
can't talk now. We can talk about the weather or sports, but not
this?' Thanks......Brother Bret P.S. Chris is a Barber. I am also
a Bank Teller. There is casual discussions about various things
:^ ) BB
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: john hampshire
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:47:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret, As I said, we are to be ready with an answer, if in
the course of normal conversation you can provide your viewpoint,
and that viewpoint is your own belief, understanding, or opinion,
which is given as a witness to the truth, so be it. But if the conversation
is forced, directed, or commandeered to make a forum for a speech
in which your focus is on pressuring, convincing, arguing someone
toward your beliefs, then I'm against it. In other words, we can
enter a conversation naturally, discuss any topic, and give our
impression from our God-centered perspective so that the listener
is given a different impression or take never considered. The difference
is subtle, perhaps too subtle for most to care, but it stems from
purpose and attitude. We can witness by being honest, speaking truthfully
of where we have placed our hope, or we can manipulate conversations
to force our pre-prepared questions and monologues onto another
person so as to sell them. I wouldn't be upset discussing religion
with a barber, I wouldn't mind answering questions, but I would
not sit for long for a one-way manufactured sales-pitch designed
to recruit. Nor would I expect anyone to sit still while I brow-beat
them with my beliefs. Now the salespitch variety of discussion,
or argument is done all the time. People try desperately to win.
Amongst those who think they are responsible for winning souls,
they make themselves and true Christians a bad name by their vain
attempts to 'lead' some poor sap to Christ. It isn't conversation,
it is manipulation. They cannot survive in normal two-way conversation,
for they are at best programmed robots, who cannot respond outside
their programming. Their beliefs are not to be challenged, the conversation
is all them, with only one goal--getting you onto their side. They
feign interest in you, pretend to care, but when the opportunity
arises, the drill begins. So I am disgusted by these emotional cripples
who haunt places people congregate looking for likely victims. They
do it in the name of Christ, but in truth they do it to boost their
frail egos. The more they sell, the more right they seem in their
own eyes. So, what does all this mean? It means there is a right
way and a wrong way to witness. One form comes from an honest inner-light
that draw people due to its remarkable clarity, the other is fakery
and trickery using language to manipulate needy people. Finally,
for those who have jobs where witnessing detracts from productivity,
it should not be done during work hours. There is a proper time
and place for everything. Witnessing done properly is just part
of living and interacting with other people, it is not a special
event which must be planned. It is speaking the truth, doing the
right thing in deed and word in each moment of the day. Sometimes,
if not most times, the right thing is to work hard for our employer,
which may be a very effective witness in and of itself. By the by,
I am an Air Force weather forecaster of 20 years, and witnessing
can be done, but I am carefull not to take time from my responsibilities,
as that is unfair to those who pay me. Oh yeah, those who pay me
are barbers and bank tellers everywhere. You guys work hard, I need
the money. : ) john
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: Chris
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 04:26:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, I will surely digest all of what you have said and 'boy' did
ya step oneth my toes. You are so right in your explaination. Thanks
for taking time, not only to explain your position, but willingness
to help others. Some may continue to disagree with ya, but I see
your pt. Please keep me in prayer and that the appropiate changes
will be made. In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: laz
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 09:16:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, I will surely digest all of what you have said and 'boy' did
ya step oneth my toes. You are so right in your explaination. Thanks
for taking time, not only to explain your position, but willingness
to help others. Some may continue to disagree with ya, but I see
your pt. Please keep me in prayer and that the appropiate changes
will be made. In Christ, Chris
---
Chris: I too have to
agree with John, again. ...but I don't think he believes in praying
for anyone... LOL! Am I correct, John? laz
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: lindell
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 03:14:45 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net
Message:
Dear laz, So
you believe that John's thoughts on evangelism are just laughing
out loud bytes? So do I. I hope there aren't any others who would
buy what he is selling. The child of the Lord should be the very
best employe that is in the work force, afterall he is representing
the King in everything that he does in this life. Did you notice
that the main target in the posts were against those who were on
the job of witnessing. As you know, there are all types of personalities
in the Lord's house and each will present himself differently, some
kind and gentle and some belligerent and obnoxious. But you can't
clam up because some folks don't do it the way that you think they
should. The Lord witnessed to men who hated His guts, but that didn't
stop Him. I don't remember where He ask permission of them if He
could speak. I believe that almost all of the folks He talked to
were hostile toward Him. Paul the same thing. He was always talking
to those who were opposed to the gospel. Got into a lot of trouble
because of it, physically abused. I like the way some folks evangelise
and witness a whole lot better than the way some folks don't. So
if a man wants to wear the medals, he should also carry the scars.
Your friend
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: laz
To: lindell
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 05:46:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Lindell - I don't advocate hiding your faith under a bushel...I
certainly don't but at the same time, I don't go around making a
nuisance of myself as John was simply stating. I witness judiciously
and yet practically everyone I meet results in an 'opportunity'
at some point. It just works out that way. Most people have heard
of the 'gospel' even if they don't embrace or understand it. I try
to see where they are at before I presume that they are in need
of salvation. There are ways to get your message out without offending
them with presumption. While not on the subject, I've have consistentely
found that those calling themselves Christian have the most disdain
for my 'views' on the Faith. It's the moslem, RC, pagan that is
the most approachable. hmmmm blessings, laz
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: lindell
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 05:22:58 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net
Message:
Dear friend,
It is not that I think your methods of evangelism are out of line
with the rest of the professing christian crowd, they aren't. You
are on line with most of the folks I know. I'm going to take the
liberty and paint a picture of modern evangelism as I believe it
to be. I realize that I could be mistaken on the subject, but this
is how it appears to me. Christians have their 'liberties' as they
were being hashed about in conjunction with evangelism. You know,
the smoking, drinking, and whatever else the believer can exercise
as long as the scripture isn't violated. So I will indulge in much
folly and foolishness. Let me now assume that as an ambassador of
the Lord, I represent everything in this world that He represented.
So, at the Last Supper I can see several ash trays, a few cuspidors,
and a couple six-packs of Bud. So that would take care of the social
graces. Now I'm at liberty to not offend anyone with the gospel,
afterall Matthew 28 should have included taking a popular opinion
poll with the people so as not to become a nuisance to them. So
off I go to tell others about the Lord. I have in tow a brown paper
bag full of goodies and drink. I'm not going to tell them about
the Lord, I'm just going to go about my everyday business as usual
and surely someone will take note of my display of super piety and
desire to be saved. I won't tell them about the fellow who wrote
the most pages of 'christian liberty.' He had the liberty not to
become annoying to those around him and he was rewarded handsomely.
Five times he received 39 stripes, three times beaten with rods,
and the perils that surrounded him came from every sector of society,
both worldly and religious. And poor old Stephen, what a sap. If
he had sent Mr. Gallup out and got a survey he wouldn't have been
killed for the gospel. Then I think of the old time preachers who
wept because of the condition of the peoples hearts. Anyone you
know of that sheds tears when they see the condition of their families
and friends? Where are the doctrines of grace people who have much
say about another mans' way of evangelism and yet fail to put up
a united effort to combat or supplement the Billy Graham crowd?
Laz, I'm winding down. I am not writing this to elevate my views
over yours nor is it my intention to hurt your feelings. I care
about you as a man and as a brother in the Lord. My concern is that
you may find it too easy to hide in verbal combat at the expense
of seeing your folks and co-workers brought to the Lord. Dare to
become an Elijah or John the Baptist or will you be content to be
one of the crowd? Your friend till the end, lindell
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: laz
To: lindell
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 23, 2000 at 06:59:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Lindell - thanks for your thoughts and I was not offended. But let
me ask....is the Great Commission for all or just the Apostles and
those who would be ordained to LEAD in their stead thru out the
Church age? You seem to be suggesting that unless we are at risk
of being tossed to lions we are not doing our part to disciple the
nations.... In HIm, laz
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: lindell
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 14:10:21 (PST)
Email Address: ldunning@usa.net
Message:
Dear laz, The
great commission would be for all men and women. It would be hard
to contain this treasure in earthen vessels. Peter and John said
that we can not help but to teach and preach Jesus. I can not understand
why a person would spend more of their time on earth in endless
frivolous conversation and let the eternal things suffer silence.
And yes, if the love of the Lord doesn't lead a person to brave
the lion's den, then I would consider looking for a faith that would.
There are county and city jails that need to hear from an evangel.
Is it for everybody? No, it takes a lot of guts to leave the comfort
of ones study and keyboard and go out to the highways and byways
and proclaim the Lord's salvation. I am going to give you a rest
for a year I'll check back with you then. I hope that in that period
of time that the Lord will espouse your family to Himself and I
will be in prayer daily that you will lead them to Calvary. Good-
Bye for a season. Your friend, lindell
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: laz
To: lindell
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 17:44:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Dear laz, The great commission would be for all men and women. It
would be hard to contain this treasure in earthen vessels. Peter
and John said that we can not help but to teach and preach Jesus.
I can not understand why a person would spend more of their time
on earth in endless frivolous conversation and let the eternal things
suffer silence. And yes, if the love of the Lord doesn't lead a
person to brave the lion's den, then I would consider looking for
a faith that would. There are county and city jails that need to
hear from an evangel. Is it for everybody? No, it takes a lot of
guts to leave the comfort of ones study and keyboard and go out
to the highways and byways and proclaim the Lord's salvation. I
am going to give you a rest for a year I'll check back with you
then. I hope that in that period of time that the Lord will espouse
your family to Himself and I will be in prayer daily that you will
lead them to Calvary. Good- Bye for a season. Your friend, lindell
---
Lindell - you leaving us? Was it something I said?
I happen to believe, as does my Church, that the work of the active
ministry is left to those that are formally 'called' to teach and
preach and disciple. I don't have a 'ministry' per se (yes, yes,
I know all about the 'priesthood of all believers'... but this says
nothing about ministerial license), but that does not make me a
hider under a bushel. I am under the authority of my elders....I
don't do their 'jobs'! I submit to their offices and teachings as
they submit to the Word. They and they alone hold the keys to the
Kingdom entrusted to the Apostles (and now my elders) by Christ.
I don't go around hitting the highways and byways as though I represent
God or His Church... I don't! I am a lowly foot soldier in the Kingdom
with a place/function within the Body. I don't do lone ranger work
apart from the knowledge and oversight of those placed to shepherd
over me. As my wife submits to me...I submit to my elders who represent
Christ's shepherding on my behalf. Not that my testimony is the
issue, but if my life and conduct in the workplace has included
being able to share the faith to no less than a dozen persons in
the last couple of years....where people now seek me out for my
'understanding' of spiritual matters...then I have faithfully reached
out in the place and capacity God has determined for me. Again,
I am NOT an ordained preacher or teacher so I cannot represent God's
kingdom in an official capacity (just like I can't represent the
legal system until I pass the bar). I'm just a common but blessed
citizen of that other Kingdom, one who is more than willing to share
with any who ask for a reason of the hope
that lies within me... what's it going
to be like when I finally go 'home' and how was it that I found
myself possessing such a wonderful 'passport'. I tell them what
I know and understand about Christ's redemptive work and invite
them to my Church to hear the Gospel cogently proclaimed by men
ordained for the task. My primary calling is to God in the capacity
I just articulated, and then to be a godly example to my wife, kids,
friends, neighbors...and the guy who worked on my floors last fall
who is still calling me to 'discuss' the faith. ;-) The opportunities
to share the gospel present themselves all the time....I don't need
to go looking for them...they come to me as God determines. I don't
need to go to the prisons ... my work place is FULL of 'prisoners'...who
actually believe they are right with God...they being the MOST DECEIVED
of all. I believe the 'rank and file' are called to live soberly
before God and men...to live in peace with all men.... 1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your
own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which
no man shall see the Lord: Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much
as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Find
for me anywhere in scripture an example (or command to the rank/file)
to 'beat the bushes' for the sake of the Kingdom...where they were
called to engage in their own private little evangelistic crusade?
Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before
men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
which is in heaven. Through God's enabling
grace, THAT I
can and do....it was meant to be ... Eph 2:8-10! ;-) In Him, laz
p.s. and then there is my participation on forums such as these
that also serve on rare occasion to shapen/sharpen the beliefs of
others as mine have been shapened/sharpened - and continue to be.
Might cyberspace be the best place in this day and age to bring
matters of the faith into the market place of (corrupted) ideas?
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:31:22 (PST)
Email Address: mtl9904@yahoo.com
Message:
>>>>>I happen to believe, as does my Church, that
the work of the active ministry is left to those that are formally
'called' to teach and preach and disciple. I don't have a 'ministry'
per se (yes, yes, I know all about the 'priesthood of all believers'...
but this says nothing about ministerial license), but that does
not make me a hider under a bushel. I am under the authority of
my elders....I don't do their 'jobs'! I submit to their offices
and teachings as they submit to the Word. They and they alone hold
the keys to the Kingdom entrusted to the Apostles (and now my elders)
by Christ. I don't go around hitting the highways and byways as
though I represent God or His Church... I don't! I am a lowly foot
soldier in the Kingdom with a place/function within the Body. I
don't do lone ranger work apart from the knowledge and oversight
of those placed to shepherd over me. As my wife submits to me...I
submit to my elders who represent Christ's shepherding on my behalf.<<<<<
I believe this, too, laz. Your comments are probably the most honest
and forthright that I have seen in over six months of reading this
board. Christopher
|
Subject: Chris/Berean
From: laz
To: Christopher/Berean7
Date
Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:59:59
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Gee, and I didn't think anyone came this far down
the forum threads! haha! I appreciate the encouraging words...although
am I to understanding, Christopher, that a whole lot of dishonest
and unforthright posting goes on around here? ;-) Also, my views
on Church authority are not unique...they are the views I believe
all 'reformed-minded' embrace. Berean7 - I think that the moment
we loose sight of our sinfulness is the time to START worryin'.
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Just keep your eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector
of our faith (Heb12:2). laz
|
Subject: Re: Chris/Berean
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:46:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>Gee, and I didn't think anyone came this far
down the forum threads! haha! I appreciate the encouraging words...although
am I to understanding, Christopher, that a whole lot of dishonest
and unforthright posting goes on around here? ;-) Also, my views
on Church authority are not unique...they are the views I believe
all 'reformed-minded' embrace.<<<< Well, I've certainly been accused
here of being dishonest... :) Anyway, I don't say anyone here's
been intentionally dishonest. I just think that the repeated claims
of someone ignoring the 'clear' teaching of Scripture completely
discounts the fact that we all learn from those we trust as authority--it
strikes me as a completely unproductive ad hominem argument which
ensures that no one will ever get anywhere with anyone else. You
believe that Reformed doctrines are the clear teaching of Scripture
because you trust the authority of the teaching you have received.
A good Methodist is likely to strongly disagree with what you perceive
to be the clear teaching of Scripture because he believes that John
Wesley's doctrines taught within his church have more authority.
I do not say that you simply nod your head to whatever you're told.
To the contrary, I believe that most everyone here has spent much
time studying the Scriptures. And yet there can be a variety of
conclusions, with everyone equally convinced that they are correct.
When the 'Scriptural' arguments fail, everyone, invariably, appeals
to the fact that they have the 'historic' Faith, which has been
believed everywhere and by all. I believe that this can be proved.
Obviously, my evidence would not be credible here, and I don't intend
to argue the point. I only wish to point out that that we make the
same claim--that we have the historic, Apostolic Christian Faith.
So, I guess what I am saying is that I don't think one can be a
good Berean without first being a good Ethiopian. Which, I think,
is what you were saying. Eventually, we would get back to the recent
conversation regarding Truth, started by john hampshire--whether
one can know they have it and what path one takes in order to arrive
at it. Just a few thoughts... Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job,laz
From: Berean7
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:08:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Good reply Laz, I see alot of Humility in what you are saying and
agree that there is a balance. I admittingly will say, have overstepped
the boundries many times when it comes to sharing the Faith. There
is so much I wish was different about me. I want to grow sooooo
bad. Do you ever get so tired of your self and sin, that it drives
you batty? I do! Anyway good post and most encouraging in the ways
of the Lord Jesus. Berean7
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: john hampshire
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 23:11:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, You are correct sir, as usual! I cannot pray on behalf of another
anymore than I can become physically fit by having someone exercise
for me. Plus, I believe, as you well know, that prayer does not
alter circumstances, circumstance God has ordained, but allows us
to center ourselves, correct ourselves, and understand God's intention
through reflection and introspection. I believe God hears prayer,
but I also believe He is the motivator and author through us, thus
our prayer is only God working out His eternal plans in a complex
interwoven web which we cannot fully understand. Bottom line: prayer
is talking to God, it can include other people but it cannot be
done for them. I know that paradigm shift is not what folks were
taught in Sunday school or at prayer meetings. (: 0 john
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: Brother Bret
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 12:46:47 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@2aol.com
Message:
1Th. 5:25 'Brethren,
pray for us.' 2Th. 3:1 'Finally brethren, pray for us, that the
word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as
it is with you.' Col.4:3 'Withal praying also for us, that God would
open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ,
for which I am also in bonds.' Brother Bret
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: chris
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 06:25:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, can you show me in the Bible where it says that we should
not pray for others? Chris
|
Subject: Re: Witnessing on the Job
From: Chris
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 13:33:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John and all, I really want to say thankyou for all your instruction,
encouragement on this particalur subject. I took alot of it to heart
and made some needed changes by the Grace of God. But just to let
you know I went in today and minded my business and did my work
and still got fired anyway. See brethren, the reality of the Problem
is not whether we should witness on or off the workplace, I honestly
believe, that even if I did shut up on the job, it wouldnt be long
before I exploded. Why you may ask? How can we who know the Christ,
the Son of the Living God, keep silent. Whether at home, at work,
or in the public in general. There is a balance and just weight,
but it doesnt include being a silent witness. Anyway I truly believe
the Lord was glorified through it all, its a little frustrating
and hurtful, but God has a plan and I want to follow His desire
forever:) We who are Christians will suffer persecution no matter
where or how we witness. You may say 'I witness with my life and
not so much my mouth' The Bible says 'Witness with your life and
your mouth' Romans 10:17 'Faith comes by hearing and hearing by
the Word of God' In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Circumcision To Baptism
From: Brother Bret/PesterBrat
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 21:57:48 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
A brother in
the Lord brought up an interesting point a week or two ago, that
had never occured to me. If indeed, the baptizing of infants is
the new covenant/administration's version of the old Covenant/administration's
circumcision, how does the fact that only males were circumcised
fit in with both males and females being baptized as infants, based
on the word of God of course :^ ) Thanks.........Brother Bret/PesterBrat
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: john hampshire
To: Brother Bret/PesterBrat
Date
Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 00:09:28
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I would say the act of circumcision is not the focus,
but the spiritual implication behind it. Spiritually speaking, Christ
was the seed that would be cut-off, symbolized by circumcision.
It required the shedding of blood, and pointed to a redeemer who
would one day undo the sin of Adam. It isn't a male/female thing,
it is Adam who began the spread of rebellion, so it is a male symbolic
act. Water baptism is a symbolic act to recognize the spiritual
washing done by God in cleansing the regenerate's spirit. Baptism
is the proper symbol to replace circumcision. Christ's act of redemption
brought into being the next phase, salvation available and the floodgates
opened. Thus, washing as a symbol of cleansing works well, and applied
to all. john
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: Joel H
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 07:25:45 (PST)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu
Message:
John Even as
a dispey-lite :) I understand that baptism is the proper symbol
to replace the circumcision . What I don't understand is why it
should be administered before salvation as an infant instead of
having a believer's baptism after salvation. I especially am curious
why this is so if 'the act of circumcision
is not the focus, but the spiritual implication behind it' because many people use the circumcision
was done as an infant argument to support
infant baptism over believer's baptism. But that would seem to bring
the act of or at least the rules and regulations around circumcision
into focus, not the spiritual implications behind it. Does a believer's
baptism fall short of being an effective symbol, or is the choice
between believer's baptism and infant baptism just a personal conviction?
Joel
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: john hampshire
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 04:43:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Joel, Personally, if our only argument for infant baptism is that
circumcision was done on infants, we'd have a weak argument. The
argument that Jesus loves little children due to His use of them
in demonstrating what it is LIKE to be a child of God, leads many
to say children are automatically saved. As Pilgrim might say, faulty
premise with a faulty conclusion. Paul wrote to new followers of
Christ '...in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision
made without hands...having been buried with Him in baptism' Col2:11-12.
In other words, believers became believers by God's action, a circumcision
without (human) hands. We call this regeneration, a resurrected
spirit, a giving of life. This came about by Christ becoming the
'seed' that was cut-off, something we have no part in. It is also
pictured as Christ taking our sins with Him, so that we are 'buried'
with Him, this is called a 'baptism'. It is not that Christ was
buried in the ground, for He wasn't, but as He said: He would be
in 'the heart of the earth'. Baptism then, is not a picture of being
buried in dirt, or water, but rather having our sins removed by
Christ as He underwent that separation, similar to Jonah separated
from the living in the belly of the whale. Jonah returned, and so
did Christ, both after three days and nights. Baptism then is not
about dunking under water, but a washing or removal of our sins
brought about by the cutting off of Christ. Circumcision pointed
to the cutting-off very well, baptism points to the result, which
is a cleansed soul. Further, and to your question, I believe circumcision
was a token given to those who entered into the covenant of salvation.
It didn't make them saved, nor did Abraham's children become saved
by it, but it showed they were to 'keep the way of the Lord' Gen
18:19. Obviously, those who keep the way of the Lord are indeed
Christians. So there is a sanctification of the children by the
parents due to their commitment to God, circumcision was the sign.
Baptism then, becomes the NT equivalent of our entry into this covenant
of grace. If children were symbolically allowed the symbol of entry
into this covenant based upon the parents devotion to God, then
likewise baptism is given to infants and children to show they are
symbolically entered into the covenant with their parents. Circumcision
did not require a profession of faith to determine some genuine
intent on the part of the child to obey God. It was done as a sign
of salvation being extended to the home of believing parents, it
was not salvation itself which only God can do. Likewise baptism
does not require a profession of faith to ensure the child is really
a believer (unlike the Lord's table which must be closely guarded),
it is only a symbol that God's covenant belongs to those who fear
Him, and includes the children too. (Ps 103:17). If someone sees
baptism differently, wanting to only baptize a child who shows his
own faith, so be it. I don't think this is some great travesty.
If they choose to immerse the child or adult, so be it, it is not
a big deal to me. I believe the correct and Biblical mode is sprinkling,
which is how God symbolizes the washing of regeneration, and I believe
it is allowed for babies of believers to be sprinkled as a symbol
of the families entry into the covenant (just like Abraham's circumcision
of the family and slaves). They are all sanctified by being under
the headship of a believing family unit (the husband). If someone
doesn't see that, and finds other meaning in baptism, I don't care.
I do care when certain Baptists INSIST that the ONLY proper means
and mode of baptism is by immersion of adult believers. That gets
me upset. It is just wrong. It cannot be substantiated with Scripture
so one wonders why these folks are so dogmatic, except it is a founding
tenet of their religion and would cause a major pillar to fall if
baptism were NOT as they maintain. In any case, read 1 Cor 7:14
were Paul calls the children of believing parents 'holy' or 'set
apart'. They join in the covenant of salvation due to their position
in a believing family. Actual salvation is left with God, but they
are brought close by the hearing of truth. The sign of this was
circumcision, and is now changed with Christ’s fulfillment of the
symbol to baptism. john
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 09:27:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
A thought just occurred to me. Circumcism nor baptism secure salvation
anymore than outwardly confessing Christ and joining a great Church...for
in all cases, it's the INWARD reality, not the external one, that
God has ordained unto salvation. Until that Day...let the wheat
and the tares grow together.... blessings and thanks John, laz
|
Subject: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 08:07:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, Nicely done brother! :-) The question that I always ask Baptists
is 'What is their DEFINITION of Baptism?'. And so I will thus do that here again:
ALL BAPTISTS!
Please offer your DEFINITION of
Baptism! I am NOT asking for an explanation of your practice of
baptism nor of its recipients, etc. I simply would like you to state
in a cogent and brief way your DEFINITION of it. And I'll even help
you out here by starting you off on the right foot:
BAPTISM IS: __________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Just fill in the blanks! hehehe. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From:
Prestor John
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 16:13:23 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Okay here we go from the London Baptist
Confession of 1689:
Baptism is an ordinance
of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord
Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His church to the
end of the world.[ Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 11:26] This holy appointment
is to be administered by those only who are qualified and there
unto called, according to the commission of Christ.[Matt. 28:19;
I Cor. 4:1]
Baptism is an ordinance of
the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the
party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death
and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[Rom. 6:3-5;
Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27] of remission of sins;[Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16]
and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and
walk in newness of life.[Rom. 6:4] Those who do actually profess
repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord
Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[Mark
16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8] The outward element to
be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to
be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit.[Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38] Immersion, or
dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration
of this ordinance.[Matt. 3:16, John 3:23]
All right you paedobaptists, I'm
ready for you I'll take you on, one on one or banana!(all yellow
and in a bunch)
}:^{P
Prestor John Credobaptist! |
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From:
mebaser
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 22:51:24 (PST)
Email Address:
Not
Provided
Message:
Prestor John, C'mon now, are you really a credobaptist? I thought
you were a Covenant Theologian. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From: Prestor John
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 06:18:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Prestor John, C'mon now, are you really a credobaptist? I thought
you were a Covenant Theologian. In Christ, mebaser
---
Their not necessarily opposite poles mebaser. I refer you to this
particular sermon. And yes I am a Covenant Theologian. Prestor John
Credobaptist Covenant Armchair Theologian PAEDOISM OR CREDOISM?
www.jps.net/prbc/PaedoismorCredoism.htm
|
Subject: i see, thanks
From: mebaser
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 22:17:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Thanks for the link. I guess I have to keep on my toes for whatever
other surprises you Covenant folks will come up with. In Christ,
mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 20:28:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Prestor,
Thanks for replying and especially
for this quote from the London Confession of Faith. I would like
to know if the following paraphrase of section II which you quoted
as:
Baptism is an ordinance
of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the
party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death
and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[Rom. 6:3-5;
Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27] of remission of sins;[Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16]
and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and
walk in newness of life.[Rom. 6:4]
would be a faithful summary of
it? PARAPHRASE: Baptism is: an outward sign of an/the inward reality
of a person's salvation in Christ.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From:
scott lewis
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Sun, Mar 19, 2000
at 21:24:02 (PST)
Email
Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net
Message:
Prestor,
Thanks for replying
and especially for this quote from the London Confession of Faith.
I would like to know if the following paraphrase of section II which
you quoted as:
Baptism
is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,
to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with
Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into
Him;[Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27] of remission of sins;[Mark
1:4; Acts 22:16] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ,
to live and walk in newness of life.[Rom. 6:4]
would be a faithful
summary of it? PARAPHRASE: Baptism is: an outward sign of an/the
inward reality of a person's salvation in Christ.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
Not really no, I'm sure there have been many dry unsaved
people who after being baptized are wet and just as unsaved. scott
|
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From:
Prestor John
To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 21:40:25 (PST)
Email Address:
Not
Provided
Message:
Scott you've missed the point here. Pilgrim is asking me this: Baptism
is: an outward sign of an/the
inward reality of a person's salvation in Christ We're not talking about the person here
but rather the ordinance itself. What is Baptism suppose to represent?
Is it the sign of the new covenant? Now, do you have some thing
to say towards that? Prestor John
|
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From: scott lewis
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 12:46:29 (PST)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net
Message:
We're not talking about the person here but rather the ordinance
itself. What is Baptism suppose to represent? Is it the sign of
the new covenant? Now, do you have some thing to say towards that?
Prestor John My My a bit testy aren't we?? Since you asked me then
I will refer back to pilgrim's original question. BAPTISM means??
Biblically, baptism is associated with forgiveness (Acts 2:38, 22:16),
union with Christ (Rom. 6 1-10) making disciples (Matt. 28:19),
and repentance (Acts 2:38). This is not to conclude that water baptism
effects forgiveness, etc., but that is a closely connected with
those things that begin the christian life. Theologically, baptism
may be defined as an act of association or identification with someone,
some group, some message, or some event. Arguments for infant baptism
include: 1. The circumcision agrument 2. The historical argument
3. The household argument I'm sure there is no use in discussing
many of these because you probably know them better than I. The
position against: 1. The order is always believe and then be baptized
(Matt. 3:2-6, 28:19; Acts 2:37-38; 16:14-15, 34) 2.Baptism is the
initatory rite into a believing community, the church; therefore
it should only be done to belivers. By contrast, circumcision initiated
people(including infants) into a theocracy, which did have unbelievers
in it. 3. The age of children is never mentioned in any passage
that mentions household baptism. But it does state all who were
baptized did belive. This, then would exclude infants from being
included. 4. If 1 Cor. 7:14 allows for or requires the baptism of
children in a household where there is a believing parent, then
it would also allow/require the baptism of the unbelieving adult
male. I'm sure I will get blasted now :) God bless scott lewis
|
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 15:47:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Scott,
First off, I didn't read any 'testiness'
in Prestor John's reply to you whatsoever? Perhaps its an over-defensiveness
on your part? After all he is a Baptist as are you, thus I would
presume he's on 'your side' in regards to this discussion! :-) Your
closing remark, 'I'm sure I will get blasted
now :)' regardless of the smile, does
seem to reveal an uneasiness on your part at least IMHO. :-) Secondly,
as to one particular statement you wrote, which was the only germane
part of your reply, in regards to the original question asked, you
said:
2.Baptism is the
initatory rite into a believing community, the church; therefore
it should only be done to belivers. By contrast, circumcision
initiated people(including infants) into a theocracy, which
did have unbelievers in it.
I would comment on the two parts
of this statement: 1) 'Baptism is the initiatory
rite into a believing community, the church; therefore it should
only be done to belivers.' REPLY: Am I
to understand that the church consists of ONLY believers? You seem
to be saying here that there are no unbelievers in the church. If
not then your conclusion is null. If yes, then are you willing to
affirm that ALL who receive the sacrament of baptism are in fact
true believers? This of course is a splendid segway back to my original
question, and more specifically my 'paraphrase' of it: 'Baptism
is: an outward sign of an inward reality'? This would certainly
fit your statement here concerning a 'pure' church. Secondly you
at least intimated here that infants were incorporated into a Theocracy
in the Old Testament period, which of course, given your Dispensationalism,
denies the existence of the church until the appearing of Christ
and His ascension. But going further, it appears to also intimate
that the contrast must be carried over to mean that the Church consists
only of adults, since infants cannot believe; at least by the definition
of what most Arminians hold to concerning faith/belief. And lastly
a side note on 'circumcision initiated people (including infants)
into a theocracy'. This is not an accurate statement to be sure.
Only MALES where 'initiated' into the COVENANT within the theocracy.
Let's not forget that Abraham was circumcised before Israel came
into existence. Circumcision was given to him by God as a sign of
the COVENANT made between them, on the ground 'and Abraham believed
God and it was accounted to him as righteousness' (Gen 17:10-14;
Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6f ). As the male was the head of the household,
all those under his authority were included in the covenant, albeit
not with the same relational aspects as did Abraham UNLESS they
were of faith. Nonetheless, they were included in the external blessings
and were incorporated in all the festivals, which were shadows of
Christ to come as well as the worship of God in the Tabernacle and
later in the Temple. Lastly, in regards to your point #4 and ICor
7:14, the issue there is the blessing which comes upon a house when
there is at least one believer present. Thus those dwelling there
are 'holy' in the sense that this word is mostly used throughout
the Scriptures; set apart or different. It is not implying any moral
quality of the individuals nor their having or lacking spirituality.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Calling all BAPTISTS! :-)
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 15:28:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I simply would like you to state in a cogent and brief way your
DEFINITION of it. And I'll even help you out here by starting you
off on the right foot: BAPTISM IS: __WET AND GOOD!_ONLY WE DO MORE
THAN A FOOT_;-)______ Speaking of which, they used to tell that
in Ireland they baptised by holding a man by the hand and dipping
him under, but the hand was not wet, thus he could hold a wench
and a sword in the afterlife. Well that is what they say ;-) In
His Service, stan
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: Gene
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 03:04:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, You wrote: Spiritually speaking, Christ was the seed that
would be cut-off, symbolized by circumcision. Biblically speaking,
where do you find the verse in the Bible that says this?
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: john hampshire
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:51:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene, By asking which verse says that circumcision spiritually points
to Christ as the seed that would be cut-off, you ask as if all truth
were simply to be read off the page of your Bible. You have a habit
of asking which verse says this and that, do you not realize the
Bible requires study, a comparison of many verses to understand
what is meant. You consistently reject doctrine that is not pre-digested
for your consumption, laid bare directly word-for-word so you understand.
For what it is worth, we can look at some verses. We should find
deeper truths than that found in any individual verse alone. Gen
13:14-15 God promises Abraham a seed. In Gen 17:2-8 God promises
land to Abraham and to his seed forever. He is also told by God
Abraham would be a father of many nations. This seed consists of
people from many nations, not just Israel, and this seed would inherit
the land forever. This is said by God to be an everlasting covenant.
In Gen 17:10-13 God speaks to His covenant, and the token of this
covenant is circumcision. Compare this to Rom 4:9-13 we find it
is 'all them that believe' to be the circumcision. Rom 4:2-8 continues
the commentary on Gen 17, speaking of a covering of sins, the forgiving
of iniquities, all which has to do with salvation. In Gen 17 God
is not making promises to national Israel concerning the physical
land of Canaan, rather He is making promises concerning salvation.
A salvation that would come to people from every nation, including
Israel, as Rom 4:23-25 says plainly. The sign of the covenant of
salvation given to Abraham was circumcision. In Deut 10:6 we find
the focus on 'circumcise the foreskin of your heart' to point physical
circumcision to a spiritual relationship with God. Christ was the
'seed', a blood descendant of Abraham, who in turn became the head
of a vast company of believers from every nation. It was in Christ
that Abraham became the father of a multitude of nations. Do we
see why the covenant included the seed inheriting a land forever?
The land is the New Heaven and New Earth. Notice Rom 4:13 speaks
to 'the world' as the inheritance. This world is destroyed by fire,
it is the eternal world to come, the dwelling place for all believers
forever to which the covenant applies. We see clearly in Gal 3:16
that the 'seed' is Christ. Christ is the 'seed' which would inherit
the world. But Gal 3:26-29 reminds us that Christ became the head
of a vast company of believers from every nation. All that believe
will be the seed of Abraham, and would inherit the land (the world)
forever. Circumcision was the token of this covenant of salvation.
Circumcision focused on the 'seed' which is Christ, and the cutting
off was a perpetual reminder that this 'seed' would one day be cut
off, as Christ said 'My Father why hath Thou forsaken Me'. This
reminder was fulfilled in Christ, and circumcision as a sign ended.
Isa 55:5, 'He is despised and REJECTED of men; a man of sorrows,
and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from
Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.' Psalm 71:11 'Saying:
God has forsaken Him; pursue and seize Him, for there is no one
to deliver' Vs 20 'Wilt revive me again, and wilt bring me up again
from the depths of the earth, Mayest Thou increase My greatness
and turn to comfort Me.' Mt 12:40, 'For as Jonas was three days
and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth'. Note: Christ
was cut off for our iniquity, He was forsaken of the Father, to
which circumcision points that Christ would be rejected as a bloody
sacrifice to bring the covenant into being and save many alive.
Have I wasted my time? john
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: Joel H
To: Brother Bret/PesterBrat
Date
Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:01:00
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
I was wondering about that very same issue. I am
also curious about why infant baptism is not administered on the
eighth day after birth like the circumcision? Also, I have heard
that there is a discussion on tape between John MacArthur and RC
Sproul about believers baptism vs. infant baptism. Can anyone confirm
or deny its existence? Lastly, are there any dispey-lite people
on this board who like the concept of infant baptism? Joel H
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 10:41:35 (PST)
Email Address: freegracealone@yahoo.com
Message:
============================ Good question , Joel. I am a moderate
dispensationalist, and follow the one baptism of the Spirit alone
for our eternal salvation. see Eph. 4:5, 1 Cor. 12:13. There is
no need to 'sprinkle OR immerse' with water. Romans chapter six
is speaking about the sovereign work of the holy Spirit alone, and
water baptism is not even mentioned here! Psul was sent *not to
baptise*, but to preach the gospel! Just think, if all of us followed
the Bible at this point, (and the complete revelation given to the
apostle Paul), there would be no need to wonder and debate like
this about whether we should 'sprinkle with water or immerse in
water' etc. etc. freegrace
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 13:00:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
============================ Good question , Joel. I am a moderate
dispensationalist, and follow the one baptism of the Spirit alone
for our eternal salvation. see Eph. 4:5, 1 Cor. 12:13. There is
no need to 'sprinkle OR immerse' with water. Romans chapter six
is speaking about the sovereign work of the holy Spirit alone, and
water baptism is not even mentioned here! Psul was sent *not to
baptise*, but to preach the gospel! Just think, if all of us followed
the Bible at this point, (and the complete revelation given to the
apostle Paul), there would be no need to wonder and debate like
this about whether we should 'sprinkle with water or immerse in
water' etc. etc. freegrace
---
Robert, Please clarify for
me what you said above. Am I to understand you as saying that water
baptism is not necessary and it should not be practiced by the Church?
In His Grace, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Circumcision To Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 21, 2000 at 17:31:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The 'Great Commission' for the church is given to the apostle Paul,
and is found in Romans 16:25-27. (water baptism is not even mentioned
here). Circumcision is now *spiritual* and baptism is also now *spiritual*.
It is the operation of God alone, and is not the work of the hands
(of men). Colossians.2:11 --'made without hands' it says. therefore,
we cannot 'glory in men' and say so and so baptised me...for it
is written - 'Henceforth know we no man after the flesh' - or according
to outward appearance, station in life, etc. As you can see, this
does away with any 'apostolic succession'..etc freegrace
|
Subject: Christian Liberty (from below)
From: Brother Bret/PesterBrat
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 21:51:03 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Hello All: First
of all, I want to apologize if I appeared to be judgmental in my
original response. I do not think any less of any of you, doubt
your salvation, or question your motives. Brother Pilgrim, I hope
that I did not disrespect you in any way. If I did, please forgive
me. I know we have a few things that we disagree on (eschatology,
baptism and liberty just for starters), but I do thank the Lord
for you and this forum for the stance taken on the doctrines of
sovereign grace! I do understand the there are many things that
Christians can do under the grace and freedom of God. If I appeared
as not believing that, I hope that this will clear it up. However,
based on something that Laz brought up (but was questioning), I
do not think that it is prudent to use some of these liberties with
such passages of Scripture of which many I have already mentioned
such as: 'Love not the world...' and 'wherefore if it maketh my
brother to offend...' 'and be ye seperate...and touch not the unclean
thing...' and 'whether therefore ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye
do, do all to the glory of God.' today in our culture. Brother John
mentioned conscience in his post below. Mine as I believe is directed
by God's precious holy Spirit tell me to abstain from many of these
things that were mentioned. Both as a Christian and a Pastor. I
am fully aware, and I'm sure some of you will remind me, that I
will have to answer to the Lord for these things. By His grace,
I do not take that solemn promise lightly :^ ). Romans 14 tells
us that we are to neither judge our weaker brother in these things
NOR cause them to stumble. Indeed, there needs to be a balance.
May the Lord deal with me kindly if I am wrong for my stance, including
as a Pastor, in dealing with some of these 'gray' areas :^ ). May
God bless each one of us according to His will and good pleasure
(Is.46:10; Ph. 2:13). Brother Bret/PesterBrat :^)
|
Subject: Re: Christian Liberty (from below)
From: laz
To: Brother Bret/PesterBrat
Date
Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 13:45:45
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
BroBret - you're a good man Charlie Brown! hehe How
about this, in my spiritual circle (or call it my 'culture'), i.e.,
reformed presbyterians, I can get by with having an occassional
beer or dancing a jig 'cause NOBODY is offended. However, in your
circle (culture)...fundi-baptists (not meant pegoratively) ...you
CAN'T get away with an occassional beer 'cause everyone would faint.
;-) Which goes back to my orginal point about discernment....and
indeed your point about causing others to violate conscience. So,
we all happy now? blessings, laz p.s. Not to beat a dead horse,
but I really would like to see some good arguments for Welch's being
the wedding beverage of choice in ancient Palestine. hehe HONEST!
...still trying to figure out how the quality of the 'grape juice'
would make or break a festive occassion. Or how 'grape juice' increases
the degree of merriment (making the heart glad as the Bible says)
on happy occassions such as weddings and such.
|
Subject: Re: Christian Liberty (from below)
From: Tom
To: all
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 00:03:01 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Hi I was at the White Horse Inn site and low and behold, the topic
in discussion was 'Christian Liberty'. http://www.icrn.com/The_White_Horse_Inn/default.asp
Tom
|
Subject: where do babies go when they die?
From: kevin
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 17:58:13 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Okay, I know this topic can be really touchy. A coworker and I were
discussing this issue and trying to figure out what scripture says
about children who die in infancy before they can even make a proclamation
of faith. I am familiar with Jonathan Edward's view (all babies
do not go to heaven) on this and I am not really keen on it. I am
also familiar with Augustus Toplady's view (all babies that die
in infancy are of the elect because the law of election, and not
the law of reprbation, only applies to them). And I have read what
John Calvin had to say on the issue, but he was speaking more in
terms of it in association with infant baptism (not that I am opposed
to the two being linked in some way). I understand Toplady in the
divine election sense, but have some difficulty with his view in
light of some of our modern abominations of medical science (ie
abortion). I personally lean towards the covenantal promise view
that the children of believers who die in infancy are elect and
those of unbelievers do not. I base this on scripture telling us
of the promise to my entire household, the conversion of the jailer,
and Paul's letter to believer's married to unbelievers for the sanctification
of their children. I do not agree with the age of accountability
as a rule. With that said could anyone or everyone shed some light
on this brother who would really like some scriptural truth shined
his way on this. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Why would a baby...
From: Eric
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 07:19:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
be in hell? What sin are they being punished for? Scripture is clear
that our eternal destiny will be determined by our deeds. Now it
is clear that temporal blessings and curses are passed down from
generation to generation, or from people group to people group,
but not eternal blessing or punishment.
|
Subject: Re: Why would a baby...
From: Tom
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 12:13:18 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Eric Obviously you don't believe in the 'T' from TULIP. Total Depravity
in case you didn't know what that meant. If I had more time, I would
explain that to you. But maybe someone with more time will. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Why? Original Sin That's Why!
From: Joel H
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 09:35:57 (PST)
Email Address: jh6@muw.edu
Message:
First of all,
eternal destiny is not determined by the deeds of man but by God's
sovereign decree. On the infancy issue: Have you ever considered
the passage of Romans 5:12-21. Of what sin are infants guilty? Not
even infants are free from the curse of Original Sin (which is an
eternal curse). If God sends infants to heaven or hell, then He
is completely justified in His decision. In addition, infants have
no hope according to your beliefs. If salvation is according to
the deeds of man and not a sovereign choice by God, then the infant
is without hope unable to "make the decision for Christ".
However, if salvation is determined soley according to God's decision,
then it is the only position that loigcally provides any room for
infants to be saved. Regeneration in the womb is little different
from saving an adult who is also utterly helpless to choose God
being "dead in his sins". I hope this helps. Joel H
|
Subject: Re: Why? Original Sin That's Why!
From: Eric
To: Joel H
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 12:35:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>First of all, eternal destiny is not determined by the
deeds of man but by God's sovereign decree. Really? So sin has nothing
to do with it? Some are appointed to hell without taking into account
their sin? That view is definitely not scriptural. This leaves no
room for human responsibility. Our destiny is determined by our
deeds, whether or not we glorify Christ and accept His perfect atoning
sacrifice as sufficient for all of our needs (which then we will
be judged by His deeds), and repent of our sins. If we do this,
we will be in heaven, if we don’t do this, we will face destruction.
>>>On the infancy issue: >>>Have you ever considered
the passage of Romans 5:12-21. Of what sin are infants guilty? Not
even infants are free from the curse of Original Sin (which is an
eternal curse). If God sends infants to heaven or hell, then He
is completely justified in His decision. Yes, we are told that through
sin, death entered the world. We are subjected to the curse of sin
through Adam (death), No where (that I have seen) does it say that
we will be judged eternally for Adam’s sin. I do think that the
curse does extend to our natures, and if left to our own devices,
we will never seek Him. But scripture repeatedly says that we will
be judged by our actions—see the bottom of this post. >>>In
addition, infants have no hope according to your beliefs. You don’t
know me, so how can you know my beliefs?. >>>If salvation
is according to the deeds of man and not a sovereign choice by God,
then the infant is without hope unable to 'make the decision for
Christ'. I did not say salvation is according to the deeds of man,
salvation is according to the deeds of Christ and His righteousness.
Our damnation is according to our deeds, and not Adam’s. >>>However,
if salvation is determined soley according to God's decision, then
it is the only position that loigcally provides any room for infants
to be saved. Regeneration in the womb is little different from saving
an adult who is also utterly helpless to choose God being 'dead
in his sins'. We are told that we must confess with our mouths and
believe with our hearts that Jesus is Lord in order to be saved—why
does this save us? Because this glorifies Christ, that is the point
of all redemption, not primarily to save individuals for their sake,
but to bring glory to Christ. This is problematic to your view because
you also hold that God decreed from eternity past which babies would
be murdered, and thus God did not want them to have a chance to
glorify Christ by making a profession of faith. The view that all
the infants who die are in hell, is more logically consistent with
Calvinism. Here are the verses that speak of our judgement (specifically
damnation) being based upon OUR deeds. Romans 2:5-8 But because
of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing
up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous
judgment will be revealed. [6] God 'will give to each person according
to what he has done.' [7] To those who by persistence in doing good
seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8]
But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and
follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. Jude 1:14-15 Enoch,
the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: 'See, the Lord
is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones [15] to
judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly
acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words
ungodly sinners have spoken against him.' Rev. 2:23 I will strike
her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he
who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according
to your deeds. Rev. 16:9-11 They were seared by the intense heat
and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues,
but they refused to repent and glorify him. [10] The fifth angel
poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom
was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony [11]
and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores,
but they refused to repent of what they had done. Rev. 20:12-13
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne,
and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book
of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as
recorded in the books. [13] The sea gave up the dead that were in
it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and
each person was judged according to what he had done.
|
Subject: Re: Why? Original Sin That's Why!
From: john hampshire
To: Eric
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 05:27:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric, What did God do for the little babies and children that were
left to die by the thousands, if not millions, when the flood waters
destroyed all life except those eight aboard the ark? Why was God's
anger poured out upon them for their wickedness, if in fact babies
are without wickedness (sin) having insufficient reasoning ability
to choose to sin? Did God drown them, then place them in heaven
because they were perfect... then why weren't they spared like Noah's
family who were perfect. Just to help you understand better: the
transgression of Adam broke our relationship with God, we are all
born like Adam, without fellowship. The desire of Adam's offspring
are turned toward themselves, not pleasing God in fellowship. They
seek evil, even babies seek their own, selfish desires... which
is all sin. Anything less than perfection is sin, any time we place
our desires first it is sin. While babies lack the means to exercise
their will, it is quickly manifest by rebellion, anger, violence,
selfishness, as soon as they are able. That is the nature of a dead
spirit, a spirit which cannot please God. Every effort, thought,
plan of man from conception onward is opposed to God, they go astray
from the womb, as the Bible says. This is where human responsibility
arises, even babies love themselves and hate the truth. I understand
you believe, as many do, that if we show faith toward God, then
He sees our faith and saves us. Since babies don't show faith it
must follow they are perfect until they reach a suitable age. The
problem here is in your understanding of salvation, which leads
to the second problem of perfect infants. We are not saved because
we do this and that, we are regenerated in spirit by God because
Christ redeemed us by His spiritual death in which the Father subjected
Him to 'hell' on our behalf, such that He became sin for us. To
back up further, we find that Christ paid this penalty in obedience
to the Father who chose or elected some by His sovereign good pleasure,
and gave them to the Son to redeem. To back up further, we find
that the Father choose those who would belong to His Kingdom before
He created this world, before He created anyone He knew them and
numbered them. We also find that at the appropriate time, God's
Spirit regenerates His elect, giving life to a dead spirit. This
new life finds agreement with God, seeks God, loves God, understands
spiritual things (being spirit) and in understanding comes faith.
Thus, faith is a manifestation of a living spirit. We confess Christ,
that is: agree with Christ when our spirit is in fellowship with
God's Spirit. It is far more than just speaking well of God in some
type of confession. God is not waiting for dead men (spiritually)
to give Him glory so He can save them. He saves them, and they naturally
give Him glory. Salvation is free, not because of what we do or
say. john
|
Subject: Re: Why? Original Sin That's Why!
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 09:05:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
|
Subject: Re: Why? Original Sin That's Why!
From:
laz
To: Eric
Date
Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000
at 14:25:42 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric - of course all are judged according
to their deeds...even 'calvinists' believe that. Side point: If
damnation is according to our deeds of evil (and not on account
of Adam's sin on our behalf), then theoretically someone CAN live
without sin if they only choose to. I'm sure you've heard of the
Pelagian heresy? You seem to deny the federal headship of Adam over
all mankind. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VI Of
the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof I. Our first
parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan,
sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was
pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having
purposed to order it to his own glory.[2] 1. Gen. 3:13; II Cor.
11:3 2. See Chapter V, Section IV II. By this sin they fell from
their original righteousness and communion with God,[3] and so became
dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties
of soul and body.[5] 3. Gen. 3:6-8; Rom. 3:23 4. Gen. 2:17; Eph.
2:1-3; see Rom. 5:12 5. Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Titus 1:15; Rom. 3:10-19
III. They being the root of
all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same
death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity
descending from them by ordinary generation.[7] 6. Acts. 17:26;
Rom. 5:12, 15-19; I Cor. 15:21-22, 49 7. Psa. 51:5; John 3:6; Gen.
5:3; Job 15:14 IV. From this
original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled,
and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9]
do proceed all actual transgressions.[10] 8. Rom. 5:6; 7:18; 8:7;
Col. 1:21 9. Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10-12 10. Matt. 15:19; James
1:14-15; Eph. 2:2-3 V. This corruption of nature, during this life,
doth remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be,
through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all
the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12] 11. Prov. 20:9;
Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 7:14, 17-18, 21-23; I John 1:8, 10 12. Rom. 7:7-8,
25; Gal. 5:17 VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression
of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] doth, in
its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound
over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made
subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19]
and eternal.[20] 13. I John 3:4 14. Rom. 2:15; 3:9, 19 15. Eph.
2:3 16. Gal. 3:10 17. Rom. 6:23 18. Eph. 4:18 19. Rom. 8:20; Lam.
3:39 20. Matt. 25:41; II Thess. 1:9 The bottom line for me is that
the FIRST human being conceived without a fallen nature(thus rightly
judged as 'condemned' by God 'in Adam')...is the FIRST person, fetus,
infant...whatever, who does NOT NEED A SAVIOR. Can you live with
that thought? Do you really think that highly of man? Can the Bible
support that theoretical situation? Will there be human souls in
heaven that are there apart from the mercifully shed blood of Christ
Jesus being laid to their broken, overdrawn INHERITED from Adam
'account'? blessing,laz p.s. you wrote: We are told that we must confess with our mouths and
believe with our hearts that Jesus is Lord in order to be saved—why does this save us? Because this
glorifies Christ,
that is the point of all redemption, not primarily to save individuals
for their sake, but to bring glory to Christ. If we are saved because we do something to 'glorify Christ',
then where does GRACE (unmerited favor) come in? Sounds like God
is merely paying what He owes us. Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more
grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of
slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should
not hear;) unto this day. 2Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called
us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according
to his own purpose and grace, which
was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
|
Subject: A joint reply to laz and john
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 09:20:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello gentlemen, >Side point: If damnation is according
to our deeds of evil (and not on account of Adam's sin on our behalf),
then theoretically someone CAN live without sin if they only choose
to. I'm sure you've heard of the Pelagian heresy? >You seem to
deny the federal headship of Adam over all mankind. Pelagian was
a heretic. I do not deny the federal headship of Adam, and I absolutely
deny that a human being can ever live a life without sin. >IV.
From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined
to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10] Right,
our fallen natures are the root cause of our sin-the actual transgression
of the law of God. It is by these transgressions that we will be
judged by, not potential transgressions, but actual ones. >The
bottom line for me is that the FIRST human being conceived without
a fallen nature(thus rightly judged as 'condemned' by God 'in Adam')...is
the FIRST person, fetus, infant...whatever, who does NOT NEED A
SAVIOR. >Can you live with that thought? Do you really think
that highly of man? Can the Bible support that theoretical situation?
Will there be human souls in heaven that are there apart from the
mercifully shed blood of Christ Jesus being laid to their broken,
overdrawn INHERITED from Adam 'account'? >p.s. you wrote: We are told that we must confess with our mouths and believe
with our hearts that Jesus is Lord in order to be saved—why does
this save us? Because this glorifies Christ, that is the point of
all redemption, not primarily to save individuals for their sake,
but to bring glory to Christ. >If we are saved because we do
something to 'glorify Christ', then where does GRACE (unmerited
favor) come in? Sounds like God is merely paying what He owes us.
Again, your assumption about my view is wrong. It is only through
the grace and power of God that we can confess and believe, and
thus glorify Him. I do not hold to Arminianism. >What
did God do for the little babies and children that were left to
die by the thousands, if not millions, when the flood waters destroyed
all life except those eight aboard the ark? Why was God's anger
poured out upon them for their wickedness, if in fact babies are
without wickedness (sin) having insufficient reasoning ability to
choose to sin? Did God drown them, then place them in heaven because
they were perfect... then why weren't they spared like Noah's family
who were perfect. Maybe. Can you give me a scripture that says those
babies both in and outside of the womb are being tormented eternally?
Why wasn’t King David’s child spared? God killed that child, yet
David said he would see him again in heaven. So we do have a case
of an infant being subjected to a temporal judgement, but not an
eternal one. >Just to help you understand better: the transgression
of Adam broke our relationship with God, we are all born like Adam,
without fellowship. The desire of Adam's offspring are turned toward
themselves, not pleasing God in fellowship. They seek evil, even
babies seek their own, selfish desires... which is all sin. Anything
less than perfection is sin, any time we place our desires first
it is sin. While babies lack the means to exercise their will, it
is quickly manifest by rebellion, anger, violence, selfishness,
as soon as they are able. That is the nature of a dead spirit, a
spirit which cannot please God. >Every effort, thought, plan
of man from conception onward is opposed to God, they go astray
from the womb, as the Bible says. This is where human responsibility
arises, even babies love themselves and hate the truth. What sin
does a fertilized egg commit one second after it has been fertilized?
Life begins at conception right? A human soul is brought into existence
at that time right? So, what is the sin that cell committed? It
has no brain, no thoughts, nothing, just a few chemical reactions.
Do you really believe that an aborted fertilized egg will be resurrected
on judgement day, and then be sentenced to an eternity of endless
physical torment? >I understand you believe, as many do, that
if we show faith toward God, then He sees our faith and saves us.
Since babies don't show faith it must follow they are perfect until
they reach a suitable age. The problem here is in your understanding
of salvation, which leads to the second problem of perfect infants
No, I don’t believe that at all. Apparently I wasn’t clear in my
post as to the purpose of redemption. We are redeemed to bring glory
to Christ. We can only bring glory to Him if we are regenerated,
which is a supernatural work of God. ( Is it not possible that God’s
ordaining that billions of infants and fetuses are slaughtered is
an act of mercy and love towards them? What humans meant for evil,
God meant for good. Do we have record of Christ ever rebuking a
small child or an infant? Or is He compassionate and loving towards
them? Now, what verses say that we will be judged eternally by Adam’s
deeds, and not our own?
|
Subject: Re: Questions to Eric
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 11:19:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
You wrote, 'No,
I don’t believe that at all. Apparently I wasn’t clear in my post
as to the purpose of redemption. We are redeemed to bring glory
to Christ. We can only bring glory to Him if we are regenerated,
which is a supernatural work of God.'
This statement appears to be a direct contradiction of the position
you are espousing here. If it is true, which it surely is, that
only a regenerated soul can bring glory to God, then is it not also
necessary that infants be regenerated before they can 'bring glory
to God'? Secondly, affirming once again that all men, women and
children need regeneration, if they are not born with a corrupt
nature which is expressed outwardly in time by thoughts, words and
deeds of sin, why would regeneration be necessary? Thirdly, You
deny that infants, even at conception have a corrupt nature. So
when do they acquire this corruption? Does an 'act of sin' produce
the corruption? (cf. Matt 7:17-19; Lk 6:43-45; Eph 2:1-3). Fourthly,
you reject the biblical teaching that all Adam's progeny inherit
a corruption of nature, but you do affirm that they have inherited
guilt? If this is so, assuming I have understood your view correctly
(I am open to correction here!), on what basis is any man found
guilty? And guilty of what? Biblically, guilt is ALWAYS associated
with the act which brings the guilt. Thus since all men are indeed
guilty before God (Rom 2:11ff; 3:19-23; Jam 2:10; et al) and are
subject to condemnation by virtue of who they are by nature, which
is expressed outwardly and inwardly and completely.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: A joint reply to laz and john
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 09:46:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Eric - the universe went into a tailspin after the garden.... Rom
8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children
of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Everything in the created order was 'sentenced' (sort
of speak), judged corrupt after the Fall...(especially all flesh)
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that
which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The
first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from
heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:
and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear
the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
So, infants, yes even single cell humans are 'flesh and blood' and
therefore cannot inherit the Kingdom unless God graciously intervenes
as He always does on behalf of His people. In Him, laz p.s. we are
all conceived GUILTY AS SIN 'in Adam' because in Adam's loins existed
every human to ever live...No? We are made of Adam's fallen substance
...the same stuff God condemned in Genesis. Our own sins only compound
our problem ...actually they PROVE that we are conceived/born SINNERS!
What can be more clear than the biblical idea of being born 'dead in trespasses
and sins'? We are simply BORN 'dead' - judged, condemned, imputued with Adam's sin
- ...not having committed any actual sins yet.
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: Gene
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 02:56:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Kevin, You wrote:I base this on scripture telling
us of the promise to my entire household, the conversion of the
jailer, and Paul's letter to believer's married to unbelievers for
the sanctification of their children. I do not agree with the age
of accountability as a rule. I feel like a mosquito in a nudest
camp--where do I start! First, you are making assumptions about
the jailers family that is not in the text. You assume (1) He is
married and (2) He has infants. 'Household' can mean servants and
slaves that belong to a master etc. I think you are putting a 21st
century definition on this word. 1 Cor 7: The text and context in
question does not give Paul's 'new' method of evangelism (i.e.,
get married and have kids and they will become saved etc.) The Corinthians
were wanting to get divorced because they thought somehow this would
make them more holy (contra Paul's admonition to 'remain as you
were when you were called'). (The Catholic church thinks the single
life makes their Priests more holy!) This especially came to light
in the situation that some were married to nonbelievers. It appears
they thought this union (believer/nonbeliever) was wrong and wanted
to divorce. Paul says, 'Not so, the union is santified!' It is a
holy union to the Lord. Therefore, they were not to get a divorce
soley for that reason. To use these verses to prove 'some' babies
go to heaven and some to hell is foolish. By the way, I hope you
never tell a parent who lost an infant that there is a possibility
their child is burning in hell! God help you if you do!!!
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 14:52:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Gene, Maybe you should reread my original post and
answer my question. What would you assume the jailer's family consited
of? His pets? Maybe is elderly parents? But that is not my question.
In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: Gene
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 17:29:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Your answer to the question of the babies was supported
by the jailer passage, a passage that had at least 2 assumptions
that are not in the text but you seem to insist they are. What could
his household be? It COULD consist of Servants and slaves! Of course,
this would mess up your theology. As they say in Law and Order,
'This means 'reasonable doubt.'
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: john hampshire
To: Gene
Date Posted:
Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:03:01 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>By
the way, I hope you never tell a parent who lost an infant that
there is a possibility their child is burning in hell! God help
you if you do!!! Why, other than being presumptuous upon something
that God has not revealed, and is unnecessarily callous to say based
on zero information otherwise. But, you imply that a baby will not
die and end up in the lake of fire. Thus, all babies go to heaven.
If this is so, the highest good would be abortion--we fill heaven.
Dare I ask what you mean?, and expect a cogent reply. john
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: john hampshire
To: kevin
Date Posted:
Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:49:07 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>I
personally lean towards the covenantal promise view that the children
of believers who die in infancy are elect and those of unbelievers
do not Does this mean then that if parents are believers their children
are also and go to heaven? If this were true, then a child's election
would be based on the parent's election, and the parent's election
would have been based on their parent's election, and their parents,
and their parents. You get the picture. Election is based on God's
choice, not our pedigree. Babies who die either go to heaven, based
on God's choice, or stand for judgment and go to hell, based on
God's choice. Wouldn't it be a terrible thing if a parent failed
to raise Godly children, so they somehow lost a promise of election
given to those who do raise their children properly. Even the parents
motivation to raise children properly comes from God, just like
election, God manages all aspects of His creation. john
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: kevin
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 15:04:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
John, First let me thank you for being the first
in this longer than expected thread to actually answer my question.
I understand your point on what you said about the children of saved
parents and I am aware of some difficulties with that, however,
covenantly speaking that is not necessarily the way I tend to believe.
I state tend because I am not really certain where I stand firmly.
I do know where I do not stand and have already posted that. I also
agree fully with God's soveriegn election. My point of the covenantal
aspect is in regards to whole households being promised salvation.
Now I am also aware that Jewish geneology can be kind of odd compared
to ours (or vice versa). Lineages speak of grandparents begetting
their grandchildren which of course they do but not directly. Anyway,
my view of covenantal blessing is that God so orchastrates (I am
glad this is not an Arminian post) events that He decides when and
where and to whom all people are born. Now this does mean that two
elect parents can have an elect child and a reprobate child (I believe
that Rebecca and Issac were that way). Or case in point, my parents
are not Christians but both sets of my grandparents are and were
(some have gone home). My brother is not a Christian and yet I am
(only 2 kids). On my wife's side of the family you have her parents
and her brother and sister who are all professing Christians (I
have reason to believe that they are genuine). Their parents (my
wife's parents parents) are a combination of some Christians, some
not, and some so close we believe God is finally answering those
multiple prayers we offered up to Him. That is how I see covenantal
promises of salvation. But that leads to my question. What does
the Scripture say about this? In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 00:20:08 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Personally I believe Eph 1:4 speaks to this issue
'Accordingly 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:' The only ones who go to heaven are those whom the Father
chose in Christ before the foundations of the world! In verse 5
we see that it is the Father's business not ours whether or not
a child or for that matter an older person is saved or not. Our
Lord knows what He is doing. I take comfort in that. Tom
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: Hail
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 05:24:00 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com
Message:
Tom, Ephesians 1:4 does not speak of individual predestination
of salvation, but rather the predestination of the church to be
holy and without blame. Remember Ephesians 1:5,
'Having predestinated us unto the
adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to
the good pleasure of his will.'
This clearly indicates that we are not predestinated
to individual salvation, but rather adoption, or son-placing, when
we receive our glorified bodies:
'And not only they, but ourselves
also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves
groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body.' - Romans 8:23
Thus, I believe that all babies will go to heaven.
Hail |
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: kevin
To: Hail
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 15:07:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hail, How did you come about all babies going to
heaven? When are they old enough to go to Hell? What saves them
before they can go to Hell? Why can it not keep them saved? In that
case when did I become deserving of Hell? In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: Hail
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 17:57:20 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com
Message:
Kevin,
Moreover your little ones, which ye
said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day
had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither,
and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. -Deuteronomy
1:39
It all has to do with human responsibility. Human
responsibility is dependent on the knowledge of right and wrong,
which babies and young children lack. It is still a very controversial
issue, but I personally believe that all babies go to heaven. God
Bless You, Hail |
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: kevin
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 12:35:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hail, Do not forget that God hated Esau and loved
Jacob before either had and decreed that the older shall serve the
younger before they were born or having done any good or evil, that
the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works
but of Him who calls. A person deserves hell by their nature. That
is original sin. To say otherwise you have to admit that a person
can not only be born sinless and can actually live a life of not
sinning. But I say the scriptures teach that we are created in iniquity
and that if we say we are without sin then we call God a liar. I
someone says a child has no sin then that person calls God a liar.
In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: laz
To: Hail
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 07:42:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
hail - so you believe that the hundreds of biblical
references to chosen, called, elected, appointed, predestined, etc...is
always about classes of people and not individuals? Does God call
'classes' of people and then it's up to the individual to decide
whether or not they will save themselves from hellfire? Did God
love Jacob-ish people and hate Esau-ish people...or did he love/hate
the individual? laz
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: Hail
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17,
2000 at 17:41:19 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com
Message:
laz, so you believe that
the hundreds of biblical references to chosen, called, elected,
appointed, predestined, etc...is always about classes of people
and not individuals? You have to understand
the difference between those terms. Lets take election and predestination,
for instance. It is my observation that many Calvinists use these
terms interchangeably, but in actuality, they are two entirely different
soveriegn acts of God. Election is how God chooses seconds over
firsts. Romans 9:12 states:
It was said unto her, The elder shall
serve the younger.
For reasons known only to himself, God desires
to choose seconds over firsts. Predestination is when we believe
and become children of God, and thus are predestined to be children
of God. This gives us the assurance of our salvation. Believers
are predestined to salvation when they receive Christ. Does God call 'classes' of people and then it's up
to the individual to decide whether or not they will save themselves
from hellfire? God calls everyone. The
individual must place faith in the Lord to become a child of God.
People do not save themselves from hell fire. God does the saving.
By God's sovereign will, has he called us all and given us the choice
to follow him. Did God love Jacob-ish people
and hate Esau-ish people...or did he love/hate the individual? The verse regarding God hating Esau has absolutely nothing
to do with individual salvation. The word 'hate' in this verse is
not saying that God hates Esau as a person, but is used similarly
to when Jesus said 'If you are going to be My disciples, you will
have to hate your father and mother and your brother and sister
and your wife and your children.'
Obviously this verse is not telling us to hate our father, mother,
brother, and sister. Hate does not have to mean hating someone individually.
God indeed chose Jacob over Esau, but he chose him first in the
Messianic line instead of Esau. Esau could have placed faith in
God and received salvation. Praise the Lord, Hail |
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: laz
To: Hail
Date
Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000
at 20:19:47 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hail, You wrote: Predestination is when we believe and become children
of God, and thus are predestined to be children of God. ... Believers
are predestined to salvation when they receive Christ How can this be when in the following...God
is shown to be doing all 'the work' in effecting salvation on behalf
of His people. Rom 8:28 And
we know that all things work together for good to them that love
God, to them who are the called
according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow (or foreloved, i.e, these very called,
elect, etc), he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom
he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he
also glorified. 31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against
us? 32 He that spared
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (i.e., called,
elect), how shall he not with him also freely give us
all things? 33 Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Where do you get the part of our believing
as a condition for salvation...were are we shown to be doing ANYTHING
to affect God's purposes in election? It's all of grace....sweet,
free, sovereign grace...lest any man should boast! In Him, laz But ye believe not, because ye are not
of my sheep, as I said unto you.
John 10:26
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: Hail
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18,
2000 at 18:36:44 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com
Message:
laz, I do not understand how you interpret 'foreknow'
as meaning 'forelove.' Foreknowledge is simply how God sees all
things in the present tense. Take a look at Psalm 139:1-8
1. 'O Lord, thou hast searched me,
and known me.' 2. 'Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising,
thou understandest my thought afar off.' 3. 'Thou compassest
my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.'
4. 'For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou
knowest it altogether.' 5. 'Thou hast beset me behind and before,
and laid thine hand upon me.' 6. 'Such knowledge is too wonderful
for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.' 7. 'Whither shall
I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?'
8. 'If l ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my
bed in hell, behold, thou art there.'
According to your interpretation of the 'know'
in 'foreknow' meaning 'love' or 'forelove,' the 'known' in verse
1 should mean the same. Verses 2-8 say otherwise. They explicitly
say how God knows the thoughts and actions of David at all times
and in advance. It has nothing to do with a any kind of predestinating
or electing love. Concerning the portion of scripture stating 'If God be for us, who can be against us? '......it also has no relation to Calvinistic predestination.
When a person receives Christ and is saved, his salvation is eternally
secure. This is why the portion of scripture stated above is true.
It is also true for verse 33. You wrote: Where
do you get the part of our believing as a condition for salvation...were
are we shown to be doing ANYTHING to affect God's purposes in election?
Salvation is not by works, but by grace
THROUGH faith. Obviously we must place faith in Christ in order
to receive salvation. It is a clear teaching in scripture:
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. - Romans
10:9
In Christ, Hail |
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: laz
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 19,
2000 at 05:53:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hail - is it not a given that God is omniscient?
Of course He has prescience...but I contend that God has loved His
people with an everlasting love. Consider this written by someone
once: FOREKNOWLEDGE: Friend -
The word 'foreknow' is one that
connotes intimacy in the deepest sense of the word. The context
of course will determine this as is the case for all words. Simply
looking up an English word in Vines, or Strongs will not necessarily
reveal the actual meaning of the word used in a particular passage.
Personally, I use Kittel, Bauer-Arndt and Gingrich and TDNT for
word studies. Anyway, the word in Rom 8:29 is best understood as
'foreloved', not merely prescience (knowledge about). It is not
unusual for the Bible to speak in this manner at all. For example,
consult Gen 4:17 and 25. There, it is written that 'Adam KNEW his
wife. . .' In that specific context, it would be foolish to make
the word 'know' mean simply: 'knowledge of facts concerning Eve',
for the result of Adam's 'knowing' her, was that she conceived a
gave birth to a child. (Makes me think twice sometimes when asked
if I 'know' somebody! hehehe). But here, to 'know' means to be intimately
involved with someone, at least in the human plane. Ok, let's take
another example, Psalm 1. In the 6th verse it is written: 'For the
LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly
shall perish.' This verse is known as a 'Hebraism', in other words,
a form of speech associated with the Hebrew language. It would be
similar to the English 'parallelism'. What it does is to say the
same thing, but from different perspectives. If you will allow me
to paraphrase this text and 'unravel' the grammar, so it reads as
two statements rather than the one? The Lord loves (knows) the way
of the righteous, but He hates the way of the wicked. The way of
the wicked will end in destruction, but the way of the righteous
will not. The word 'know' here cannot be understood as being simply
a 'knowledge of facts or of persons' for surely, the Omniscient
God 'knows' all about the wicked no less than the righteous for
He created them. Here it is God's approval or delight in the way
of the righteous and contrariwise as to the way of the wicked. Let's
return to Rom 8:29 where it says: 'For whom he did foreknow, he
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that
he might be the firstborn among many brethren.' We must first be
careful not to dislodge this verse from that which has gone before,
as this verse begins with the preposition 'For'. That 'For' indicates
what is about to be read is integral something else and cannot stand
alone. Backing up then one verse we read: verse 28 'And we know
that all things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to his purpose.' The assurance
given to believers here is often memorized and rightly so as teaching
that God is sovereign and all things are under His direct command
and control and thus all who have put their trust in Him are assured
that all things are in fact designed for their ultimate good. The
objects of this wonderful promise is given 'to those who love God
and are THE CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE.' We sometimes gloss
over this phrase and simply understand it to mean believers, and
rightly so. But what we might have failed to see is that this statement
is the foundation of that which follows. Thus Paul continues 'For
those whom He foreknew (THOSE CALLED '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 having predestinated
us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according
to the good pleasure of his will,'). You might notice that I have
made a change in the punctuation which is seen in the KJV to reflect
the Greek rendering of this text. There is no ':' in the Greek and
the grammar would dictate what I have given you here. :-) Lastly,
and I apologize for such a long reply, is the theological perspective,
which others have also brought out. If it is held, that 'foreknowledge'
connotes prescience 'knowledge of raw data/facts' concerning prior
acts of men, then we are faced with two fatal problems. 1) To assert
that God 'sees' the alleged pre-historical acts (believing) of men
and on that basis He therefore decrees what shall be, then this
is actually 'post-destination' and not the biblical 'predestination'
for God decrees what already has taken place. Thus man, and not
God is the determining factor and man can be said to be his own
'saviour'. Integrally bound to this view is also the problem of
trying to maintain the concept that is most always associated with
it, 'free-will'! For if God allegedly 'sees' a person as believing,
decrees that it shall be, then that act MUST infallibly take place.
This being so, then the very 'free-will' which is so vehemently
defended as being essential to the creature, is made null and void.
For indeed, at that precise time in 'real history', the person has
'no choice' but to believe. Not to belabour the point, but one must
also realize that every possible movement of even the very atoms
themselves must be constant for this to take place. This is logically
impossible without asserting the truth that God designs and controls
all things for His glory and to their appointed end. Let me just
mention that it can also be shown that God's other two immutable
attributes; Omnipresence and Omnipotence are also negated by this
view. 2) The text itself does not say 'what God foreknew,' but 'WHOM
He foreknew. . .' In your own study, if you will look back, the
word 'foreknow' is not associated with 'acts' but persons, thus
Acts 2:23; Rom 11:2 and 1Pet 2:3. Notice in Acts 2:23, foreknowledge
FOLLOWS God's 'determinate counsel'. And this follows the rest of
the biblical testimony concerning the existence and providential
government of all things. That God 'foreknows', all things is due
to the fact that He has foreordained all things, even the Christ
and His substitutionary death (1Pet 1:19,20; Acts 4:27,28). As creatures
who, by God's common grace, possess communicable attributes of the
Creator, we first have an 'idea' of what we wish to accomplish,
make a plan and then implement it. Thus the architect first conceives
of a particular object which he purposes to build, and even before
he draws a single line on paper, he can describe it in detail, thus
he 'foreknows' what the structure will be before it actually comes
into existence. The architect doesn't look into some other realm
of existence to perceive something and then declare it will be!
For in reality it first originates in his own mind. This is analogous
to how the Scriptures would teach us concerning God's foreknowledge.
All things are first in the mind of God; within the design of the
Trinity itself, never outside of God, for what could possibly exist
apart from God's creative work, that He would perceive? And thus
God ordains/decrees what shall be. Thanks for your patience and
interest in this topic. In His Precious Blood, xxxx |
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: freegrace
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 20:28:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Hi Kevin.. I agree with laz on this all the way.
All elect infants (who die in infancy) will be saved, and also,
children of believers are not 'in covenant' somehow - just because
of their parents faith. Divine election is like an 'underground
fountain' that 'springs up' upon anyone, anywhere, and at anytime
- (and sometimes only one person is saved in an entire household).
See the excellent book called 'An Antidote to Arminianism' by Ness.
regards, Robert
|
Subject: Re: where do babies go when they die?
From: laz
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16,
2000 at 18:56:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Kevin - sounds like you've heard the various arguments
from great men. What could we possibly contribute? You just need
to stand by your conviction based on what YOU find in scripture.
Spurgeon had an opinion also....don't recall what it might have
been. I happen to loosely hold to the idea that only elect children
go to heaven...no reason to think otherwise. As for covenant children...none
are guaranteed salvation by virture of their parent's faith...but
are merely blessed immeasurably ('sanctified' in a worldly sense
like an unbelieving spouse (1Cor7:14)) by being brought up in and
around the faith ...a faith which they too must confess in due time.
The WCF says: III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated,
and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and
where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons
who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the
Word.[14] 12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3,
5; I John 5:12 13. John 3:8 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
laz
|
Subject: laz & freegrace
From: kevin
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 15:15:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Thanks to both of your humble responses. Laz, the reason I ask today
is because our spiritual forefathers Edwards, Calvin, Toplady, and
Spurgeon (his view is on the tip of my tongue) were blessed enough
to not have to deal with the genocide of infants and unborn babies
that we have today. As to the covenantal vs. election view, I am
in agreement with you both on the all the elect children go to heaven,
yet I also believe that the two (covenantal and elect) go together
hand in hand. Which now looking over laz's post I see that is what
he said. So never mind there. Thank you for posting the WCF for
me, I was trying to find it last night in my copy. Not being raised
in a church that uses the WCF I have to read it on my own in my
own time. And the only view on infants I can recall is in the updated
version of that borederline apostate denomination PCUSA. In Him,
kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: laz & freegrace
From: Pilgrim
To: kevin
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 11:33:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
kevin,
I am glad to point you to
The Highway home page where if you would scroll down just a bit,
you will see the 'Reformed Confessions Download' box.... ! This
is a free program that is built upon a Windows-type Help/Search
file but containing many of the historic Creeds and Reformed Confessions.
With it you can simply type in a word in the 'Search' and all relevant
sections of ALL documents will be displayed for your perusal. And
of course each of the separate Creeds and Confessions can be opened
and read as well. Enjoy!!
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: thank you
From: kevin
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 12:37:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, This is what I was looking for as well. Thank you very
much. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Need help understanding diff. verse
From: Matthew Leroe
To: All
Date Posted:
Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:11:00 (PST)
Email
Address: mleroe@juno.com
Message:
When the author
of Hebrews tells the audience to not be like Esau, he is warning
them of rejecting the New Covenant analogous to Esau rejecting his
birthright. When it was too late, Esau realized he was foolish.
Today is the day of salvation... but those who apostacize will one
day realize that they too were foolish. There will be a day when
there is no place for repentance. But its not to late now, RIGHT?
I just need assurance that I'm getting on track. Thanks so much
for bearing with me, Matthew
|
Subject: Re: Need help understanding diff. verse
From: john hampshire
To: Matthew Leroe
Date Posted:
Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:56:50 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
I wouldn't know
if it is too late for salvation, there are some things that indicate
God will/has greatly cutoff salvation in preparation for His return.
I wouldn't say God has absolutely ended salvation for all, but it
is greatly curtailed. But, certainly, upon an individuals death,
God has ended all possibility for salvation for that one. Otherwise,
God can regenerate someone right up to the point of departure, as
He sees fit. john
|
Subject: Re-Comments Please
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 11:48:10 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Hi In one of Pilgrim's posts below he put some good questions in
order to find out what Rev. VanderWal truly believes on the subject.
Therefore I asked him those questions. They are as followed: Which
is more in line with what you truly believe? 1) Only the elect have
the 'warrant' to believe, and thus it is only to the elect that
God's desire to have them saved is extended and intended. Further,
the elect must first establish the truth of their election, and
thus they are then 'warranted' to believe. 2) One first believes
unto justification, and then as part of sanctification, assurance
of their election is given by the Spirit. This is the answer I got
back: One of the problems with English hyper-Calvinism (and I've
met a few from Pennsylvania once) was they thought only the elect
could be called to believe 'savingly' (their word, not mine) on
Jesus Christ. Only they could be called because God would grant
them only faith. Thus they had somehow to discover their election
by some sign or another, and then they had a warrent to believe.
Then they could be called to believe. Thus, the order that you have
indicated under '1)'. I do not believe Scripture indicates anything
of a 'warrant to believe' either for the elect or anyone else. The
gospel is much simpler than that. First, no one has any right to
believe by nature, not even the elect. All are justly under God's
wrath, which is partly worked out in the disobedience of unbelief.
Christ, in dying for the elect, purchased for them not only salvation
but also all the means of that salvation, including faith. That
faith He gives to the elect by the work of the Holy Spirit. Through
the work of the Holy Spirit, the elect do actually believe the gospel,
when it is preached to them. From the viewpoint of those elect,
they cannot know anything about their election unless they first
believe in Jesus Christ. The call of the gospel comes to all by
the preaching of the gospel, as the command to repent and believe.
Along with that call (external) to the elect comes also the internal
call of the Spirit, which is efficacious and irresistible grace.
The result is faith in Christ crucified. It is only through faith
in Christ crucified that the elect discover themselves to be such.
Knowledge of election follows a true, saving faith. As Calvin and
Bullinger put it so well: Christ is the mirror of election. To put
election prior to faith will have two serious consequences. One
will either tend toward a certain mysticism, trying to 'go' to God
without the Mediator. Or one will tend toward grounding his or her
election in all kinds of extraneous, unimportant events or happenings,
feelings, etc. One cannot get anywhere near their election--and
especially the assurance that they are elect--unless their faith
is firmly in Jesus Christ crucified. To wrap up, then, I am most
definitely not in agreement with #1. As to #2 I will be more brief.
The nature of justification and sanctification is that they are
both essential to assurance. I John 3:18-24. Justification is the
ground of assurance, including the forgiveness of sins, and the
apprehension of the ground of all our salvation, including adoption.
Sanctification is the way of assurance. It is also true that sanctification
necessarily follows justification. Those who do not walk in the
ways of elect, have not right to identify themselves as such. Those
who do so walk, possess assurance. But again, faith is the real
point of assurance, the same faith that justifies, and the same
faith that ushers in a life of good works. I hope that is helpful.
I do realize that it may mean overturning established ways of thinking.
In Christ, Rev. Martin VanderWal Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-19, 'Sacrosancta
Synodus!' Visit Covenant PRC's website, http://www.covprc.org
|
Subject: Re: Re-Comments Please
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:44:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, Sounds solid to me! :-) Pilgrim
|
Subject: Dr. David Jeremiah
From: kevin
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 09:03:04 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Does anyone know of David Jeremiah's theological stance. Is he Calvinistic
or just an Arminian is sheep's clothing? The reason I ask is because
when I work in the afternoons I listen to Christian talk radio and
he is on. He is going through Romans and is at chapter 7 at the
moment. Now I am aware that Arminians can easily be mistaken for
Calvinists in this area and their ship tends to sink once they get
to 9 and 10. But he has no books on the subject and his website
is only a catalogue for ordering with no free information on him,
his church, and his teachings. Maybe that is a sign of what he believes.
Any information is appreciated. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
From: freegrace
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:45:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Kevin, the link that laz posted is correct. Pastor Jeremiah is an
Arminian fundamentalist, GARBC. If he teaches an election unto salvation
in Romans 8 and 9, he will no doubt say it is based on the foreknowledge
of God - (God knowing 'who will believe in time and become saved').
The GARBC is just another denomination, sad to say, and does not
defend the reformed faith.
|
Subject: Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
From: Brother Bret
To: Kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 21:04:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Kevin: I have not listened to him personally. He may very well
be an Arminian. But a Pastor told me a couple of years ago, that
he embraced the doctrines of sovereign grace. How accurate that
is, I cannot say. I guess you may find out soon when he gets to
chapters 8 and 9, the Lord willing :^).
|
Subject: Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
From: laz
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:01:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Dr Jeremiah is a traditional dispensationalist...and a pretty decent
bible teacher...for an arminian. ;-) laz p.s. found this site...but
remember, you can't believe everything you read. http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/jeremiah/general.htm
|
Subject: Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
From: Prestor John
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 22:29:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/jeremiah/general.htm
Especially at this site. This guy has everybody in Christendom on
his list of bad teachers. Not only David Jeremiah, but Michael Horton,
C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, R.C. Sproul, please Laz you shouldn't
even bother with this guy. Prestor John
|
Subject: Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
From: laz
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 07:20:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/jeremiah/general.htm
Especially at this site. This guy has everybody in Christendom on
his list of bad teachers. Not only David Jeremiah, but Michael Horton,
C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, R.C. Sproul, please Laz you shouldn't
even bother with this guy. Prestor John
---
...well, I
DID qualify my statement.... laz
|
Subject: Re: Dr. David Jeremiah
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 23:40:12 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Prestor John Indeed I agree with you!! I would like your oppinion
on whether or not things like hormonal imballance or a medical condition,
can make some one lean towards sin. I do know a few schitzofrenics(sp?)
who do see things, that are not there. They are not Christians,
but would someone who is one, upon conversion nessasarily no longer
be a schitzofrenic? Tom
|
Subject: Founding Fathers Christian?
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:58:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I just found these two lectures in audio, and thought I would post
the link to see what your comments are about these... http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html
Thanks. Robert
|
Subject: Arianism still here today?
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:29:04 (PST)
Email Address: freegracealone@yahoo.com
Message:
Has anyone here noticed that Arianism is still with us today among
religious leaders - in the form of liberalism? Could this be called
'wickedness in high places?' Thanks, just wondering about this.
Any comments are welcome. I just thought Arianism was a heresy of
the past. robert
|
Subject: Re: Arianism still here today?
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:36:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
It is not only Liberalism that
is a form of Arianism, every cult likewise denies the Deity of Christ.
Our incorrigible antagonist Gene holds to a form of Arianism as
well. As Kevin stated, old heresies rear their ugly head under a
new guise and each generation must contend for the 'faith once given
to the saints'. It is also true that if more professing Christians
would acquaint themselves with Church History, they would better
recognize heresy when it confronts them and thereby enable them
to apply the Scriptures to quench their 'fiery darts'. As to the
reference to 'high places', I think that is referring more to those
who are given authority on earth, whether they be kings, queens,
presidents, dictators or church officials.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Arianism still here today?
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 20:37:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Thanks Pilgrim and Kevin for the replies. I guess what I am up against
is just plain liberalism. They say that 'Jesus is the divine Son
of God'. but somehow 'downplay' the fact that Jesus is our Creator,
and existed in the Old Testament as well-- before His incarnation.
Also, the many miracles of Jesus (and the entire Bible) are hardly
ever mentioned at all. The 'Jesus' of liberal theology is indeed
'another Jesus' that is not the true Jesus of the Bible!
|
Subject: Re: Arianism still here today?
From: kevin
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 08:54:16 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Sadly heresies of the past rear their ugly heads under new names.
Mainly because most Christians are not familiar with writings of
the early church and what they debated. All these early false doctrines
just seem to fall back and regroup. You have to admit, Satan is
a tireless foe, but as long as we ground ourselves in the truth
of the holy scriptures and rely on the power of the Holy Spirit
through prayer then we will be overcomers. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Faith
From: Chris
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:56:09 (PST)
Email Address: Isaiahscall68@aol.com
Message:
Brethren, When it comes to faith or having faith. From which does
it spring. Is it given by God or is it expressed by man in response
to Jesus Revealing Himself to an individual? This seems to be a
question my finite mind is curious of:) Would appreciate any help
or instruction from the Word of God. In Christ, Bro Chris
|
Subject: Re: Faith
From: john hampshire
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 23:01:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris, As Pilgrim said, faith is the result of God's action in making
our dead spirit alive (regeneration). If we take an example from
a dead person, they become active only upon being given life. With
life comes an activation of the senses, which in turn seeks to understand
its new life. With regeneration the spirit springs to life, seeking
answers, and grasping these things with the result being a growing
understanding. Understanding of truth brings an assurance called
faith, a trust that grows with more understanding and is built upon
earlier successes. Without regeneration we cannot have true faith,
except in our blindness we grasp upon all kinds of supporting lies,
pretending as if we could see. Without regeneration our faith is
placed in physical things, with regeneration our faith is shifted
to spiritual things, things that cannot be seen. It is always so
that unregenerate man takes spiritual truths and tries to applying
them in some earthly matrix, the only way they know. When Jesus
said He would destroy 'this temple' He meant His body, but the unregenerate
could ONLY see a temple of stone. When He said He was a King, the
unregenerate could only imagine Him as another King David ruling
over Jerusalem. Today there are many who MUST have Jesus returning
to rule upon the earth, and interpret spiritual truths as having
an earthly fulfillment. They have placed their faith in things they
see, it is all they have. john
|
Subject: Re: Faith
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:17:21 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John I agree with your understanding of these issues. But I want
to point out something about something you said. You said: When
Jesus said He would destroy 'this temple' He meant His body, but
the unregenerate could ONLY see a temple of stone. When He said
He was a King, the unregenerate could only imagine Him as another
King David ruling over Jerusalem. Today there are many who MUST
have Jesus returning to rule upon the earth, and interpret spiritual
truths as having an earthly fulfillment. They have placed their
faith in things they see, it is all they have. As I said I agree
with you on this with one exception. I don't believe that everyone
who believes that Jesus will rule on Earth, nessasarily place their
faith on things they see. Many do but we can not generalise. There
are Calvinists that believe that Jesus will return to rule on Earth.
I am not sure but I believe John MacArthur believes that. Correct
me if I am wrong. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Faith
From: Chris
To: all
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:26:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
In what relation would that have to do with Romans 10:17? I guess
my question is that, do We respond with faith(trust) when He reveals
himself to us individually. Is this mans responsibility balanced
with God's sovreignty? My fear is that I do not want to take away
mans responsibility and throw it all on the Lord our GOD. Making
Him responsible for our unbelief and hardness of heart, which includes
the rejection of Christ. In Christ, Bro Chris
|
Subject: Re: Faith
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 11:07:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
In what relation would that have to do with Romans 10:17? I guess
my question is that, do We respond with faith(trust) when He reveals
himself to us individually. Is this mans responsibility balanced
with God's sovreignty? My fear is that I do not want to take away
mans responsibility and throw it all on the Lord our GOD. Making
Him responsible for our unbelief and hardness of heart, which includes
the rejection of Christ. In Christ, Bro Chris
---
Chris,
It is surely true that faith originates with God and implanted in
the quickened soul by the Holy Spirit. And it is no less true that
faith is expressed/exercised by the regenerated sinner and is thus
that individual's responsibility. True faith is infallible in that
it will ALWAYS seek the Lord Christ and rest in Him. Again, it's
not 'either/or' but 'both/and'. :-) You might benefit from reading
the following two articles: Justification by Faith Alone by Joel Beeke Introductory Essay to John Owen's 'Death of Death' by
J.I. Packer In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Faith
From: Chris
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 04:17:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John, All I can say is Praise the LORD. Thanks for your response
as well as all the others. Its a great help as I seek to understand
more about our Precious Lord and Savior. In Christ, Chris
|
Subject: Re: Faith
From: laz
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:56:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris - adding a bit to Pilgrim's post on faith coming from God...
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and THAT (i.e., grace AND faith) not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God: God grants us this 'faith'
by His grace and it's this faith THROUGH which we appropriate justification
unto salvation. Also consider this: Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus
the author and
finisher of our faith; Again, we find God through Christ Jesus by
the Spirit working into us 'faith'...saving faith...and perfecting
it unto the day of redemption. All of this is in keeping with the
historic teachings regarding election of individuals in accordance
with God's good pleasure. In Him, laz Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and
said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. God does a
work of grace and we manifest this work by believing on him whom
he sent.
|
Subject: Re: Faith
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:08:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Chris,
You stated your question as such:
' Is it given by God or is it expressed
by man in response to Jesus Revealing Himself to an individual?' The answer is BOTH! Faith is given by God at the point
of the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration. Faith is the FRUIT of
the newly recreated will/soul. The nature/disposition of the regenerated
sinner is radically changed and this FAITH is the expression of
one's new perspective of God; namely a love and dependency on Him
in three Persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit
who 'reveals' the Lord Christ to a person as the only true hope
of reconciliation with God and the remission of sins. The Spirit
reveals the PERSON of the Lord Christ, not just that which He has
done. The atonement is the MEANS by which a person can approach
God to receive not only the necessary pardon of sins, but the adoption
and inheritance of all the blessings merited by the Lord Christ
for all those who come to Him by way of repentance and faith.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Christian Liberty/Holy living
From: Prestor John
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 20:44:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Don't smoke nor drink or chew nor hang around twists that do...
Is this Christian Liberty? Or for that matter Holy Living? Are we
in sin if we abstain from alcohol or partake? What about Rock and
Roll can it damn our mortal soul? And lets talk about cards. Is
a game of old maid or slap jack detrimental to my spiritual welfare?
The liberty which Christ hath purchased
for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from
the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and
curse of the law, and in their being delivered from this present
evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the
evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory
of the grave, and everlasting damnation: as also in their free
access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out
of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind
The London Confession of Baptist
Faith, Chapter XXI Of Christian Liberty and the Liberty of Conscience
Just what is liberty and what is license Prestor John Servabo Fidem
|
Subject: Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!!
From:
Matthew Leroe
To: All
Date
Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000
at 19:57:39 (PST)
Email
Address: mleroe@juno.com
Message:
My only objection to the longing for
Christ being a proof of the Spirit's work in one's heart ( for how
can one come to Christ but by effectual calling?) is Heb. 12:17.
It seems that Esau wanted something, even going into tears for repentance....
but he lost his inheritance. Have I lost my inheritance, like Esau?
Does my repentance mean anything? I truly believe that the glory
of heaven is beholding Christ, getting to be with Him among His
people forever worshiping and serving Him. However, I fear that
my repentance, even if it were with tears, would avail nothing like
Esau. I'd gratefully appreciate anyones help. Please e-mail me at
: mleroe@juno.com Sincerely, Matthew
|
Subject: Re: Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!!
From: laz
To: Matthew Leroe
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:07:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I guess one needs to ask what is meant by 'finding no place for
repentence'. Can I say that Esau, being of the reprobate, could
not exhibit godly sorry/repentence (this being a God-given spiritual
matter not available to the 'natural man'...right Gene? hehe) for
the right reason? Might he have exhibited a worldly sorrow for having
foolishly given away his winning Powerball ticket for a Whopper
w/cheese...I'm sure I'd be crying too! laz
|
Subject: Re: Hebrews 12:17 HELP!!!!
From: Anne
To: Matthew Leroe
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:12:21 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com
Message:
It has been
my understanding that Esau wanted it (the blessing) mainly because
he felt entitled to it. If he had grasped its import, he would not
have sold it for a pittance in the first place. I could be wrong,
easily, but that is my take on it. Anne
|
Subject: Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3
From: Matthew Leroe
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 14:10:32 (PST)
Email Address: mleroe@juno.com
Message:
I totally failed
a greek quiz today because my fear of having commited the blaspheme
against the Holy Spirit paralyzes me. My prayer life is almost dead,
my ability to love others is becoming very week, basically this
thing is destroying me. I need help in understanding what this sin
is and how I can know I am loved by God. I think it means to attribute
the works of the SPirit to Satan.... which I fear I have done. Please
e-mail me at mleroe@juno.com I would be SO GRATEFUL!!!!! A man trying
to get on in the ministry of Christ, but hindered by fear, Matthew
Leroe
|
Subject: Re: Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3
From: john hampshire
To: Matthew Leroe
Date Posted:
Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 23:29:16 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Matthew, When
I was very young, my mother told me how God gives up on people and
won't save them if they say something that offended God. Well, it
took a while to put that puppy to bed, years spent worrying over
theological doggy poop. That's what mother's are for. You know what
freed me from all this clap trap, the simple understanding that
we don't save ourselves. I cannot do things to be saved, nor can
I do things that turn God off so He won't save. He has a plan that
is unchangeable, decided in eons past and made manifest in time
(now called 'history'). You have absolutely nothing to offer God,
He doesn't need it. You cannot lift a finger unless God decrees
it, how will you commit an unpardonable sin apart from God. The
Pharisees who thought Jesus was under the power of Satan were demonstrating
their utter hatred for God. There was no forgiveness for them because
there was no provision for them by God to have forgiveness. Worry
is thinking without doing. How can you act in regards to this when
you are not in charge, your worry will not alter what God has decreed.
At most it implies that you think you are God's counselor, I say
leave the worrying to God and quit struggling. To struggle in a
quicksand only adds to your woes, you compound your problems (Greek
quiz) and you sink deeper. Your life is God's, don't forget it.
Whether you die in your sins or not, God owns you, and He does as
He wills. john
|
Subject: Re: Unpardonable Sin Matt.12/Lk12/Mk3
From: laz
To: Matthew Leroe
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14,
2000 at 17:27:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Matthew - I obviously can't speak for God nor know
your heart, ...but am convinced that one consumed with godly fear
(as expressed by genuine (i.e., Spirit-wrought) repentence) of having
committed this sin has not committed it, for such a person's conscience
would have been seared beyond all hope of ever being able/willing
to turn to Christ for reconciliation. God has already and forever
passed this person by. This person would never be in your shoes.
The reprobate and yet uncalled by the Spirit will never repent or
feel remorse/concern over this or any other sin. Can you imagine
someone more vile and hostile to everything Christian than Saul
of Tarsus? If anyone was likely to have committed the unpardonable
sin it's him! Here is a little something for you to consider: The Unpardonable Sin. [October
23, 1864] The doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity,
both as a system of doctrines and as a religion. We stand in special
relation to the several persons of the Trinity. The Father is the
fountain of law and the author of the scheme of redemption. He devised
the plan, he elects and calls. The Son redeems. The Spirit applies
the redemption purchased by the Son. We disobey the Father; we disbelieve
the Son; we resist, grieve, blaspheme the Holy Ghost. All sin as
against the Father or the Son may be forgiven, but the sin against
the Holy Ghost can never be forgiven. I. Its general character.
On this subject it may be remarked, 1. That there is such a sin
which is unpardonable. 2. It is an open sin, not a sin merely of
the heart. It is blasphemy. It requires to be uttered and carried
out in act. 3. It is directed against the Holy Ghost, specifically.
It terminates on him. It consists in blaspheming him, or doing despite
unto him. II. Its specific character. This includes, 1. Regarding
and pronouncing the Holy Ghost to be evil; ascribing the effect
which he produces to Satan or to an evil, impure spirit. 2. It includes
the rejection of his testimony, as false. He testifies that Jesus
is the Son of God. The man guilty of sin, declares him to be a man
only. He testifies that Jesus is holy. The other declares he is
a malefactor. He testifies that his blood cleanses from all sin.
The other that it is an unclean thing, and tramples it under foot.
3. It includes the conscious, deliberate, malicious resistance of
the Holy Spirit and the determined opposition of the soul to him
and his gospel, and a turning away from both with abhorrence. This
sin supposes, 1. Knowledge of the gospel. 2. Conviction of its truth.
3. Experience of its power. It is the rejection of the whole testimony
of the Spirit and rejection of him and his work, with malicious
and outspoken blasphemy. It is by a comparison of (Matt. 12:31)
and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, with (Heb. 6:6–10;10:26–29)
that the true idea of the unpardonable sin is to be obtained. III.
The consequences of this sin is reprobation, or a reprobate mind.
This may evince itself in stolid unconcern. Utter indifference to
God and his declarations. Or, it may evince itself in great horror
of mind, in the upbraidings and scorpion stings of conscience, and
in a fearful looking for of judgment. Every thing which the lost
experience, the man guilty of this sin may experience. But nothing
experienced by the people of God or by those with whom the Spirit
still strives, can be experienced by one thus reprobated. IV. Importance
of clear views of this subject. 1. Because erroneous views prevail,
as, a. That every deliberate sin is unpardonable, as the apostle
says, He who sins willfully. b. Any peculiarly atrocious sin, such
as denying Christ. c. post–baptismal sins. 2. People of tender conscience
often are unnecessarily tormented with the fear that they have committed
this sin. It is hard to deal with such persons, for they are generally
in a morbid state. 3. Because as there is such a sin, every approach
to it should be avoided and dreaded. All making light of religion,
all speaking against the truth, or the work of the Spirit; all resisting
his operations on our own hearts or on the minds of others. 4. Because
we owe specific reverence to the Holy Ghost on whom our spiritual
life depends. Hodge, Charles, Sermon Outlines, (Escondido, CA: Ephesians
Four Group) 1999.
|
Subject: Corporate Worship
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 13:10:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I have been following from a distance the discussions relative to
corporate worship. Perhaps the debate is over. If not.... For those
who believe that regular corporate worship is now optional, how
do you propose we do the following (not in logical order): 1)Behave
as a united/singular 'Body of Christ'... as a 'holy nation' who
share a common Spirit as well as a common biblical/doctrinal reference
point to be defined and defended against heretics? How/when do we
act as a 'family'? 1a) How do we determine who should be allowed
to be a part of the visible Church unless a visible and corporate
entity exists and operates as such? 2) How are we to know each other
well enough to bear one another's burdens as well as to know our
leaders well enough to submit to their God-ordained authority? 3)
How do we remember the Sabbath in a manner consistent with the early
church who did do SOMETHING on a weekly basis? 4) Appropriately
administer the sacraments? When are we to remember Christ's death
in the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine? 4a) Effectively
equip the saints for service? 4b) Effectively call men ordained
for service? 5) Do on earth as we will do in heaven - namely worship
God CORPORATELY, as we find in Revelations? Where do we find evidence
suggesting that corporate worship is now optional? If it was good
enough (commanded!) for the pre-resurrection saints, why should
it not be for us? In otherwords, show me where our covenantal God
has told His children to stop worshipping Him corporately...but
to merely go our separate ways (with an occasional group picnic
of course to satisfy Heb 10:25) and worship Him by just being 'good
little troopers' in our daily existence? Was OT corporate worship
just a type or shadow that has been done away with Christ's life
and completed work? laz
|
Subject: ****izing a simple, sound/historic doctrine
From: wcf
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14,
2000 at 17:37:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Section 6 of the Confession Neither prayer, nor any
other part of religious worship, is, now under the gospel, either
tied unto, or made more acceptable by, any place in which it is
performed or towards which it is directed;(27) but God is to be
worshipped everywhere(28) in spirit and in truth;(29) as in private
families(30) daily,(31) and in secret each one by himself;(32) so
more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly
or willfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God, by his Word
or providence, calls thereunto.(33) (17) Acts 15:21; Rev. 1:3. (18)
2 Tim. 4:2. (19) James 1:22; Acts 10:33; Matt. 13:19; Heb. 4:2;
Isa. 66:2. (20) Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; James 5:13. (21) Matt. 28:19;
1 Cor. 11:23–29; Acts 2:42. (22) Deut. 6:13; Neh. 10:29. (23) Isa.
19:21; Eccl. 5:4, 5. (24) Joel 2:12; Est. 4:16; Matt. 9:15; 1 Cor.
7:5. (25) Ps. 107:; Est. 9:22. (26) Heb. 12:28. (27) John 4:21.
(28) Mal. 1:11; 1 Tim. 2:5. (29) John 4:23,24. (30) Jer. 10:25;
Deut. 6:6,7; Job 1:5; 2 Sam. 6:18,20; 1 Pet. 3:7; Acts 10:2. (31)
Matt. 6:11. (32) Matt. 6:6; Eph. 5:18. (33) Isa. 56:6,7; Heb. 10:25;
Prov. 1:20,21,24; 8:34; Acts 13:42; Luke 4:16; Acts 2:42. These
sections proceed to particularize the different ways in which God
requires us under the present dispensation to worship him. These
are the regular and the occasional acts of worship. The regular
worship of God is to be conducted in the public assembly, in the
private family, and personally in secret. The worship of God in
the public assembly is to consist in the reading, preaching, and
hearing of the Word; prayer, singing of psalms; and the administration
and receiving of the sacraments instituted by him. In the Word,
read or properly preached, God speaks to us, and we worship him
by hearing with reverence, diligent attention, and self–application
and obedience. In prayer and the singing of praise we address to
God the holy affections, desires, and thanksgivings inspired in
our hearts by his Holy Spirit. In the sacraments God communes with
and enters into covenant with our souls, and we commune with and
enter into covenant with him. And the acceptability of this worship
depends not at all, as Ritualists fondly imagine, upon the sanctity
of the place in which it is rendered or the direction in which it
is addressed. The dispensation in which worship was limited to holy
places, persons, and seasons, has been done away with by our Lord,
as we have seen under chapters 7. and 19., and as Christ plainly
teaches the woman of Samaria. John 4:20–24. But its acceptance depends
upon— (1) Its being accompanied with and founded upon the pure,
unadulterated truth of God’s Word; (2) Its being the fruit of the
Holy Ghost, the result of enlightened, reverent, and fervent love;
(3) Its being offered entirely through the mediation of the Lord
Jesus. “Besides the public worship in congregations, it is the indispensable
duty of each person, alone in secret, and of every family by itself
in private, to pray to and worship God.” “Secret worship is most
plainly enjoined by our Lord. (Matt. 6:6; Eph. 6:18.) In this duty
every one, apart by himself, is to spend some time in prayer, reading
the Scriptures, holy meditation, and serious self–examination. The
many advantages arising from a conscientious discharge of these
duties are best known to those who are found in the faithful discharge
of them.” “Family worship, which ought to be performed by every
family, ordinarily morning and evening, consists in prayer, reading
the Scriptures, and singing praises.” “The head of the family, who
is to lead in this service, ought to be careful that all the members
of his household duly attend; and that none withdraw themselves
unnecessarily from any part of family worship; and that all refrain
from their common business while the Scriptures are read, and gravely
attend to the same, no less than when prayer and praise are offered
up.” “Let the heads of families be careful to instruct their children
and servants in the principles of religion. Every proper opportunity
ought to be embraced for such instruction. But we are of opinion
that the Sabbath evenings, after public worship, should be sacredly
preserved for this purpose. Therefore we highly disapprove of paying
unnecessary private visits on the Lord’s day; admitting strangers
into the families, except when necessity or charity requires it;
or any other practices, whatever plausible presences may be offered
in their favor, if they interfere with the above important; and
necessary duty.” (American) Directory for Worship, chap. 15. The
occasional modes by which God may be in proper seasons worshipped
are such as religious oaths, and vows, and fasting, and special
thanksgiving. Of oaths and vows we will treat under chapter 22.
Of the propriety and usefulness of special seasons of fasting and
of thanksgiving, the examples of God’s Word (Ps. 107; Matt. 9:16)
and the experience of the Christian Church in modern times leave
no room for doubt. Hodge, A. A., Commentary on the Westminster Confession,
(Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group) 1999.
|
Subject: Re: Corporate Worship
From: brakel
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 17:11:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The Communion of Saints on Earth How refreshing it is for God’s
children, being hated by the world, to have communion with each
other, to make their needs known to each other, and in love and
familiarity may enjoy each other’s fellowship! They exercise communion
with God’s church in general (which is dispersed over the entire
face of the earth), as being the sole people of God, as being the
sole adherents to the truth and the way of salvation, and as confessing
Christ alone to be their Head. Since they have the same Spirit in
common, as well as the same interests, they rejoice when the church
prospers, and likewise grieve when elsewhere the church does not
fare well. Their prayers and thanksgiving are for the church in
general. They exercise communion with the church within the kingdom
or republic in which they are subjects, as well as with the specific
congregation of the city or village in which they reside. Yes, their
communion is most specifically with the godly; however, in exercising
such communion, they remain in the church. They may have a special
relationship with some, which, however, does not cause them to separate
themselves from the church or to cause schism within the church,
since they cherish the church above their chief joy upon earth.
Thus a believer unites himself to all believers who constitute the
church, whether or not he knows them. Even though he knows but few,
he believes that there are thousands of believers with whom he is
not acquainted. He also knows that there are many unconverted within
the church, but union with them does not extend beyond a common
confession. He rejoices in the fact that Christ is confessed by
many, and that the church therefore has much opportunity to beget
souls for Christ. The latter is the focus of the prayer which the
godly offer on behalf of the unconverted in the church. Believers
have this in common that they, whether great or small, are all equally
partakers of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They
are equal partakers of the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and are equally
partakers of the fullness of Jesus and all His benefits. The principal
parts of all this we have shown you previously. This communion manifests
itself in many and various deeds. First, they will diligently join
the assemblies of God’s people in order to hear the Word and partake
of the sacraments. They, with David, rejoice in this (Psa. 122:1).
They unite themselves with the church, the congregation, and all
the godly who are present there—and as fellow professors join all
who profess the Lord Jesus. In doing so they bear witness that this
congregation is the church of Jesus Christ; they are members of
and have communion with her, have the same interests, and wish to
live and die with her. In doing so they publicly testify that they
confess Jesus as the only Savior, and as the only Head of the church.
In this manner they reveal themselves to the world and to the congregation.
In one Spirit they join her in singing the psalms, in calling upon
God’s Name, in hearing God’s Word out of the mouths of His servants,
and they anticipate with longing the blessing which God has promised
to bestow upon such gatherings. All this is comprehended in the
exhortation, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together”
(Heb. 10:25). a Brakel, Wilhelmus, Th.F., The Christian’s Reasonable
Service, Volumes I and II, (Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group)
1999.
|
Subject: Re: Corporate Worship
From: Guess who
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 13:48:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, You wrote: Where do we find evidence suggesting that corporate
worship is now optional? If it was good enough (commanded!) for
the pre-resurrection saints, why should it not be for us? In otherwords,
show me where our covenantal God has told His children to stop worshipping
Him corporately...but to merely go our separate ways (with an occasional
group picnic of course to satisfy Heb 10:25) and worship Him by
just being 'good little troopers' in our daily existence? Was OT
corporate worship just a type or shadow that has been done away
with Christ's life and completed work? John 4:21 Jesus *said to
her, 'Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this
mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. 22 'You
worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know,
for salvation is from the Jews. 23 'But an hour is coming, and now
is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit
and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 'God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit
and truth.' Worship in the New Covenant is not optional nor is it
geographical! According to Jesus, worship is not confined to a certain
location (i.e., a church building on Sunday morning). 1 Corinthians
14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each
one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue,
has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. Done
for what?! Worshiping God? NO! EDIFICATION!! If worship was the
main intent of gathering together why would Paul leave that out?
Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the
habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as
you see the day drawing near. We are to not forsake the assembly
because...'We would not be worshiping God!'? NO! ENCOURAGEMENT!
If it was so important to gather to worship God, why didn't the
Hebrew writer say that? Is there such a concept in the New Covenant
as 'corporate worship'? NO! Must we fellowship as a church body
so that we can encourage and edify one another? YES!
|
Subject: Re: Corporate Worship
From: lj
To:
Guess who
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 17:42:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, You wrote: Where do we find evidence suggesting that corporate
worship is now optional? If it was good enough (commanded!) for
the pre-resurrection saints, why should it not be for us? In otherwords,
show me where our covenantal God has told His children to stop worshipping
Him corporately...but to merely go our separate ways (with an occasional
group picnic of course to satisfy Heb 10:25) and worship Him by
just being 'good little troopers' in our daily existence? Was OT
corporate worship just a type or shadow that has been done away
with Christ's life and completed work? John 4:21 Jesus *said to
her, 'Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this
mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. 22 'You
worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know,
for salvation is from the Jews. 23 'But an hour is coming, and now
is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit
and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 'God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit
and truth.' Worship in the New Covenant is not optional nor is it
geographical! According to Jesus, worship is not confined to a certain
location (i.e., a church building on Sunday morning). 1 Corinthians
14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each
one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue,
has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. Done
for what?! Worshiping God? NO! EDIFICATION!! If worship was the
main intent of gathering together why would Paul leave that out?
Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the
habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as
you see the day drawing near. We are to not forsake the assembly
because...'We would not be worshiping God!'? NO! ENCOURAGEMENT!
If it was so important to gather to worship God, why didn't the
Hebrew writer say that? Is there such a concept in the New Covenant
as 'corporate worship'? NO! Must we fellowship as a church body
so that we can encourage and edify one another? YES!
---
Guess Who? hmmm, i'm reminded of the 'church lady' on Sat Nite Live
who used to rhetorically ask who could it be.... lj
|
Subject: Re: Corporate Worship
From: laz
To: Guess who
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 14:21:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Weak, very weak...context is everything. You seemed to have missed
it. The woman at the well asked Jesus a specific question regarding
geography/...His response in no way negates corporate worship. What
Paul 'leaves out' has everything to do with context (and not speculation)...you
have simply read INTO that passage in true pretexual fashion. Are
you then saying that we are to gather corporately as a body...but
not necessarily to worship...for NC worship is now just 'living
the good life'? This 'assembling' was clearly a routine part of
early Church life...and they clearly worshipped corporately (historical
FACT)....this was to continue on account of the coming persecutions.
laz
|
Subject: Re: Corporate Worship
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 14:32:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, This 'assembling' was clearly a routine part of early Church
life...and they clearly worshipped corporately (historical FACT)....this
was to continue on account of the coming persecutions. Historical
fact or biblical fact? The biblical fact (as the above scripture
indicates) is that the church came together for edification. So
fill us in on the context of the verses if the above indicated context
is not right. Just because you say it is out of context does not
make it so. I have yet to see any New Covenant verses that 'clearly'
indicate people 'went to worship'? I have showed you verses that
clearly indicate the gathering of the saints was for edification.
Your tradition may lead you to believe this but it is not a clear
biblical doctrine.
|
Subject: Re: Corporate Worship
From: Brother Bret
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 17:36:47 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Preach on, brother
Laz. Couldn't agree with you more ( I think, LOL) Brother Bret
|
Subject: Comments Please
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 16:56:29 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Found the following information concerning Spurgeon. Anyone care
to comment? http://www.covprc.org/spurgeon.htm Tom
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Prestor John
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 19:44:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You know, the best thing to do Tom is to read Spurgeon and decided
for yourself. As I said before in another post I've even seen people
say things to the effect that Spurgeon was against Calvinism.
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: mebaser
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 21:30:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Found the following information concerning Spurgeon. Anyone care
to comment? http://www.covprc.org/spurgeon.htm Tom
---
Sounds like a hyper-calvinist with a beef with C. H. Spurgeon. Notice
statements like these: C.H. Spurgeon is being presented today as
being the only authority on matters of preaching and evangelism.
[Spurgeon's] method of dealing with doctrinal points often rather
obscured than cleared them. [Spurgeon's] chief defect was in the
work of the Spirit. Moreover, while Whitefield ultimately separated
form Wesley in his zeal for sound doctrine, Mr. Spurgeon continued
up to the very last most closely associated with Arminians of the
broadest type among all sects, receiving their homage in life and
death. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Tom
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:06:00 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Mebaser What I want to know if there is any truth to the claims
that those articles say about Spurgeon? Also is there any proof
that the people who wrote these articles are indeed Hyper-Calvinist?
They seemed to quote people like John Calvin and John Gill a fair
amount. As well as pit their writing against Spurgeons. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: mebaser
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 18:22:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mebaser What I want to know if there is any truth to the claims
that those articles say about Spurgeon? Also is there any proof
that the people who wrote these articles are indeed Hyper-Calvinist?
They seemed to quote people like John Calvin and John Gill a fair
amount. As well as pit their writing against Spurgeons. Tom
---
Dear Tom, Even heretics quote from Calvin, Gill, and the
Bible itself. This is not to say that these guys are heretics, but
that just because they quote Calvin and Gill doesn't prove that
they are in line with traditional (as opposed to hyper) Calvinism.
I did not read the articles in their entireity, but from what I
skimmed, I got statements like the ones I posted in my first response
to you. Spurgeon may not be infallible, but to say that he is in
line more with the Arminians than the Calvinists is to understand
Calvinism in its 'hyper' form. As to the truthfulness of what they
say Spurgeon said, I do not know, but if they referenced him, we
could go back to those references and look for ourselves whether
or not they were fair to the prince of preachers. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Brother Bret
To: mebaser/Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 18:45:08 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Hello Brethren
:^ ) I didn't read the Site in its entirety either. I have heard
this claim before. But so far, any quotes, sermons or devotions
that I have seen from him, tells me that he is a traditional 5 point
calvinist as they say. But I reckon some may say that us Baptists
stick together...hehe BB
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:17:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hello Brethren :^ ) I didn't read the Site in its entirety either.
I have heard this claim before. But so far, any quotes, sermons
or devotions that I have seen from him, tells me that he is a traditional
5 point calvinist as they say. But I reckon some may say that us
Baptists stick together...hehe BB
---
Bret and others,
It is ludicrous to suggest that Charles Haddon Spurgeon was anything
but a Calvinist of the traditional kind and that he was Arminian
in his theology! Phooey! LOL.... One only read his sermon, 'Free-will
A Slave' to realize how much he opposed Arminianism. He often preached
against this heretical view and was well-known for it. In His Precious
Blood, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 14:38:28 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
In wanting to clear this matter up for myself,I e-mailed the site
in question myself. The following is his reply pack to me. Your
comments on his responce would be appreciated. Dear Tom, I do not
know of any place in any article on our site where Spurgeon is condemned.
If you could find it, please let me know, and I'll look into it.
There are places where Spurgeon, like any minister, is worthy of
criticism. The criticism that I have of Spurgeon is really two-fold.
The first aspect of criticism has to do with an inconsistency in
Spurgeon. He is a five point Calvinist most of the time. His problem
is exactly that which is criticized in the article featured on the
website: He thought that the pernicious error of Arminianism was
a valid form of the truth of Scripture. The second aspect of criticism
has to do with Spurgeon's corresponding toleration of many Arminians,
as those promoting the false gospel and enemies of the doctrines
of grace. Both those aspects together represent for me a terrible
fault in every minister who upholds the doctrines of free grace.
It is not enough to take a stand only for the positive; one must
take the same stand against the negative, namely, the errors that
militate against the truth. Spurgeon was filled with the former,
and I am thankful to God for that. But he was sadly lacking in the
latter. Such was, I believe, one of the factors that led to 'The
Down-Grade Controversy.' To a certain degree he is responsible for
the demise that he later decried. It is interesting that you should
mention Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism had its origin in the Particular
Baptist Tradition, out of which Spurgeon himself came. If by Hyper-Calvinist
is meant someone who rejects a will of God to save all men, then
I am guilty as charged. But, if by Hyper-Calvinist is meant someone
who believes that the gospel should not be preached to all men--the
gospel including the good news, the command to repent, and the promise
of eternal life to all who believe--then I am not a Hyper-Calvinist.
I do believe that the pamphlet that is written by the British Reformed
Fellowship, and featured on the website, does have some HyperCalvinistic
tendencies in it, particularly the criticism of Spurgeon by one
of his 'contemporaries', one A.J. Baxter. I hope that answers your
question. Be free to respond with any concerns you may have. In
Christ, the only Savior Rev. Martin VanderWal Synod of Dordrecht,
1618-19, 'Sacrosancta Synodus!' Visit Covenant PRC's website, http://www.covprc.org
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: mebaser
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 22:37:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
If by Hyper-Calvinist is meant someone who rejects a will of God
to save all men, then I am guilty as charged. But, if by Hyper-Calvinist
is meant someone who believes that the gospel should not be preached
to all men--the gospel including the good news, the command to repent,
and the promise of eternal life to all who believe--then I am not
a Hyper-Calvinist.
---
Dear Tom, One comment that I have
is in response to the section quoted above. I believe that one difference
between hyper and traditional Calvinists is that hypers do not believe
that the gospel is sincerely offered openly to all men. I wonder
if Rev. VanderWal would believe that it is. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Tom
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 23:47:15 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Mebaser Doesn't he answer that question in the very words you quoted?
'But, if by Hyper-Calvinist is meant someone who believes that the
gospel should not be preached to all men--the gospel including the
good news, the command to repent, and the promise of eternal life
to all who believe--then I am not a Hyper-Calvinist.' If I understand
him correctly he is basicly saying that he believes the gospel should
be preached to all men. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:27:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mebaser Doesn't he answer that question in the very words you quoted?
'But, if by Hyper-Calvinist is meant someone who believes that the
gospel should not be preached to all men--the gospel including the
good news, the command to repent, and the promise of eternal life
to all who believe--then I am not a Hyper-Calvinist.' If I understand
him correctly he is basicly saying that he believes the gospel should
be preached to all men. Tom
---
Tom,
Mebaser has a valid point! I am
not going to question whether or not this gentleman embraces Hyper-Calvinism.
But I am speaking academically here when I say that although many
Hyper-Calvinists will 'preach the gospel to all men everywhere',
they don't mean by that the same as what you or I would, or what
the historical Reformed churches meant by it. Classic Protestant
Reformed theology teaches that only the elect have the 'warrant'
to believe, and thus it is only to the elect that God's desire to
have them saved is extended and intended. Further, the elect must
first establish the truth of their election, and thus they are then
'warranted' to believe. Contrariwise, historic Calvinism and the
Bible teach that one first believes unto justification, and then
as part of sanctification, assurance of their election is given
by the Spirit. This chasmic difference was the subject of many heated
debates between the Hyper-Calvinists, such as John Gill, J.C. Philpot
who were Calvinistic Baptists and also the Protestant Reformed Church
led by Herman Hoeksema in 1929. There were two basic issues debated:
1) The 'well meant offer' of the Gospel, and 2) Common Grace. The
problem here, as Mebaser has surely perceived and thus should you
also is the understanding of the terminology used by individuals.
There can be a common language but a totally different meaning of
that language used. Discernment and careful asking of questions
is needed at times to rightly comprehend what the person is actually
saying. :-) Again, I cannot question the sincerity of the individual
who replied to you, but I also cannot verify his theological view
from what he wrote in that reply. But one thing is sure; Spurgeon
never embraced Arminianism nor did he approve of those who embraced
it. However, I would suspect that what Spurgeon did was to show
the love of Christ to Arminians which includes rebuking them for
their heresy as well as feeding those who were in need, among other
things as should all Christians do to all men indiscriminately.
(Matt 5:48).
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 23:17:16 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Thanks Pilgrim You said: However, I would suspect that what Spurgeon
did was to show the love of Christ to Arminians which includes rebuking
them for their heresy as well as feeding those who were in need,
among other things as should all Christians do to all men indiscriminately.
(Matt 5:48). I agree with you on this point, but can you offer something
either written by Spurgeon himself or somebody who wittnessed his
doing this that would confirm what you said here? Tom
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:27:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Thanks Pilgrim You said: However, I would suspect that what Spurgeon
did was to show the love of Christ to Arminians which includes rebuking
them for their heresy as well as feeding those who were in need,
among other things as should all Christians do to all men indiscriminately.
(Matt 5:48). I agree with you on this point, but can you offer something
either written by Spurgeon himself or somebody who wittnessed his
doing this that would confirm what you said here? Tom
---
Tom, I might be able to come up with his showing common decency
and grace to those who held to Arminianism, but that would mean
pouring over 3 Biographies and I just don't have time.... :-) But
as to rebuking Arminians for their heresy, it can be read in myriad
sermons including the one I previously mentioned, 'Free-Will a Slave'
which is online at several sites. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Thanks
From: mebaser
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 18:29:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Thanks Pilgrim, You said it much better than I could have. In Christ,
mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 14:03:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Is there a touch of the Marrow Controversy in what you say, Pilgrim?
laz
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 17:39:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Is there a touch of the Marrow Controversy in what you say, Pilgrim?
laz
---
laz, I applaud your astuteness young man! Indeed
there is! It is certainly applicable today. In His Grace, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: mebaser
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 18:27:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Is there a touch of the Marrow Controversy in what you say, Pilgrim?
laz
---
laz, I applaud your astuteness young man! Indeed
there is! It is certainly applicable today. In His Grace, Pilgrim
---
If laz is a young man, then i'm a whipper-snapper.
mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Pilgrim
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 21:23:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Mebaser, And so you are! J Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Comments Please
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 19:35:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
This reply is indeed
interesting to say the least on a couple of points. 1) As I stated
earlier, Spurgeon had a notorious reputation for blasting Arminianism
and those who held to it. There are myriad sermons which are extant
today that can be easily referenced to verify this. 2) The gentleman
who replied to you so graciously may in fact not have revealed 'all'
about his theological position. My suspicions were aroused when
I saw the reference to 'Covenant PRC's website'. Having matriculated
at the Protestant Reformed Seminary among others, I can confidently
and truly state that the OFFICIAL theological position of the PRC
is without controversy 'Hyper-Calvinist'. However, it is also true
that I personally know of several PRC ministers who UNOFFICIALLY
reject the 'hyperism' of their denomination and preach promiscuously
the Gospel of Christ. Hyper-Calvinism is not to be classified by
only one tenet, eg., the refusal to preach the Gospel indiscriminately.
I would agree however, that Spurgeon, like any man was sometimes
inconsistent in his theology. One sad example was his interpretation
of 1Tim 2:4, wherein he takes a view that could in fact be understood
as being clearly Arminian. Whether or not 'He thought that the pernicious
error of Arminianism was a valid form of the truth of Scripture.
The second aspect of criticism has to do with Spurgeon's corresponding
toleration of many Arminians . . .' is true, I cannot either affirm
or deny. But as to the second charge, one would have to ask a further
question as to the definition of what 'toleration' means in this
man's understanding. If by undue toleration, he means that Spurgeon
did not cast spittle upon anyone who smacked of Arminianism, then
clearly this man has a problem with humility and remembering from
whence he came. :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Is there a difference?
From: Gene
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:10:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
...between unscriptural and antiscriptural? Are they both bad?
|
Subject: semantics
From: mebaser
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:33:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Gene, In practice, I use the term 'unbiblical' but it basically
means the same thing as unscriptural. I think there is a difference
in the semantics of the words, but perhaps they ultimately lead
to each other. Some may want to define unscriptural as something
that is not supported by the Bible. They may also define antiscriptural
as going directly against what the Bible says. But in light of Matthew
12:30 ('He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not
gather with Me scatters.') to not agree with the Scriptures (unscriptural)
is to be against it (antiscriptural). In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: semantics
From: Gene
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:38:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mabaser, Some may want to define unscriptural as something that
is not supported by the Bible. __________________ I think this is
the way most people see it. It appears things can be unscriptural
but not antiscriptural.
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Diaconeo
To: Gene
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:45:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene, I was going to argue this very same thing. There are things
that just don't have any scriptural support (smoking being one of
them, thought it may be under 'christian liberties). any views therefore,
for or against it, would of necessity be 'unscriptural' as there
are no scriptures concerning it. However, when it comes to the death
penalty, as implosed by governments. Arguements saying that government
does not have authority to execute criminals would in fact be 'anti-scriptural',
as there are several passages, both OT and NT, that clearly spell
out that Government, even those run by ungodly men, have the authority
to sentance and conduct executions as a means of judgement against
those criminals. Having said that, in a very general view, it is
commonly acknowleged that if something is 'unscriptural' it is 'antiscriptural'.
But this is only by common usage, and not by definition. In Christ,
Matthew
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: john hampshire
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 16:54:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
In the spirit of triviality: Unscriptural - Not what scripture teaches
Scriptural - What scripture teaches Antiscriptural - Against what
scripture teaches If smoking isn't unscriptural, because no scripture
condemns it, then it isn't antiscriptural either. The only choice
left, using impeccable logic, it must be scriptural! No, that's
not right. There must be a fourth choice? What would that be? Unknowable
Unreasonable Indefinable Unlikely Any takers? johh
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Diaconeo
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:51:01 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow_ml@yahoo.com
Message:
In the spirit of triviality: Unscriptural - Not what scripture teaches
Scriptural - What scripture teaches Antiscriptural - Against what
scripture teaches If smoking isn't unscriptural, because no scripture
condemns it, then it isn't antiscriptural either. The only choice
left, using impeccable logic, it must be scriptural! No, that's
not right. There must be a fourth choice? What would that be? Unknowable
Unreasonable Indefinable Unlikely Any takers? johh
---
Here's my fourth choice: Silence In Christ, Matthew
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 07:29:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John,
You wrote: 'The
only choice left, using impeccable logic, it must be scriptural!
No, that's not right.' REPLY: Why isn't that right?
You asked: 'There must be
a fourth choice?' REPLY:
Why? This might be true if the first
statement made was true but since I believe it isn't, then this
'fourth choice' is unnecessary and a faulty deduction deduced from
a faulty premise! J
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From:
john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000
at 02:46:49 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
I probably shouldn't venture into areas
where I am no expert... but wait, I do that all the time, so here
goes, Unscriptural - Not what scripture teaches Scriptural - What
scripture teaches Antiscriptural - Against what scripture teaches
If smoking isn't unscriptural, because no scripture condemns it,
then it becomes scriptural because that is the remaining choice.
By this, we end up gaining a positive endorsement of every act that
is not mentioned specifically in Scripture. I can see that this
is a faulty premise 'smoking is unscriptural because scripture doesn't
mention it'. It is unscriptural because it violates the overarching
premise of Scripture, yet without being specifically mentioned.
Though, Gore would likely say, 'there is no legal controlling authority
here', and do what is wrong anyway. BUT, if we permit the term,
'unscriptural', to ONLY apply to those things positively mentioned
in Scripture, all else becomes 'silence', for it certainly cannot
be 'scriptural' if Scripture has nothing to say about it. Thus,
with the logic of Plato's younger son (who was an idiot) we must
conclude: a fourth term is needed to define the state of 'silence'.
So, smoking is not unscriptural, because no scripture condemns it,
but it isn't scriptural either, nor is it antiscriptural, since
the Bible cannot be 'against' what it does not speak to, it becomes....
WHAT? Perhaps, having nothing at all to do with Scripture, it is
merely 'unprofitable'. The fourth term is 'unprofitable', by decree.
john
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 07:08:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John,
It's early morning and perhaps
that's why I am having trouble following your reasoning here? But
I can make a case for both smoking being 'unscriptural' (against
God's will [preceptive] ) and being allowed 'scriptural'. It all
depends on how I choose to use Scripture and/or my hermeneutic.
I will heartily agree and affirm, that if something is not enjoined
as being pure, wholesome, commanded, profitable or expedient, it
is 'unscriptural', ie., forbidden to a Christian. However, if something
fits within those general guidelines, it must be accepted as being
'scriptural', albeit it may be classified as 'Adiophora', and thus
either something practiced or abstained from depending on the circumstances.
This is a 'touchy' area, especially for me personally, because of
my opposition to the Fundamentalists' 'Antinomian-Legalism'. :-)
By that I mean that they ignore and/or reject the Ten Commandments
as being binding upon all men, particularly upon believers as a
'rule of life', yet conjure up all kinds of 'Do's and Don'ts' to
regulate one's lifestyle, eg., no card playing, dancing, drinking,
smoking, how long your sideburns can be, no beards, etc., etc.,
ad nauseam. Thus I tend to take a non-dogmatic approach to such
issues although I do hold to my own personal ethic which I would
like to believe I have derived from God's Word. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:38:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John,
It's early morning and perhaps
that's why I am having trouble following your reasoning here? But
I can make a case for both smoking being 'unscriptural' (against
God's will [preceptive] ) and being allowed 'scriptural'. It all
depends on how I choose to use Scripture and/or my hermeneutic.
I will heartily agree and affirm, that if something is not enjoined
as being pure, wholesome, commanded, profitable or expedient, it
is 'unscriptural', ie., forbidden to a Christian. However, if something
fits within those general guidelines, it must be accepted as being
'scriptural', albeit it may be classified as 'Adiophora', and thus
either something practiced or abstained from depending on the circumstances.
This is a 'touchy' area, especially for me personally, because of
my opposition to the Fundamentalists' 'Antinomian-Legalism'. :-)
By that I mean that they ignore and/or reject the Ten Commandments
as being binding upon all men, particularly upon believers as a
'rule of life', yet conjure up all kinds of 'Do's and Don'ts' to
regulate one's lifestyle, eg., no card playing, dancing, drinking,
smoking, how long your sideburns can be, no beards, etc., etc.,
ad nauseam. Thus I tend to take a non-dogmatic approach to such
issues although I do hold to my own personal ethic which I would
like to believe I have derived from God's Word. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
---
Pilgrim - sounds
like you just got done reading the lastest issue of Modern Reformation.
Bob Jones, anyone? LOL!! Do you really place smoking in the 'personal
ethic' matter? I mean, smoking is very unbecoming (especially on
women, cigars are even more so, hehe), has no redeeming value yet
wastes God's resources entrusted to us, is known to harm our 'temples'
when we become addicted (or are exposed to second-hand smoke)...and
I would guess that most people's God-given consciences tell them
that smoking is 'unprofitable', to say the least. Like cusssing,
it's a sinful addiction (even if smoking is not specifically mentioned
in the Bible). Should we recognize it as such? I do make a distinction
between truly enjoying an occassional cigar or even cigarette (which
escapes me), as opposed to being enslaved to the stuff. laz p.s.
Which raises the question of coffee. What use does coffee serve
other than to keep us awake when we should have exercised better
judgement in going to bed earlier? It too is addictive/enslaving,
costs money, is a diaretic, makes our breath stink, can hurt our
bodies when consumed in massive amounts, etc. |
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 16:44:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
laz,
My reply was not due to having
read the latest issue of Modern Reformation, although I have read it. :-)It has been my experience
over several decades that what I wrote is true. I am glad you replied
the way you did, for it does go to make my point exactly, that it
isn't just smoking per se that is at issue here, but the principle
involved. If one gives in to condemning smoking (which I think is
something to be avoided for the reasons you gave and more)then it
then becomes coffee, tea, potato chips, Hershey bars, color of clothes,
etc., etc. One may indeed make a case to abstain from certain things,
but since they are not mentioned specifically, it would behoove
us to tread carefully and slowly so as to not become legalistic
(notice I did not say 'Legalists') in our judgment of others and
thereby attempt to regulate the freedom which Christ has merited
for us who are His by virtue of the blood shed for us. Calvin has
an excellent statement concerning such things which if I have the
time, I will retrieve it and post it here later on, D.v. Paul says
that 'all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient' and
again, that he would not have anything 'rule over him', which affirms
your distinction between occasionally enjoying those things which
are not mentioned and/or forbidden and being addicted to something
in any way.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Brother Bret
To: laz/Pilgrim etc etc
Date
Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 15:20:46
(PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
LOL. I guess I fall into the catagory of a fundamantalist
Calvinist (hey, they have charismatic Calvinists right?). Brother
Pilgrim, sometimes me thinks you broad-brush the legalist catagory.
I don't think Christians have any business smoking, drinking alcohol,
going to the beach while the masses are there, dressing immodestly,
listen to rock and rap music or other music with sinful lyrics,
watch T.V, videos and movies with sin in it, etc, etc, etc!!! Whichever
ones of these, or aspects of these are not clearly laid out in Scripture,
is still covered in verses that deal with being concerned about
those outside the church, not doing anything to cause our brother
or sister to stumble, not loving or being a freind of the world,
or those verses dealing with what we eat or drink or whatever we
do, do all to the glory of God (you don't think that covers smoking?).
Legalism is works salvation...Legalism is justifying our sin...Legalism
is saying that someone is not saved or should be condemed when they
partake of those things not mentioned in Scripture...Legalism is
saying that when we set up standards to protect us from sin, and
they fail, that we treat it as sin itself. Need I go on? :^ ) I
am just amazed about how sometimes we talk about what we can do,
how close we can get to that 'line' rather than discussing about
how the word of God tells us to make no provision for the flesh,
provide ourselves honest before all men, shows ourselves a pattern
of good works and being concerned about the welfare of a brother.
We are supposed to be a light, salt and a holy people. Does anyone
care about glorifying the Lord? 'For whom He did foreknow, He also
did predestinate to BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON...' (Rom.8:29).
'According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of
the world, THAT WE SHOULD BE HOLY AND WITHOUT BLAME BEFORE HIM...'
(Eph.1:4). There's something that has concerned me since I fully
embraced the doctrines of sovereign grace. I may have brought it
up once in a response to someone before. The grace of God that so
irresistibly draws us to Him is also irresistible during our walk
with Him. Yes or No? Amen or Oh Me? How come it is that we can resist
the Spirit and sin for a season (however long that may be)but cannot
resist Him long at all when He quickens us? Now I'm not accusing
anyone of that in this forum, but we do know that there is a lot
of easy-livism amongst the professing Calvinist ranks. Our Arminian
friends may be way off the mark with election and security, but
atleast since they think that those admonitions to continue, don't
let slip, cast not away your confidence etc applies to true believers,
they often seem to be more concerned that their life matching their
profession. We are to make or calling and election sure, examine
ourselved to see if we are in the faith, and work out our own salvation
with fear and trembling. Amen??? Time to get off my soapbox and
eat dinner with the family. May God bless you according to His will
and good pleasure!!! Brother Bret
|
Subject: What Defiles a Man?
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 22:59:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
BB - one other thing. I am very open about my beliefs amongst friends
and coworkers AND I have enjoyed beer in their company on numerous
occassions over the years. In fact, those that know my religious
convictions (virtually everyone that's known me for more than a
few months) and have even vouched for my 'moral character' are not
the least bit alarmed that I will have a drink with them at a hotel
bar. Drinking has never been raised as an issue by anyone, Christian
or otherwise. In otherwords, I can honestly say that my drinking
has never detracted from my public testimony and vocal witness.
It's simply not a big deal to ANYONE I know (well, maybe a couple
but they are clearly wrong, hehe). In fact, my wife's family are
non-believers yet know my life very well....I drink beer with them....and
they have never questioned my faith, commitment, or found any contradiction
whatsoever with my confession and my actions in this regard (now
their ears would perk up if I uttered some profanity!). I even badger
my one sister-in-law for her overdrinking but don't consider myself
a hypocrite in any way for I never have more than one or two beers
at a sitting. My kids know me to have a beer at home every so often.
They know the difference between having a beer (biblically OK) and
getting drunk (not biblically OK). So, why should someone within
the household of faith care about my responsible consumption of
adult beverages if the dead and dying world doesn't? In otherwords,
if most Christians I know and virtually everyone not a believer
does not associate responsible beer drinking with sin or immorality,
why should you? Having said that, how then is my casual and occasional
drinking of a beer in public keeping someone out of the kingdom?
Who is going to reject the Gospel coming from my lips (and consign
me to the lot of the wicked) just because I like Budweiser? Only
a legalist who does not realize that it's not what goes INTO a man
that defiles him, but what COMES OUT. blessings dear brother, laz
|
Subject: Re: What Defiles a Man?
From: Brother Bret
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 15:39:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Then why did Paul bring up 1Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 regarding meat offered
unto idols even though you and I know it will not keep them out
of the Kingdom of God? And by the way, I have seen the opposite
happen when a business associate saw a Preacher order wine at dinner
a few years ago :^ ) BB
|
Subject: Re: What Defiles a Man?
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 16:12:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
BB - i don't think there is any comparison between meat offered
to idols in a first century Jewish culture...eeeeeeek!!!!! ....
and drinking beer in the 20th...ho hum...yawn. I would be the first
to confess that there are always exceptions, times when one should
refrain from exercising their CHristian liberties (recall my emphasis
on 'discernment'?) ....it's the making of a new rule to outlaw something
entirely that is NOT sinful in and of itself. Your example of the
business associate only shows that this guy/gal would not have thought
much of Jesus CHrist either. hmmmm ;-) I thought I made that point
too? lazarus
|
Subject: Re: What Defiles a Man?
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 23:30:39 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz I agree with you, in fact I have a glass of wine about 2 times
a year. I believe the only time we should not drink, or for that
matter anything that our Christian liberty allows us to do, is when
it has the capability of causing a weaker brother or sister to stumble.
I would also not consume any alcohol around a recovering alcoholic,
lest I tempt them to do so also. Tom
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 22:18:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
BB - your wrote: I don't think Christians
have any business smoking, drinking alcohol, going to the beach
while the masses are there, dressing immodestly, listen to rock
and rap music or other music with sinful lyrics, watch T.V, videos
and movies with sin in it, etc, etc, etc!!! When
do you plan to check out of the world? LOL! I guess I should quit
my job for I hear all kinds of profanity and see selfish ambition,
back stabbing, bickering, etc, etc, etc, in the office place. Can
you expand abit on your 'etc, etc, etc'? Actually, I don't really
disagree with your general views on taking proper (discerning) care
about such 'perceptual'(made up my own word?) matters as you've
listed them...for we are indeed called to live out our heavenly
citizenship while on earth to the glory of God... but whose job
is it to 'police' each and every member of your Church and apply
the biblical discipline required towards all offenders? Who is going
to BIBLICALLY define for me what is immodest relative to the clothes
my daughter wears or the length of my hair? Might such SUBJECTIVE
things (some are not even unbiblical, like drinking) rightly belong
for me (and mom) to judge as the head of my covenant house, and
NOT the church? Does the Bible prescribe such 'peformance measures'
and how they are to be applied? Do I have to give up 'Law and Order'
because of it's depiction of the depravity of man? Is there any
room for our God-given conscience to bring godly conviction and
the proper role of the Spirit in effecting sanctification and discernment
on behalf of the growing believer? Who is the Lord of the conscience
anyway....God by His Spirit or the Church? Far be it for me to preach
to the choir/preacher...but we do need to be careful...don't want
to find ourselves like the Pharisee's who considered Jesus Christ
a glutton and a wine-bibber...in accordance with THEIR tradition/laws/rules/...extra-biblical
expectations. Jesus Christ was a master wine maker....and enjoyed
good food, often with bad company. ;-) blessings, laz p.s. you also
said that 'legalism is justifying our sin'. How so?
|
Subject: Re: semantics (not likely)
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 21:03:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret,
First off, here's the promised
quote from brother Calvin concerning the freedom of which all believers
are given in Christ Jesus our Lord:
838 INSTITUTES
OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION BOOK III - CHAPTER XIX Freedom in 'things indifferent'
with proofs from Romans, 7-9 7. The
third part of Christian freedom lies in this: regarding outward
things that are of themselves 'indifferent,' we are not bound
before God by any religious obligation preventing us from sometimes
using them and other times not using them, indifferently. And
the knowledge of this freedom is very necessary for us, for
if it is lacking, our consciences will have no repose and there
will be no end to superstitions. Today we seem to many to be
unreasonable because we stir up discussion over the unrestricted
eating of meat, use of holidays and of vestments, and such things,
which seem to them vain frivolities. But these matters are more
important than is commonly believed. For when consciences once
ensnare themselves, they enter a long and inextricable maze,
not easy to get out of. If a man begins to doubt whether he
may use linen for sheets, shirts, hand-kerchiefs, and napkins,
he will afterward be uncertain also about hemp; finally, doubt
will even arise over tow. For he will turn over in his mind
whether he can sup without napkins, or go without a handkerchief.
If any man should consider daintier food unlawful, in the end
he will not be at peace before God, when he eats either black
bread or common victuals, while it occurs to him that he could
sustain his body on even coarser foods. If he boggles at sweet
wine, he will not with clear conscience drink even flat wine,
and finally he will not dare touch water if sweeter and cleaner
than other water. To sum up, he will come to the point of considering
it wrong to step upon a straw across his path, as the saying
goes. Here begins a weighty controversy, for what is in debate
is whether God, whose will ought to precede all our plans and
actions, wishes us to use these things or those. As a consequence,
some, in despair, are of necessity cast into a pit of confusion;
others, despising God and abandoning fear of him, must make
their own way in destruction, where they have none ready-made.
For all those entangled in such doubts, wherever they turn,
see offense of conscience everywhere present. 8.
Freedom in the use of God's gifts for his purposes* 'I know,' says Paul, 'that nothing is common (taking
'common' in the sense of 'profane'), 'but it is common for anyone
who thinks it common' [Rom. 14:14 p.]. With these words Paul
subjects all outward things to our freedom,' provided our minds
are assured that the basis for such freedom stands before God.
But if any superstitious opinion poses a stumbling block for
us, things of their own nature pure are for us corrupt. For
this reason, he adds: 'Happy is he who does not judge himself
in what he approves. But he who judges, if he eats, is condemned,
because he does not eat of faith. For whatever is not of faith
is sin' [Rom.14:22-23 p.]. Amidst such perplexities, do not
those who show themselves rather bold by daring all things confidently,
nonetheless to this extent turn away from God? But they who
are deeply moved in any fear of God, when they are compelled
to commit many things against their conscience, are overwhelmed
and fall down with fright. All such persons receive none of
God's gifts with thanksgiving, yet Paul testifies that by this
alone all things are sanctified for our use [I Tim. 4:4-5].
Now I mean that thanks-giving which proceeds from a mind that
recognizes in his gifts the kindness and goodness of God. For
many of them, indeed, understand them as good things of God
which they use, and praise God in his works; but inasmuch as
they have not been persuaded that these good things have been
given to them, how can they thank God as the giver? To sum up,
we see whither this freedom tends: namely, that we should use
God's gifts for the purpose for which he gave them to us, with
no scruple of conscience, no trouble of mind. With such confidence
our minds will be at peace with him, and will recognize his
liberality toward us. For here are included all ceremonies whose
observance is optional, that our consciences may not be constrained
by any necessity to observe them hut may remember that by God's
beneficence their use is for edification made subject to him.
Secondly, I want to ask a couple
of further questions concerning your confession of what must not
be entertained by any true believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit
of God if I may? What a marvelous thing it is according to the Apostle
Paul, that 'For whom he did foreknow, he
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,' (Rom 8:29). However, this being an unquestionable truth
of God's eternal purpose for all those whom He has set his eternal
love upon, what is questionable is your application of this text
to include many things which are not sinful in themselves yet deemed
by you as being that which a Christian must not engage in. One of
those items you listed is 'drinking alcohol'. And this brings up
a most difficult problem for those who would try to make the drinking
of alcohol as one of those things which are inconsistent with being
'conformed to the image of His Son. For it is without doubt, although
disputed by some to their own embarrassment, that the Lord Christ
was in the regular habit of imbibing of the 'fruit of the vine',
as was the common custom of His day. Further, not only did the Lord
Christ drink wine of the fermented variety (Welsh's Grape Juice
hadn't been invented yet), but at the wedding at Cana, He miraculously
turned water into wine. And not just any common variety of wine
at that, but the finest wine man has ever had the pleasure of passing
over his lips. There is absolutely no commandment for a Christian
to abstain from alcohol in principle to be found in all of Holy
Writ. But rather there are injunctions for those who love the LORD
God to partake not only of wine but of 'strong drink' as well. Unless
one would wish to revert back to the practice of the Old Economy
and impose on oneself a Nazarite Vow, the drinking of alcohol is
certainly something which God would have us do with freedom and
with joy. Another item you mentioned which you said a Christian
is to avoid is 'watch T.V, videos and movies with sin in it.' Now,
could you please tell me which T.V. program is acceptable; being
free from ALL SIN? Although I rarely find time to watch T.V. and
even more rarely do I find anything I find worth watching, I do
watch the nightly news. At the risk of being sarcastic, is the Nightly
News 'free from sin'? and therefore acceptable for me to watch as
a Christian? How about newspapers? Are they acceptable for a Christian
to read in toto? or are there certain parts which I should avoid
looking at? Do you see the problem here? Where does this end? You
know I mean you no harm, nor would I ever ridicule those things
which you hold dear. But I am not bound to relinquish the freedom
which Christ purchased for me under the guise of 'being conformed
to His image'. I am sure this will be an interesting thread to say
the least! :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Prestor John
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 19:33:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Well Brother Bret I guess that we are dead in our sins then, because
according to your standards our dear Lord himself couldn't keep
Himself pure. Here we have Jesus' own words in Luke 7:33-34 attesting
to the fact that he drank wine, and in John 2:3-10 He makes wine!
(btw when the wine-steward says the best wine he means that which
has been aged to perfection). And then there's Paul telling Timothy
to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake (medicinal alcohol!!!).
Remember the Bible speaks out against being drunk, not drinking
alcohol, there is a difference. Being conformed to the image of
His Son doesn't mean falling for a bunch of rules that are man made.
But we have had this conversation before. Prestor John Free indeed!
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Brother Bret
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 15:10:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Well Brother Bret I guess that we are dead in our sins then, because
according to your standards our dear Lord himself couldn't keep
Himself pure. Here we have Jesus' own words in Luke 7:33-34 attesting
to the fact that he drank wine, and in John 2:3-10 He makes wine!
(btw when the wine-steward says the best wine he means that which
has been aged to perfection). And then there's Paul telling Timothy
to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake (medicinal alcohol!!!).
Remember the Bible speaks out against being drunk, not drinking
alcohol, there is a difference. Being conformed to the image of
His Son doesn't mean falling for a bunch of rules that are man made.
But we have had this conversation before. Ah, my dear brother. Yes
we have had this conversation before. And I guess we still disagree.
I have read literature about whether our Lord turned the water into
fermented/alcoholic or not. The arguments that He didn't are convincing
enough to me :^ ). In addition James 1:13c says God does not tempt
any man. That along with the concerns about giving an occasion for
our brother to stumble, I still vote for abstinace regarding alcohol.
And it's certainly not necessary anymore for medicinal purposes.
Although I have heard professing Christians say that it can be used
medicinally to relieve stress. May God bless you according to His
will and good pleasure, my brother! Brother Bret
|
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 14, 2000 at 20:39:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Brother Bret,
I for one will and MUST respect
your right to abstain from all alcoholic drink, but I cannot respect
the view that says that the first of Jesus' miracles, where He turned
water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana was 'non-fermented'.
Would you please forward me any of these articles which you have
read that are so convincing to you in this matter? Thanks. All historical
data and other biblical reference would mitigate against this view
decisively. But I am not unwilling to hear the arguments against
it. I would also have you read two articles written by godly men,
who are without doubt conservative believers in every respect. Dr.
John Murray's The Weak and the Strong Donald
MacLeod's Liberty of Conscience It has
been impressed upon me over many years that the Apostle Paul NEVER
mandated or even encouraged the church to cater to the views of
the 'weak' in the making of polity. For to do so it would inevitably
mean that there would be a list of inestimable length consisting
of 'Do's and Don'ts' whereby no man would be allowed to live even
a modest life without fear of contradicting one of these man-made
rules. Even more so the words of the Apostle Peter which He addressed
in hot anger toward the Pharisees who demanded that their interpretation/application
of God's law be kept by Christians, impressed my mind and heart:
Acts 15:5 'But
there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,
saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command
them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders
came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there
had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made
choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the
word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the
hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even
as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them,
purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck
of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able
to bear?'
And add to this the words of the
Lord Christ Himself Who promised:
Matt 11:28 Come
unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for
I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your
souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.'
The keeping of God's law for a
Christian is not burdensome (1Joh 5:3), but the keeping of those
rules and regulations which men are want to attach to God's law
is often confining, confusing, contradictory and can lead to death.
The sanctification of one justified is the work of the Holy Spirit
working within each individual, and should not be interfered with
by mandates by any man or organization, for they have no God-given
authority to do so. Even the Puritans, who are well renowned for
their chaste lives understood these things and included them in
the Westminster Confession where they wrote:
The Westminster Confession
of Faith, Chapter XX Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience
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
Let us all prudently
determine what is right in the sight of God for our own lives where
there is not clear command or prohibition of things not mentioned
in God's Word. And let us withhold passing judgment on one another
in matters 'indifferent', for each man stands or falls on this own.
(cf Rom 14ff). In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: semantics (perhaps)
From:
laz
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 21:25:42 (PST)
Email Address:
Not
Provided
Message:
PrestorJohn - and my personal favorite: Deut 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever
thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for WINE, or for STRONG DRINK, or for
whatsoever thy soul desireth:
and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt
rejoice, thou, and thine household, LET'S PARTY!!!!! We simply can't make up more 'laws'
as we go along...especially over things CLEARLY never condemned
(when taken in context) by God in Scripture. We are to receive all
things created by God (and lawful, of course) with thanksgiving.
THANK GOD FOR BEER! AMEN! Now, in deference to my brother, Bret,
there is room to prayerfully consider this: Php 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding,
shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. 8 Finally,
brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever
things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there
be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Like the Reformers, I think
discernment MUST come to play....for we must avoid adding to 'the
Law', but at the same time not violate the Law as we enjoy the earthly
liberties Christ has also won for us in regards to all things not
unprofitable (1Cor6:12)(which admittedly may include NOT drinking
beer when you know it will lead a 'weaker brother' (i.e., less spiritually
mature/discerning) to sin against his conscience as he takes a drink
along with you). Can someone make the claim that in a given culture
certain practices give 'an appearance' of impropriety? Like drinking
in today's party-hearty culture where across our high school and
college campuses kids regularly get drunk, thereby giving some folks
the impression that a drinking believer is merely conforming to
the spirit of the age? Perhaps. But is the answer to ban ALL DRINKING...thus
making it a sin to drink at all, ever? blessings, laz 1Co 6:12 All
things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all
things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power
of any.
|
Subject: Tiz amazing
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:34:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Somewhat enlightening yet awkward, I don't drink. I don't smoke.
I don't watch TV. I don't party. I don't swear. I don't listen to
rock/rap music. I eat healthy food. I exercise hard. I read. I try
to do what is right in my own conscience according to my own spirit.
I don't care about 'Christian liberty'. And why don't I? Hmmm, because
IMO I find these things to be of no value, vanity, and generally
unprofitable. I wouldn't fear for my soul if I did drink a glass
of wine or a beer, but I cannot do it, there is no motivation within
me to want to. If other professing Christians smoke, drink, watch
TV, I do not care: they just cannot do it in my house. (hehe). I
am not a Baptist but I don’t dance. Where is the value, how is God
glorified? If my conscience is uncomfortable, I don't do it. I even
find it offensive, and abstain from joining hands with women (other
than my wife), as is often done in church prayer groups (a concept
I don’t agree with anyway). Does having a strange woman's hand in
mine help me focus on God-- I think not! It is my belief that we
should seek each moment to remove those things from our life which
serve as a crutch, an escape from reality, things used as a way
to relax, to make us feel good (when we shouldn't). These things
occupy time but serve no other useful purpose. True, we should occupy
until He comes, but the image of a fat Christian reclining on a
folding lawn chair with a lite beer in one hand and a cigarette
in the other as he taps his toes to the latest rap beat, just doesn't
measure up to crucifying the flesh daily. Pilgrim makes some good
points that are common sense, and warns of trying to manage other’s
behavior. To this I agree. I find the dividing line on behavior
is your own personal image of what it means to follow Christ. I
say, if you think polyester clothes are offensive to Godly living,
wear cotton. You are constrained by your conscience to the degree
you are spiritually sensitive to what is right, whether specifically
Biblical or not. I leave appropriate behavior to you and your inner-voice
where Scripture has not spoken otherwise, I don’t micro-manage other
people (haven’t got the time or interest). But I do micro-manage
myself. From my perspective, I do not see Jesus Christ our Lord,
watching sports on Sunday with a beer in one hand and a cigar in
the other. For example: if you were with me at church on Sunday,
and after the service you struck up a conversation with me or others,
about sports, work, politics, etc., even small talk: I'd likely
have to bid you farewell (happens all the time). Do you know why?
Because your Christian Liberty is offending my Christian Spirit
of Duty. You see, you never know just who you are offending as you
sip your beer, sit glaze-eyed before the tube, or eagerly puff on
that cigarette. I won't stop you, but neither will I waste my time
hanging with those who indulge their 'Christian Liberty'. That is
my 'Christian Liberty'. Lev 10:9 and Prov 31:4 'It is not for kings
to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink...give strong
drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him bitter of soul'.
The wicked are 'perishing' and are 'bitter of soul', for them God
provides a way to temporarily forget their misery. For myself, anything
that distracts from walking the narrow path, I discard. I desire
to lean only on the commandments of God, do and say what is right
each moment, and abide until He comes. I have not room in my life
for vanity or worthless endeavors. (Let the arrows fly as they will).
john
|
Subject: Re: Tiz amazing
From: lj
To:
john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:19:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
What if I do none of those dastardly things brotha John doesn't
do...in fact....I do NOTHING AT ALL...just sit around and stare
out into space all day and night....any virture in that? lj
|
Subject: Re: Tiz amazing
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:14:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John - you wrote: I don't drink. I don't
smoke. I don't watch TV. I don't party. I don't swear. I don't listen
to rock/rap music... Gee, why doesn't
that surprise me? LOL! ....how do I make a flaming arrow with this
silly keyboard....hmmmm laz
|
Subject: Re: Tiz amazing
From: john hampshire
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 22:44:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The only thing I sometimes wonder if its worth bothering with, and
am concerned with the amount of time consumed Vs the return on my
investment is.... this forum. : | While there are a great many things
I don't do, it is only because I am too busy running an inner-city
crack house. Of course, this is my Christian liberty, though it
may be illegal it certainly cannot be unscriptural or unbiblical.
I have been assured by my lawyer Vido, that there is no mention
of Drug Czars in the Bible. Whew, what a relief! Reminds me of our
darling president Bill, who prayed (he said) and searched his Bible
(new living translation I imagine) prior to signing a law to allow
partial birth abortions. He couldn't find anything that forbid it,
so it must be OK. This was his Christian liberty. Party on dudes.
john
|
Subject: Please enlighten me, John?
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 16, 2000 at 13:30:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
John ,yOu lost me.... Selling crack is illegal and therefore violates
Rom 13 and other injunctions for us to be law abiding unless being
asked to sin against a higher authority...GOD. Partial Birth abortion,
as any abortion, is murder. Where again does Christian liberty fit?
laz
|
Subject: Spurgeon arminian?
From: OrthoPres
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 12:00:54 (PST)
Email Address: lornekris@yahoo.com
Message:
A friend of mine and myself were talking and Charles Spurgeon came
up. I was informed by my friend that Spurgeon had changed quite
dramatically his position on the 5 points. I have not been able
to confirm this any where. My question is did Charles Spurgeon change
his position near the end of his ministry from that of Calvinism
back to an assemblance of Arminianism? Any web sites on this matter
would be appreciaited. OrthoPres
|
Subject: Re: KJV only also ......
From: stan
To: OrthoPres
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 18:28:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I saw some KJV only literature few years ago that quoted him as
if he were KJV ;-)
|
Subject: Re: Spurgeon arminian?
From: Prestor John
To: OrthoPres
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 16:30:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I would ask your friend for what proof he has that this is true.
I've seen a lot of things by a lot of people that tried to show
that Spurgeon was this or that. I even saw one guy take Spurgeon's
defense of Calvinism and try to say that it was a rebuke of Calvinism!
Its amazing the lengths people go to make their point, even lying.
Prestor John Mi kredas en Dio la cxiopova patro, kreinto de cxielo
kaj tero
|
Subject: Re: Spurgeon arminian?
From: Gene
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 04:40:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Does it really matter what the MAN was? Some of you guys talk about
him like he walked on water. He was a good preacher, no need to
erect a monument. No one's faith is harmed by whatever flavor of
Christian he was.
|
Subject: Re: Spurgeon arminian?
From: Prestor John
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:50:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
For a man who leaps to his own defense so often this is strange
talk coming from you! A good name is rather to be chosen than great
riches; and loving favor rather than silver or gold. Prov. 22:1 I dislike seeing anyone being accused of
something they are not. Why not you? Spurgeon was a prince among
preachers, and I wish we had his like now. Prestor John Servabo
Fidem
|
Subject: Re: Spurgeon arminian?
From:
David Teh
To: Gene
Date
Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000
at 08:25:40 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene, 'Does it really matter what the
MAN was?...He was a good preacher..... No one's faith is harmed
by whatever flavor of Christian he was.' If it doesn't matter, how
do you defend your calling him a 'good preacher'? By what measure
is he good? Most on this board will not affirm that all Arminians
are non-Christians. But, as to the substance of their teaching,
it is surely God-demeaning and grace-dishonouring. Does it matter?
www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/Death.html www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/Owen2bd.gif
|
Subject: Re: Spurgeon arminian?
From: Brother Bret
To: OrthoPres
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 14:41:34 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Hello: I have
heard that a time or two myself, but have not seen any evidence
of it. I subscribe to a ministry called Grace Quotes that has about
90% Spurgeon quotes in them. I also have a devotional book called
'Morning By Morning' with devotions by Spurgeon. Seems to be 5 point
Calvinist in there. Now he was a Baptist, praise God! :^ ) Bro.
Bret
|
Subject: Rod
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 18:34:19 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com
Message:
Just a note
to let everyone know that the reason Rod has not been roaring into
the current debates is that he had a quadruple bypass operation
today. Came through it with flying colors! Thank you, Lord! According
to his wife, he is doing marvelously well, and should be back in
fighting trim (um, in a manner of speaking) in short order. Please
keep Rod in your prayers for his full and swift recovery, so that
he can return and sort all these arguments out. Hehehe. Ciao! Anne
|
Subject: Re: Rod
From: Tom
To: Anne
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 01:07:37 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
My prayers are with him. Tom
|
Subject: True Worship
From: Gene
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 13:39:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
It is me again! :) I understand Rom 12:1 as being the definition
of 'true worship' in the New Testament. I do not find any verses
in the NT (i.e., New Covenant) that says worship is praying, preaching,
singing etc. which defines the activities most Christians do on
Sundays. I also have not found anywhere in the NT where a group
of people are 'going to worship.' Therefore, can it be said that
a church has a 'Worship Service'? Do we not diminish the meaning
of true NT worship when we limit it to Sunday mornings and not our
entire lives (24/7)?
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:43:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Heya Gene, I understand Rom 12:1 as being the definition of 'true
worship' in the New Testament. I do not find any verses in the NT
(i.e., New Covenant) that says worship is praying, preaching, singing
etc. which defines the activities most Christians do on Sundays.
I also have not found anywhere in the NT where a group of people
are 'going to worship.' I believe these have been answered by the
following thread. Therefore, can it be said that a church has a
'Worship Service'? Yes Do we not diminish the meaning of true NT
worship when we limit it to Sunday mornings and not our entire lives
(24/7)? If that is the case for the individual then yes. However,
that is not scriptural. As we have already agreed upon the two are
inseparable and, I would add, proceed out of one another. I just
wanted to go back to your original question for clarification purposes.
In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: mebaser
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 14:53:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene, The problem that arises almost everytime you post is that
everyone here is practically speaking a different language than
you. Putting it in plain English, here is what I believe most people
on this board will agree to regarding true worship. No one on this
board (who is saved) will deny that true worship needs to be a 24/7
activity as you termed it. Romans 12:1 is an excellent passage that
denotes this truth. So where does the Bible support that we are
to worship as a corporate body on Sundays? Well, Romans 12:1 does.
Remember that 24/7 worship includes the 3 hours that we spend at
Church on Sundays. In the New Testament, the practice of the Church
was to come together corporately on Sundays. Why not do so for the
purpose of worship (remember, 24/7)? The practices that we do at
church on Sundays reflect what the saints did in the New Testament
(recall Acts 2:43, it appears that they did it not just on Sundays,
but continually). As Pilgrim would agree, corporate worship of the
Church on Sundays is imperative, but that does not mean that we
cannot worship individually (or corporately for that matter) on
any other day of the week. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 15:44:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser, Here is the problem with defining worship as what we do
on Sunday mornings. Most churches say their 'worship service starts
at such and such time. We speak of our 'worship assemblies' etc.
This gives the perception that Sunday morning activities constitutes
worship. When in reality, it is what we do 24/7. Yes, the activities
we do on Sunday are a PART of worship, but our language indicates
it IS WORSHIP. This fosters the 'Be a good Christian and go to church
on Sunday morning to worship God' when in reality (and biblically)
we are worshiping God by what we do all week. We limit worship to
sunday mornings.
|
Subject: Pilgrim's post is right on
From: mebaser
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 23:01:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser, Here is the problem with defining worship as what we do
on Sunday mornings. Most churches say their 'worship service starts
at such and such time. We speak of our 'worship assemblies' etc.
This gives the perception that Sunday morning activities constitutes
worship. When in reality, it is what we do 24/7. Yes, the activities
we do on Sunday are a PART of worship, but our language indicates
it IS WORSHIP. This fosters the 'Be a good Christian and go to church
on Sunday morning to worship God' when in reality (and biblically)
we are worshiping God by what we do all week. We limit worship to
sunday mornings.
---
Dear Gene, You do bring up an issue
that is truly a problem in the Church. Yes there are too many churches
who's members consider 'Sunday worship' the only time in their 'busy
schedules' to give reverence to the Lord. So thank you for addressing
the issue. Now, it also seems like you are complaining about having
Sunday worship at all. Let me know if I am barking up the wrong
tree here, but if I hear you correctly, then you seem to have a
problem with even having a Sunday worship service. Would you rather
that the Church did not meet on Sundays since that can harbor the
mentality of only worshipping on Sundays? If this is what you're
getting at, then you have not labored with the points that Pilgrim
and others have made to you regarding the BIBLICAL MANDATE to 'set
the sabbath day apart as holy to the Lord' and gather in a corporate
gathering with other believers to rest from the work of the other
6 days and meditate on the person and precepts of God. The New Testament
church met on Sundays, can you agree that this practice is good
in the eyes of the Lord? If you can, then the problem is not solved
by attacking the Sunday morning worship service, but is solved by
confronting lax Christians who have lost, or never had, a biblical
sense of priority. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's post is right on
From: Gene
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:56:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser, NO! I do not have a problem with Sunday activities st all,
I promote them! However, I no longer promote them as worship. This
is not biblical.
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 19:30:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene,
It isn't a matter of 'limiting
worship to Sunday morning and/or evening'! It's a matter of worshipping
in the manner and time that God has set forth for His people to
CEASE from their daily activities 6 days a week, wherein they were
to do their work, recreation, etc. 'as reasonable service/worship',
and to gather together corporately A PART FROM the world wherein
we live and to focus all our being upon the rendering of heartfelt
and true worship of the LORD God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
24/7 idea is good as far as it goes and for the purpose it was intended.
But it is no substitute for entering into the corporate gathering
with believers for the singular purpose of divinely mandated and
regulated worship. This worship of God on the Sabbath began in the
Garden of Eden and has been practiced ever since by those who have
been called of God to be worshippers of His goodness and deity in
'spirit and truth' ever since that day. God gave us SIX days to
labour and to do all our work, but the seventh is the SABBATH of
the LORD and on it we are to do NO MANNER of work, except the 'work
of worship' unto Him who has called us from darkness into the marvelous
light of His only begotten Son, God Incarnate; the LORD Jesus Christ.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 05:00:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, . But it is no substitute for entering into the corporate
gathering with believers for the singular purpose of divinely mandated
and regulated worship. In the New Covenant, where do you find this
'regulated worship' mandated?
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 07:55:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, . But it is no substitute for entering into the corporate
gathering with believers for the singular purpose of divinely mandated
and regulated worship. In the New Covenant, where do you find this
'regulated worship' mandated?
---
Gene, Not all that is
required of Christians is found my looking through the Bible as
you would an encyclopedia and finding a verse that tells you what
to do. The mandate to worship God on the Sabbath is found from Genesis
to Revelation by precept, commandment, law and by example. The Bible
is ONE BOOK, not to be put asunder. EVERYTHING Jesus Christ did in the 'New Testament' was mandated
in the Old Testament by God. What the Lord Christ taught His disciples
was found in the Old Testament. We have 'mandates' via example as
well as written precept. There are myriad passages which speak of
the regular gathering of the saints on Sunday who were gladly following
the moral precepts of the Old Testament law, which are perpetually
binding upon ALL MEN. One of those precepts is found in Isaiah 58:13,
14
'If thou turn away thy foot from
the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call
the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and
shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine
own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou
delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon
the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage
of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.'
The practice of the church in the O.T. was to
meet once a week, on the Old Covenant Saturday Sabbath whether in
the Tabernacle, Temple or Synagogue for the explicit purpose of
worshipping God as He had COMMANDED them to do. The New Covenant
Church continues to do the same only they now meet on the NEW COVENANT
SABBATH which is Sunday. Again, READ THE BOOK and maybe you won't
be so likely to make yourself look so foolish. The Covenantal Sabbath
But then again, you ARE A FOOL and until you are
regenerated by God's sovereign good pleasure and grace, you will
continue to question all that is right, good and true. Don't misconstrue
what I have just said to you here. For as you can plainly see, I
do often try to answer your questions. This is done with the realization
and hope that 'faith comes by hearing (and reading) the Word of
God' which is faithfully preached.
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 18:49:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, The practice of the church in the O.T. was to meet once
a week, on the Old Covenant Saturday Sabbath whether in the Tabernacle,
Temple or Synagogue for the explicit purpose of worshipping God
as He had COMMANDED them to do. The New Covenant Church continues
to do the same only they now meet on the NEW COVENANT SABBATH which
is Sunday. I do not recall the scripture where the Jews went to
the synagogue to worship God. I assumed it was the temple where
they went to worship. I do not recall the COMMAND to worship in
the synagogue. Or, is this 'implied'?
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 07:41:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene,
Are you playing games now? When
the Temple was destroyed and the Jews exiled, the Synagogues were
created as a place for the Jews to gather for worship. This is so
clearly factual is barely needs to be mentioned. We see the Synagogue
system in the N.T. being continued and it continues even to this
day. Again, I challenge you to refute that Christians met weekly
on Sunday for the explicit purpose of corporate worship throughout
the N.T. period which is carried on to the very day by true believers,
if so be it that they are physically able to do so. Not everything
was changed when Christ appeared. Many even most things were continued
albeit in a modified form but the essence continued in those things
which God had commanded to be done for worship of His Holy name.
When the writer admonishes the reader to 'not forsake the assembling
of ourselves' (10:25), what was he referring to? Was he saying that
Christians should not forsake coming together to have bowling night
on a weekly basis? Or are the people of God to meet weekly, Sunday
if they like but Thursday would be fine too, for picnics, movies,
Bridge, what?
Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 13:07:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
When the writer admonishes the reader to 'not forsake the assembling
of ourselves' (10:25), what was he referring to? Was he saying that
Christians should not forsake coming together to have bowling night
on a weekly basis? Or are the people of God to meet weekly, Sunday
if they like but Thursday would be fine too, for picnics, movies,
Bridge, what? _____________ Nope! As verse 25 says the asembly gathering
was to 'worship God'? WRONG! It was to 'encourage' one another (if
it were to worship God don't you think the writer would have stressed
that?). And how do we do that? Singing, praying, preaching, taking
the Lord's Supper (communing with God) et al. humor me and show
me the scripture where (1) The synagogue was scripturally authorized
and (2) used in place of the temple for worshiping God. If you show
me the scripture I will believe it. I do not know every verse in
the Bible.
|
Subject: yeah right
From: monitor
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 18:56:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene, this qoute drew my attention : 'If you show me the scripture
I will believe it.' I find it odd that you would say something like
this. When have you ever heeded the Word of God? This has NEVER
(that I can remember) been true with you, at least in your time
on this board. Or do you just mean, 'if we show you scripture this
time you will believe it in this situation only' :-) Scripture (which
most people have shown you on many topics) don't seem to have an
effect on you. (of course, I can't expect anything better from a
religious non-christian) monitor
|
Subject: religious?
From: Gene
To: monitor
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:51:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
What gives you an indication that I am religious? How can YOU tell,
oh wise monitor, by my posts? Do you know what my lifestyle is?
|
Subject: Re: religious?
From: monitor
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 17:42:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene, Your sarcasm and disrespect is noted... You are easily seen
to be religious. I have no need to dive into your lifestyle. You
claim to be a christian, you attend church, you think you understand
what worship is and claim to do it. You arrogantly flant your 'knowledge'
of greek, shunning those who are not to your level of intelligence,etc.
So obviously you have a religious attitude (bear in mind this was
not much of a compliment for the pharisees themselves were religious)
monitor
|
Subject: 3 simple statements
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 11:35:20 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Gene, I am simply curious as to what your beef is here. I have read
several posts where you are considered to not be a Christian. I
have read posts where it is said you do not hold to the belief of
the Trinity. Now in this thread you seem to question the reason
Christians call what they do on Sundays worship. From my posting
with you on this matter I was to understand that we were in agreement.
Let me simplify the matter by making a statement and then you can
reply as to whether or not you agree with it. I am not asking you
to defend your position either way. A simply yes or no will suffice
in this instance. a) whenever believers in Jesus Christ assemble
to sing praises to God, pray corporately, hear the word of God preached,
edify one another, that is worship b) believers in Jesus Christ
are to also do all things as unto the Lord and this is good service
for them, aka Christians should contiunually worhsip God and pray
without ceasing on a 7/24 basis and not just on Sundays in church
c) both a and b are inseparable. You can simply put the letter down
and then follow it with a yes or a no. I am not asking you about
any of the other statements made by or about you. In Him, kevin
sdg
|
Subject: It should be 1!
From: Gene
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 11:56:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You wrote: both a and b are inseparable. THEN WHY DO YOU SEPERATE
THEM IN YOUR LIST? I would agree with 'a' if it said, '... the believers
assembly is 'part' of worship.' To say it IS WORSHIP is too narrowly
defined. It implies that nothing else is. 'b' YES!
|
Subject: Reason
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:39:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene, I posted the way I did to better clarify your stance. I do
not separate the two, and I was wanting to make sure that we were
in agreement on the issue. At any rate. If you hold that both are
true then what is the point of your postings about worship? In Him,
kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: Gene
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 15:40:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Kevin, My point is this: Most people define worship as what we do
on Sunday mornings when in fact, it is what we do 24/7. Our worship
to God, according to the NT, is our life and it is this point MOST
people miss. When the church realizes this we will have more people
'on their best behavior' all the time. As it stands now, this 'best
behavior' is reserved just for church time.
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 21:32:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene,
It seems you just can't grasp
the biblical teaching concerning the true worship of God, or you
simply will not accept it. But regardless of the reason you reject
it. Now, perhaps an analogy from life might break through this barrier
you have? A man who is married and has children is thus a father.
When he goes about his daily routine; going to work, fishing with
the 'boys', mowing the lawn, whatever, he is still a father and
he should be cognizant of the fact that whatever he does, it will
have an affect on his children. Thus, there is never a time when
he is not a father to his children. The relationship is a permanent
one; 24/7 as you like to put it. BUT, there are times when a father
focuses his attention upon his children directly, whether during
playtime, helping them with their homework, talking about problems,
joys, etc., praying with them, reading the Scriptures to them, etc.
In those situations, albeit he is a father by virtue of the permanent
relationship created, these types of situations display his 'fathership'
in a special way in that he is putting aside all his daily routines,
responsibilities and recreation to focus upon his children. Likewise
in a similar way, a true Christian will live out his life in such
a way so that whatever he/she does is to the glory of God, which
is his 'reasonable service/worship'. However, at the command of
God, he/she puts aside the daily routines of life and assembles
with other true believers in a common location on the 'Lord's Day'
and focuses his/her attention upon God. This gathering together
is for the purpose of 'focused/particular' WORSHIP, whereby according
to the biblical mandates attention is given to the hearing of God's
Word preached, prayer, singing of 'Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs',
the giving of tithes and offerings and the administration of the
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. In this gathering of
redeemed souls, for the designated time allotted, believers concentrate
their whole being, upon the Triune God, Who by grace has called
them out of this present world and into the Kingdom of the Son.
As with most all analogies, I am sure this one has its fallacies,
but I do think it is sufficient to make the point intended.
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: I am not alone here.
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:20:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Does not Heb 10:25 'imply' the assembly is to encourage one another?
They were not guilty of not worshiping God. You are still stuck
on the TRADITION that Sunday morning activities constitute worship
(in and of itself). I think it is you that has a hard time 'letting
go of your traditions' and understanding the TRUE worship in the
NT. You are one to hang on to traditions as evidenced by your quoting
'uninspired men and creeds.' So I think you are the one who just
can't get a handle on this. There are a few on this forum who agree
with the scriptures on this. How about going after them?!
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: Tom
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 13:11:27 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Kevin If you had been here for a while you would know that almost
everything that others say on here, especially from the Calvinist
perspective is challenged by Gene. What I can not figure out, is
if Gene is sincere, then why does he continue to post on this board?
Can't he find others who believe like him? But then again, come
to think about it, there probably isn't any that believe like him.
If that is true he must be a pretty lonely guy. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: Gene
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 15:44:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, A person does not grow if they just read, post, chat, with
people who think alike. This is probably why I have not been kicked
off this forum.
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 15:55:46 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Gene, As far as what you believe I really only have this thread
to go by. I guess I could go back and read the other threads that
people are alluding to. But in the case of this thread, do you believe
that this is the problem with the people who post here? I know it
is not really possible to tell that from simply posting but if what
others are saying about your beliefs are true then why dwell on
an issue that is not an issue here? I will just blantantly ask you
Gene. Are you a Christian? Do you hold to the teachings of the scriptures?
Is the Bible your final authority on everything? Who do you say
Jesus is? Who is the author and creator of your salvation? Who is
the Holy Spirit? Save the grace of God are you a sinner damned to
hell? I know these are direct questions but they are important.
If one is not a Christian then it is irrelevant what one thinks
is and isn't true worship. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: john hampshire
To: kevin
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 03:10:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Kevin, Just to spare you and others endless frustration, there are
a few on this forum who make sport of theology. They are not here
to be taught, or even to teach. Instead they want to play a game
and see what reactions they can get with others. Of course there
is an endless attempt by theologically minded folks to bell the
cat, which makes the game an endless oddity here. It never ends.
Here is how the 'game' works: Post A: Do you believe in rain? Gameboy:
I believe in water. Post A: Then you belive rain is made of water?
Gameboy: No, I believe they are different. Post A: How? Gameboy:
Water is wet, rain falls? Post A: What does that mean, it makes
no sense. Gameboy: I believe dirt is not rain or water. Post A:
You didn't answer my question, and I'm confused. Gameboy: I believe
just what you believe, rain is dirt. Post A: I didn't say that,
why did you misquote me? Gameboy: I didn't, you did Post A: What
are you talking about, you still didn't answer me? Gameboy: You
asked if rain is wet and I said it was. Post A: No, you said rain
is not wet. You are not being honest. Gameboy: Yes I am, you are
just not willing to see the truth. Post A: What truth? You make
no sense at all. Gameboy: Not me, I'm just too special for you to
understand. Post A: You defy logic, you are wasting everyone's time.
Gameboy: You say that because you are jealous of me, I actually
have only said the truth. Post A: You haven't said anything, I don't
think you are even a Christian. Gameboy: You've judged me, you have
thereby committed sin. You are a sinner. Post A: I don't know why
I am talking to you, I quit. Gameboy: Sure you quit, you finally
realized I am right. Rain is wet, just like I said in the beginning.
If you like this kind of game, have at it. It appears to be addictive
for those who think they can 'win' and corner the cat. Enjoy. john
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:26:42 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John You got that right! Tom
|
Subject: Re: Reason
From: kevin
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 03:57:01 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
john, Thank you for the information. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 14:41:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Section 2 of the Confession Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost; and to him alone; (3) not to angels, saints,
or any other creature:(4) and, since the fall, not without a Mediator;
nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone.(5) (1) Rom.
1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68; Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; 18:3; Rom. 10:12;
Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33. (2) Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9;
Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9,10; Deut. 15:1–20; Ex. 3: 20:4–6; Col. 2:23.
(3) Matt. 4:10; John 5:23; 2 Cor. 13:14. (4) Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10;
Rom. 1:25. (5) John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; Eph. 2:18; Col. 3:17. These
sections address and instruct us on the importance and obligation
of worship, that is acceptable to God. To this end, the following
points are expressed: 1. That it is a dictate of natural reason
and conscience that a Being of infinite and absolute perfection,
the Creator, Possessor and sovereign Lord, the Preserver and bountiful
Benefactor of all creatures, and the absolute moral Governor of
all moral agents, should be adored, praised, thanked, supplicated,
obeyed, and served, is self–evident, and is witnessed to by the
common consent of all nations of all ages. The reasons for this
are— (1) His absolute perfection in himself. (2) His infinite superiority
to us. (3) His relation to us as Creator, Preserver, and moral Governor.
(4) Our absolute dependence upon him for every good, and our obligations
for his infinite goodness to us. (5) His commands requiring this
at our hands. (6) The impulse of our nature as religious beings
and morally responsible agents. (7) The fact that our faculties
find their highest exercise, and our whole being its highest development
and blessedness, in this worship and service. 2.
Since we know that the Scriptures are the 'whole counsel of God,'—containing
all that is necessary for a proper worship of God, it necessarily
follows that since God has prescribed the mode in which we are acceptably
to worship and serve him, it must be an offense to him and a sin
in us for us either to neglect his way, or in preference to practice
our own. It may well have been that in the natural state of man,
and in the modal relations to God in which he stood before the fall,
his natural reason, conscience, and religious instincts might have
sufficed to direct him in his worship and service. But since man’s
moral nature is depraved, and his religious instincts perversed,
and his relations to God reversed by sin, it is self–evident that
an explicit, positive revelation is necessary, not only to tell
man that God will admit his worship at all, but also to prescribe
the principles upon which, and the methods in which, that worship
and service may be rendered. As before shown from Scripture, not
only all teaching for doctrine the commandments of men, but all
manner of will–worship, of self–chosen acts and forms of worship,
are an abomination to God. At the same time, of course, there are,
as the Confession admits, chapter 1., s. 6, “some circumstances
concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church,
common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by
the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general
rules of the Word.” These relate obviously to the application of
the principles and “general rules” laid down in Scripture, for our
guidance in worship and ecclesiastical government, to the varying
times and circumstances of the case in hand. But we have in no case
any right, upon the ground of taste, fashion, or expediency, to
go beyond the clear warrant of Scripture.
Hodge, A. A., Commentary on the Westminster Confession, (Escondido,
CA: Ephesians Four Group) 1999.
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 15:24:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, Remember the question(s)of the post is 'What' is true worship
not 'why' we worship God. I looked at the verses you (opps...someone
else cited) but none say what we do on Sunday mornings is in and
of itself worship to God. You have showed me what 'others' think
about the subject of worship, now tell me what YOU think. I am thinking
you have an opinion on this subject.
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 17:17:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, Remember the question(s)of the post is 'What' is true worship
not 'why' we worship God. I looked at the verses you (opps...someone
else cited) but none say what we do on Sunday mornings is in and
of itself worship to God. You have showed me what 'others' think
about the subject of worship, now tell me what YOU think. I am thinking
you have an opinion on this subject.
---
Gene,
To very briefly answer you question,
one can certainly come to an understanding of what is true worship
from both the objective statements in the Old and New Testament
and then see them applied by the New Covenant Church in Acts and
the Epistles. Obviously the myriad passages that could be referenced
to this are far too many to even begin to list. However, what I
can do if you are REALLY interested is to go here: The Covenantal Sabbath and look through the Table of Contents, which is quite
detailed and find an appropriate section that deals with this topic.
I am one who is convinced that true worship and the perpetuity of
the Sabbath are inseparable. And thus all true corporate worship
will and MUST take place on the New Covenant Sabbath. The content
of that worship can be discussed surely, but please, one part of
that worship at a time!! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Linda
To: Gene
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 17:15:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
It would be good to look at what the early church did in Acts 2:41,42.
Not only did they baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of sins, but v. 42 tells us that the 'were continually devoting
themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking
of bread and to prayer.' Four ingredients in the worship service:
hearing the message of the gospel, teaching, fellowship, prayer.
Linda
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: Linda
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 17:57:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Linda, I agree we need to 'continue in the apostles teachings...'
but NOWHERE does it say that is 'worship.' Where does it say in
scripture that those are 'four ingredients in the worship service'?
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 20:49:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Linda, I agree we need to 'continue in the apostles teachings...'
but NOWHERE does it say that is 'worship.' Where does it say in
scripture that those are 'four ingredients in the worship service'?
---
Gene,
Since you have questioned nearly
everything ever held to be true by the historic and Protestant Church,
I cannot help but wonder if you believe in ANYTHING. Further I have
to wonder if you believe that the Scriptures teach ANYTHING objective!
So, why don't we just turn this charade around and I'll ask YOU...
'What is true worship?' And further, from whence does your epistemology
originate for your view (that is if you even have one?)!
Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:45:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, Good question. Here is what I believe to be true 'New Testament'
worship: Rom 12:1 says we are to 'offer our bodies as living sacrifices...which
is our spiritual act of worship.' Our lifestyle and what we do 24/7
is our worship to God. NOT what we do just on Sunday mornings. There
are 168 hours in a week. Most people attend 'church' services maybe
3 hours per week. Can we judge whether someone is worshiping God
properly or improperly based on just 3 hours? When we have this
view of 'worship' on Sunday mornings we cheapen true worship. We
need to emphasize that how we live our lives is true worship to
God. Didn't Jesus tell the samaritian woman that worship was not
to be confined to a 'location' (John 4:24)? The 'protestant' church
may hold 'Sunday morning worship' to be true but it is not biblical.
Again, I know of no scripture that says the things most Christians
do on Sunday mornings are 'worship.'
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: lazarus
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 11:18:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene - are you now going to tell us HOW to worship God aright? What
is this new revelation that has escaped the Churches of Jesus Christ
for the past 2000 years? Could it be that she has missed the mark
entirely on the most important aspect of her eternal and singular
existence...namely, THE WORSHIP OF GOD??? Anyway, I'm glad to see
you using scripture to defend your views... but also bear n mind
that our historical doctrines have come about, and rightly so, from
delving into the whole counsel of God ...in order to preclude error, contradiction, etc. We
must consult the entire written word...and not look for isolated
prescriptions for our beliefs. You expect to find a single chapter
(and associated verses) specifically addressing the 'how to's' of
worship of an infinite and absolutely holy God? Don't think so.
;-) Whom shall he teach knowledge? and
whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned
from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon
precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here
a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another
tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the
rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing:
yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them
precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line
upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go,
and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. (Isa 28:9-13) So with that, I must encourage you to consider what the
Spirit-wrought Church has defined and defended based on systematically
searching scripture relative to worship....and lean NOT on your
own understanding, as you seem so prone to do. Also keep in mind
that we have precedent in the OT for how our covenantal God is to
be approached...particularly on His Holy Day (the Sabbath)... when
the saints (slain along with Christ from before the foundations
of the world) assemble (as though we were in heaven ourselves before
the very throne of God) to give glory, laud, and honor due the King
of Kings. laz p.s. I find it ironic hearing you criticize historical
Christian worship...you not even embracing the true God of the Bible....
hmmm I say the first step in understanding and paying worship is
finding the RIGHT God.
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: lazarus
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:34:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Lazarus, I think I missed the scripture reference in your post.
Tell me again what the New Covenant scriptures teach about 'going
to worship'? Praying, singing, taking the LS, preaching is not NT
worship! You have not given scripture to show Christians went 'to
worship.' This is not NEW relevelation, it is all right there in
the NT, look it up yourself!!! Living our lives holy and pleasing
to God IS true NT worship. And the scripture, Rom 12:1!
|
Subject: HEY GENE
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 06:33:48 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Gene, Do you consider it wise to base your entire view of worship
on one verse? Also could you explain how you came about this view
a little better. I have looked up Rom. 12:1 and found the following
stated: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,
that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy ,acceptable
to God, which is your reasonable service. NKJV I beseech you therefore,
brethern, by the mercies of God, that ye present you bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
KJV I even checkec the erroneous Living Bible and could not find
your definition of true worship. I would agree that this is a 24/7
charge to the Church. Also take vers 1 with vers 2. That is important
since the word 'and' appears. Conjunctions are almost always used
for an additional statement on the subject at hand. The word 'and'
links the two verses together. It is a common error of Bible readers
to be confused by the numbering of verses and chapters. We must
always remember that Paul and the other writers never inserted them
in there. So verse 2 adds to verse 1 that we are not to be conformed
to this world but transformed. Does not the coming together of the
saints to offer up praises to God do that? Is not the purpose of
communion (Lord's Supper) for the children of God to remember their
Savior and to partake of His mercy once more? Do these things not
transform the believer by the renewing of his/her mind? These two
verse are better viewed supported by Peter's quoting of the OT of
'Be ye holy as I am holy.' Paul is telling us that in all things
to remember Whose we are. That is the Lord Jesus Christ's. Paul
is writing to the church at Rome. They had their problems with the
world at the time. Read a little history. Paul is commending them
to stand up under persecution by commiting all that they are every
day to the Lord. It is a good commendation to the Church today as
well. I am blessed to live in a country that, for the moment, allows
me to worship as I desire. One day that may not be the case. But
according to Rom. 12:1-2 I should always present my body as a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God. It is this that Paul states
is reasonable service. As is not being conformed to this world (giving
up my faith to follow the sins and temptations of this world) but
rather I am to be transformed byt he renewing of my mind so that
I may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of
God. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: HEY GENE
From: Gene
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 15:35:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Yes indeed, verse 2 is with it! Thanks for pointing that out. But
it is sort of like Jesus quoting the first line in Psalm 22 when
he meant the whole psalm! :) John 4:24 (and its context) speak of
worship also. Again, there is nowhere that says the Lord's Supper,
preaching, praying etc are 'worship' in and of themselves. NT worship
to our Father is the way we live our lives. Sure, part of that is
singing etc. but the majority of the time it is our lifestyle. It
is my 'opinion' that we will be judged based on our lifestyle, not
what we do on Sunday mornings at church.
|
Subject: Re: HEY GENE
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 16:13:33 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Gene, I agree. But I would not put coming together away. Jesus said
that where 2 or 3 are gathered in My name, there I will be. And
we are commanded to not put off coming together. Jesus institude
both baptism and the Lord's Supper for our benefit as well. Communion
is obviously common since Paul deals with it in his letters to the
Corinthians. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: HEY GENE
From: Gene
To: kevin
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 19:14:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Kevin, I am assuming you are referring to Matthew 18:19. The context
is discipline and not how many need to gather together to 'make
a church' etc. So the verse doesn't even apply to this discussion.
I agree we need to come together and not 'forsake the assembly.'
But nowhere does it say the Christians came together to 'worship'
(at least I know of no scripture). No one has yet made reference
to one on this board.
|
Subject: Acts 2:42 again
From: mebaser
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 23:26:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
But nowhere does it say the Christians came together to 'worship'
(at least I know of no scripture). No one has yet made reference
to one on this board.
---
Acts 2:42 says 'And they were
continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.' Gene, You claim
to understand that Romans 12:1 indicates that worship can be done
by everything you do. Also, do not forget 1 Corinthians 10:31 (Whether,
then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of
God.) and other passages like it, for they declare that all of our
actions can ascribe glory to God. If that is not worship then nothing
is. Now back to Acts 2:42. In that verse, Christians in the early
Church gathered together to devote themselves to 1. the apostles
teaching 2. fellowship 3. breaking of the bread 4. prayer Now, if
it is possible to worship and give glory to God in anything that
we do, then that includes the 4 elements practiced by the early
Church. The teaching of the apostles, like modern day biblical preaching,
can be worshipful in that we respond to the preached word by practicing
the principles taught us by godly pastors, and giving the glory
to God for it. Fellowship, both in the early and modern Church,
can be worshipful if we edify the body of Christ by ministering
to each other, and giving the glory to God for it. Breaking of the
bread, or communion, is worshipful in that we somberly remember
the work of our Lord on the cross and respond in repentance of our
sins, and giving the glory to God for it. Finally, prayer... if
I even have to show how this is worship, then we are in trouble.
There, now you cannot say that nowhere does it say the Christians
came together to 'worship.' For it says it in principle in Acts
2:42. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Acts 2:42 again
From: Gene
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:54:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser. I agree with your post about Acts 2:42! However, it does
not say they came together to worship. Yes, they came together for
edification etc. and we need to do that on a regular basis. You
are proving my point that nowhere does the Bible say the Christians
came together to worship. Acts 2:42 included. Ask yourself, why
did Luke not say they came together to worship God?
|
Subject: you missed my point
From: mebaser
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 22:00:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser. I agree with your post about Acts 2:42! However, it does
not say they came together to worship. Yes, they came together for
edification etc. and we need to do that on a regular basis. You
are proving my point that nowhere does the Bible say the Christians
came together to worship. Acts 2:42 included. Ask yourself, why
did Luke not say they came together to worship God?
---
Gene, You missed my point. I said that being taught by the apostles,
engaging in fellowshipping, breaking bread in Communion, and praying
are acts that can be seen as worship. Do you believe that these
acts cannot be acts of worship? Then what acts are there that can
be worship? mebaser
|
Subject: Re: you missed my point
From: Gene
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 03:37:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser, They are only worship in that sense because it is something
we do in our lives as Christians. But my point is is that those
'acts' are only a small part of the Christians worship to God. We
spend about 3 hours a week doing them and the rest of the time we
are out in the world living our lives. Why do we emphasize the former
and not the latter when we spend the bulk of our time doing the
latter? Our emphasis MUST be placed on the latter!
|
Subject: Re: you missed my point
From: mebaser
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:12:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser, They are only worship in that sense because it is something
we do in our lives as Christians. But my point is is that those
'acts' are only a small part of the Christians worship to God. We
spend about 3 hours a week doing them and the rest of the time we
are out in the world living our lives. Why do we emphasize the former
and not the latter when we spend the bulk of our time doing the
latter? Our emphasis MUST be placed on the latter!
---
Hi Gene, I already agreed with you on that point Gene. So then,
if I am reading your post correctly, you DO agree that those acts,
that were done in the Sunday service in the New Testament, WERE
worship in SOME sense, right? If this is the case, then it is a
true statemnt that the Sunday morning services that we call worship
services are indeed that. Think of it this way; we need to be worshipping
God at all times, but the 3 or so hours that we come together on
Sunday mornings CORPORATELY are a service for us to do CORPORATELY
what we need to be doing at all times INDIVIDUALLY during the week
(or corporately during the week, a worship service does not have
to be on a Sunday, but that is not to say that we don't need a service
on Sunday. Pilgrim's point attests to the fact that Sunday corporate
worship is essential, but my point is that beyond that Sunday service,
we can have others during the week.) In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: another way of saying it
From: mebsaer
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:24:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Gene, it's me again. I just thought of another way of saying
what I have been saying all along. I hope it helps. If you advocate
that we need to stop calling the Sunday morning service a 'worship'
service, then are we to NOT worship on Sunday mornings? What should
we do then for those three or so hours? To be sure, the seeker friendly
movement is guilty of doing just that, that is, they DO NOT engage
in worship on Sunday mornings. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: another way of saying it
From: Gene
To: mebsaer
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:35:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
mebaser, We are to edify one another (Heb 10:27). This is done by
songs, praying, preaching et al. Singing praises to God is a wonderful
way to edify each other AND to glorify God. :)
|
Subject: help me out here
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 09:55:16 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Gene, Did you read my post below with definitions of worship? From
your posting here you would not disagree with it. I agree that there
are those who place more emphasis on what happens on Sunday than
they do on any other day. I also agree that we must live our lives
in continual prayer and in continual worship. I do not agree that
our emphasis must be placed only on how we live our lives. I do
not know if that is what you are stating but it can be taken as
such. If I am wrong then I apologise in advance. I do believe that
if a person presents his/her body as a living sacrifice, holy acceptable
to God, which is his/her reasonable service and he/she is not conformed
to this world, but is transformed, by the renewing of his/her min,
that he/she may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect
will of God, then he/she will also come together with others to
listen to the Word taught, exhort one another, pray corporately,
partake of the Lord's Table, in effect do all that was commanded
by the Lord (which includes Sunday worship). The fact that there
are those who are hypocritical in their worship does not negate
worship as it is practiced by the Church. This type of reasoning
leads to relativism. Let us take it to its logical conclusion. Paul
tells us that there are those that partake of communion unworthily
and therefore eat and drink damnation upon themselves. Are we then
to do away with communion even though it was instituted by our Lord?
Are we to do away with Baptism because there are those who make
a public profession and later turn their backs on Jesus to their
damnation? I believe that the reason we see lax Christianity outside
of the Sunday worship is because there is lax teaching inside the
Sunday worship. But that does not mean we throw the baby out with
the bathwater. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: help me out here
From: Gene
To: kevin
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:18:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You are right, we must not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Let us be true to scripture. The NT emhasis on worship is not 'confined
to a local' (John 4:21ff). But instead we are to worship God with
our bodies. Should more emphasis be placed on daily living than
the 3 hours (or so) we spend in church on Sunday? YES!! Should we
stop meeting together on Sunday? NO!! True NT worship to God the
Father is to 'walk in the light as he (Jesus) is in the light.'
|
Subject: a little light that goes with my other posting
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08,
2000 at 05:37:49 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Gene, Another thing to look at in your study of worship.
Only the NASU, NIV, and the NCV translate 12:1 with the word worship.
They also consider it spiritual worship. Compare Rom 12:1-2 to John
4:21-24 where Jesus is speaking to the woman about spiritual worship
as well. This might shed some light on the discussion at hand. In
Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: a word study for you
From: kevin
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 05:29:56 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Gene, Here is a little defining of worship for you from Vines Expository
Dictionary. Worship 1. PROSKUNEO to make obeisance, do reverance
to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent
word rendered worship. It is used of an act of homage or reverence
(a) to God, e.g., Matt. 4:10; John 4:21-24; I Cor. 14:25; Rev. 4:10;
5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:10 (2nd part) and 22:9; (b) to Christ, e.g.,
Matt. 2:2, 8, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17; John
9:38; Heb. 1:6, in a quotation fo the Sept. of Deut. 32:43, refering
to Christ's second Advent 2. SEBOMAI to revere, stressing the feeling
of awe or devotion, is used of worship (a) to God Matt. 15:9; Mark
7:7; Acts 16:14; 18:7, 13; (b) to a goddess, Acts 19:27. See DEVOUT,
NO 3 3. SEBAZOMAI akin to No. 2, to honor religiously, is used in
Roma. 1:25. 4. lATREUO to serve, to render religous service or homage,
is translated worship in Phil. 3:3 '(who) worship (by the Spirit
of God),' R.V., A.V., '(which) worship (God in the spirit)'; the
R.V. renders it to serve (for A.V., to worship) in Acts 7:42; 24:14;
A.V. and R.V., '(the) worshippers' in Heb. 10:2, present participle,
lit., '(the ones) worshipping.' See SERVE 5. EUSEBEO to act piously
towards, is translated 'ye worship' in Acts 17:23. See PIETY (to
shew) NOTES: (1) The worship of God is nowhere defined in Scripture.
A consideration of the above verbs shows that it is not confined
to praise; broadly it may be regarded as the direct acknowledgement
to God, of His nature, attributes, way and claims, whether by the
outgoing of the heart in praise and thanksgiving or by deed in such
acknowledgment. (2) In Acts 17:25 THERAPEUO, to serve, do service
to (so R.V.), is rendered 'is worshipped.' As you can see that this
passage supports your claim that there is no blantant definition
of worship in the scriptures, however, by looking at the Greek words
used by the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles it is safe to
conclude that whenever believers come together to acknowledge God
for what He has done and Who He is in song, in sermon, in the breaking
of bread, in all things that are holy on right before God's eyes,
then that is worship. I would warn you to be careful with your arguments
against practices of the Church that are not explicitly stated but
strongly implied and affirmed in the scriptures by the words and
the continuation of practices from the OT. This is the same error
that the Mormon and Jehova's Witness cults find themselves in. In
Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Christopher
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:40:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>You have not given scripture to show Christians
went 'to worship.' <<<<< Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John
were going up to the temple at the time for prayer, at three o’clock
in the afternoon.
|
Subject: Hi laz
From: Christopher
To: lazarus
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 11:46:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, Historic and consistent are two of my favorite words. :)
Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Hi laz
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:22:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, Historic and consistent are two of my favorite words. :)
Christopher
---
...I hope 'biblical' is right up there
too! ;-) laz
|
Subject: Re: Hi laz
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:27:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, How could it not be? Christopher PS--I like this conversation.
Covering the same ground, with much less wear and tear on both my
keyboard and fingers. :)
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 05:34:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gee Gene, for once, or twice, I agree with you. What many people
who attend church do on Sunday is NOT true worship. Lot of it is
self-worship....or entertainment, or a pep rally, or a pep talk,
therapy even. laz
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:37:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, Why do I understand this if I am 'not a Christian'? 1 Cor 2:14
gets thrown around alot at me implying I cannot understand 'spiritual'
matters. Are you agreeing with a pagan? :)
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 20:54:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, Why do I understand this if I am 'not a Christian'? 1 Cor 2:14
gets thrown around alot at me implying I cannot understand 'spiritual'
matters. Are you agreeing with a pagan? :)
---
Gene - hate
to burst your bubble but even Caiaphas prophecied! LOL! ....sorry,
that was just sooo easy. I just couldn't resist. laz
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 03:30:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, Yah, you have a point! :)
|
Subject: Re: True Worship
From: Robert
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 08:22:41 (PST)
Email Address: freegracealone@yahoo.com
Message:
Gene, I am with you on this one! Even laz has to finally agree with
you - somewhat anyway! Also, please don't forget Paul's admonition
to 'pray without ceasing' -- (and not just 'offer prayers' on Sunday
morning to be 'seen of men'..etc). Since there are no 'apostles'
living today, the 'offering up of prayers' is not biblical either!
Prayer is a continual heart attitude of all of God's elect. Reprobates
love to be seen of men, and love to offer up prayers'..'I thank
thee, O Father', they pray. They pray, but are not saved. You may
be right on this one, but I would just make sure your soul is saved
- that is the important thing here!
|
Subject: My soul
From: Gene
To: Robert
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 13:59:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Robert, I appreciate the concern for my soul. :) I am sure glad
the Lord is the judge of that and not anyone here on the forum!
:)
|
Subject: Re: My soul
From: Prestor John
To: Gene
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 16:19:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Robert, I appreciate the concern for my soul. :) I am sure glad
the Lord is the judge of that and not anyone here on the forum!
:)
---
Well Gene I think I can speak safely for all on
this forum by saying that we are all glad that the LORD is the judge
of all souls and not anyone here on the forum. ALL of us recognize
the fact that we are unqualified in that sense. However, it doesn't
mean that we can not discern when you are wrong. Prestor John La
Sinjoro Jesuo estas Jehovo, Dio de Dio, Hela de Hela, Genaris ne
kreis
|
Subject: Here is a thought
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 23:46:13 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Here is a thought, if Gene is actually saved, then it is logical
that all who hold to the Trinity (myself included)are not saved.
Tom
|
Subject: Re: Here is a thought
From: Gene
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 03:31:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom, Holding to the doctrine of the trinity is NEVER a 'test of
salvation' in the NT. Of course, we have been down this road before.
|
Subject: Re: My soul
From: Gene
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 18:41:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Of course! But I don't think some on this forum would agree with
your statement that 'we are unqualified in this sense.' Some have
taken the liberty to 'judge my soul.'
|
Subject: Re: My soul
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 07:57:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Of course! But I don't think some on this forum would agree with
your statement that 'we are unqualified in this sense.' Some have
taken the liberty to 'judge my soul.'
---
Gene,
We have the right and the COMMAND
to judge souls; to be discerning of unbelievers, false teachers,
false prophets, and those who would profane the name of God, etc.
What we have no right to do because we lack the authority to do
so is to make a judgment as to the preordained destiny of one's
soul. I cannot PRONOUNCE you as Reprobate or Elect. But I do have
the authority and the necessity to tell you that unless you repent
of your unbelief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity, just to
name one item, albeit the most important, you shall perish in hell.
What you believe is not mutually exclusive of what you do in life.
God holds us accountable for what we believe as much as He does
how we live. I realize this statement is not ecclesiatically/politically
correct today, but the truth doesn't change with the trends of pagans.
:-)
Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: My soul
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:35:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I cannot PRONOUNCE you as Reprobate or Elect. But I do have the
authority and the necessity to tell you that unless you repent of
your unbelief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity, just to name
one item, albeit the most important, you shall perish in hell. ____________
You are speaking with a forked tongue! According to you, IF I don't
change my beliefs I will go straight to hell. So does this make
me a 'reprobate' or an 'elect' (as I stand now)? You SAY you cannot
pronounce me as either but you pronounce me by implication that
I am a reprobate. I know this is a political year but I thought
you were above that!!
|
Subject: Re: My soul
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 12:46:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Gene,
No 'forked tongue' on my part,
but rather ignorance on your part. The categories of Elect and Reprobate
are not knowable by men infallibly. We can only 'assume' that one
was either Elect or Reprobate by perceiving one's life, doctrine
and profession and take notice of those things to see if they were
biblical, sincere and constant throughout one's life at the point
of death. God alone has decreed who are the Elect and the Reprobate.
However, the Church and individual believers CAN exercise discernment
upon the basis of those same attributes and make a judgment as to
a person's current state of spirituality. Damnable heresy held by
an individual does not make one a Reprobate necessarily. But it
does show that the individual is outside of the parameters of the
doctrine of Christ and thus is to be deemed an unbeliever. (Rom
16:17; Titus 3:10, 11). The same holds true if one's life is one
of overt sin, as Paul clearly teaches (1Cor 6:9, 10). To be sure,
Reprobates are destined to eternal torment. But unbelievers, who
we all are by nature, can and are regenerated and converted to the
Lord Christ, and thus what would have appeared to have been a Reprobate
was in fact actually Elect. Thus I will iterate my previous remarks
and say that unless you repent of your damnable heresies and turn
to the LORD Jesus Christ by a true and living faith, you shall surely
perish in your sins, both of body and of mind.
In His Grace, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: My soul
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 09, 2000 at 19:40:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Whew, glad that is cleared up!
|
Subject: Calvin and Nicaea
From: Dean
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 23:56:08 (PST)
Email Address: dean1_98@yahoo.com
Message:
I have a question that I hope somebody will be able to provide an
answer for. I am a charismatic, arminian Christian. I have not come
here to cause trouble of any description but because I would appreciate
your help. As most of you are no doubt aware many Reformed theologians
(including Calvin, Warfield, Reymond) reject the doctrine of the
eternal generation of the Son and the teaching of 'God from God'
as expressed in the creed of Nicaea. Now my question is this, What
is somebody of the Reformed persuasion to believe, as the Westminster
Confession of Faith teaches the eternal generation and uses the
words 'God of God' from the Creed in its statements? If somebody
knows the answer please let me know. Let me quote from the fairly
new book by Robert L Reymond (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian
Faith) In explaining what the Nicene fathers believed he says: 'It
means that these Fathers taught that the Son derives his essential
being or existence as God from the Father through an 'always continuing
and yet ever complete' act of begetting on the Father's part. In
sum, the Father alone has being from himself; the Son eternally
derives his being from the Father' Calvin was not willing to accept
that the Son derives his essential nature as God from the being
of the Father. Thus he did not accept 'God from God'. He says: 'The
beginning of deity [is] not in the bestowing of essence, as fanatics
babble, but by reason of order' Institutes I.13.24 'they do not
refrain from this dreadful manner of speaking: the Father is distinguished
from the Son and the Spirit by this mark, that He is the only 'essence
giver' I.13.23 'We teach from the Scriptures that God is one in
essence, and hence that the essence of the Son and of the Spirit
is unbegotten' I.13.25 'it is foolish to imagine a continuous act
of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted
in God from eternity' I.13.29 John Murry: 'Students of historical
theology are acquainted with the furore which Calvin's insistence
upon the self-existence of the Son as to his deity aroused at the
time of the Reformation. Calvin was too much a student of Scripture
to be content to follow the lines of what had been regarded as Nicene
orthodoxy on this particular issue. He was too jealous for the implications
of the homo-ousion clause of the Nicene creed to be willing to accede
to the interpretation which the Nicene fathers, including Athanasius,
placed upon another expression in the same creed, namely 'Very God
of Very God'...this [the writings of the fathers] evidence shows
that the meaning intended is that the Son derived his deity from
the Father and that the Son was not therefore autotheos. It was
precisely this position that Calvin controverted with vigour.' (Systematic
Theology, Westminster Theological Journal 25) Reymond suggests that
the wording of the Westminster confession was a compromise. In response
to this Arminius said '[The Calvinists say] that the essence of
the Father could not be said to be communicated to the Son and to
the Holy Spirit, in any other than in an improper sense; but that
it was in perfect correctness and strict propriety common alike
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. To these observations
I answered, 'that this opinion was at variance with the word of
God, and with the whole of the ancient Church, both Greek and Latin,
which had always taught, that the Son had His Deity from the Father
by eternal generation.' To these remarks I subjoined, 'that from
such an opinion as this, necessarily followed the two mutually conflicting
errors, Tri-theism and Sabellianism'
|
Subject: Covenant Theology
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 17:57:00 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com
Message:
Hi Everyone:
I may not be able to get right back to the Forum, but I do look
forward to the replies. I would like to know the various views to
Covenant Theology, Dispensational Theology, and what Pilgrim and
tohers have coined as Dispy Lites. I'm sure there can be many variations,
but if you could break it sown into basic catagories, I would appreciate
it. How it rrlates to such things as: Salvation, Baptism, Israel
and the Church, Tithing, and anything else of significance. Thanks
much folks......Brother Bret
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 21:23:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Bret, May I humbly defer answering your question in this forum personally
and allow Dr. John Murray to answer for me here?: The Covenant of Grace. This I think explains briefly but cogently Covenant
Theology's framework. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 19:36:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Dearest Bro Bret - me thinks you have asked to broad a question.
It won't be that easy. Besides, you already know the answer to most
of your questions. :-) Here is an interesting read about Christocentric
Theology (new one on me)...with a cute little chart at the end.
I would say, having scanned the article, that the author has never
heard of historical redemptive preaching....what could be more Christocentric?
In Him, laz p.s. noticed a recommended reading by Richard P. Belcher
(author of that great little book, 'A Journey in Grace'....I'm currently
in the middle of his 'A Journey in the Spirit'). He apparently self
publishes. See www.richbarrypress.com. Christocentric Theology www.christinyou.net/dthcthchth.html
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 22:01:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
What is 'historical redemptive preaching?' Thanks, Christopher
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 08:25:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
What is 'historical redemptive preaching?' Thanks, Christopher
---
Christopher - This should get you started in the right direction.
In Him, laz also: Informative Article by Lee Irons
By accident, I just stumbled upon my churche's website (didn't know
they had one)... if you wanna hear HR preaching, come by! ;-) Laz' Church Historical Redemptive
http://www.micronet.net/users/~baldwin/biblical_theology/
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 15:23:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>Is it possible for us to understand revelation,
more completely than: 1, Jesus? No. 2. The Apostles? No. 3. The
early church? Unanswerable. 4. The OT saints? Yes. 5. The OT prophets?
Yes and no. The OT prophets had direct revelation given to them.
In that sense we are not given to know like they knew. But we are
to endeavor in our study of the prophets to try to discover the
meaning of their oracles. In another sense, however, we are told
that the prophets made earnest search into the things which would
happen in the future. What they saw, they saw dimly, and thus they
reported cryptically. But we know these things better than they.
Not only that but even the least of the kingdom of God is greater
than the greatest of the OT prophets, John the Baptist.<<<<<
laz, Interesting link. I'll be frank and tell you that most of it
went completely over my head, but I think I got the general sense.
I was wondering if you knew why number 3 above was answered the
way it was. Also, does 'early' refer to first century, or does it
extend further? I'm assuming there's a controversy that's behind
the site's author putting that in there in that particular way.
Any background appreciated... Thanks, Christopher FAQ from Laz'
link www.two-age.org/faq.htm
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 06:06:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>>>>Is it possible for us to understand revelation,
more completely than: 1, Jesus? No. 2. The Apostles? No. 3. The
early church? Unanswerable. 4. The OT saints? Yes. 5. The OT prophets?
Yes and no. The OT prophets had direct revelation given to them.
In that sense we are not given to know like they knew. But we are
to endeavor in our study of the prophets to try to discover the
meaning of their oracles. In another sense, however, we are told
that the prophets made earnest search into the things which would
happen in the future. What they saw, they saw dimly, and thus they
reported cryptically. But we know these things better than they.
Not only that but even the least of the kingdom of God is greater
than the greatest of the OT prophets, John the Baptist.<<<<<
laz, Interesting link. I'll be frank and tell you that most of it
went completely over my head, but I think I got the general sense.
I was wondering if you knew why number 3 above was answered the
way it was. Also, does 'early' refer to first century, or does it
extend further? I'm assuming there's a controversy that's behind
the site's author putting that in there in that particular way.
Any background
appreciated... Thanks, Christopher
---
Christopher - if
there is any 'background', I'm not aware of it. But then again,
that's not saying much! ;-) In my personal opinion, the reason we
may not be able to determine who understands revelation best (btwn
early Church and us today) is that organically, we are the same
'generation'(1Pet2:9) comprised of many parts of the same Body....that
very 'generation' which would witness the return of Christ. They
were clearly closer to the basic facts, the 'foundation' if you
will...but much has been added to that foundation in the last 2000
years with a completed canon whereby we must rightly divide and
exegete His unfathomable truths line, by line, precept by precept,
here a little, there a litte.... So, who understands revelation
best? Hard to say...to each has been given a measure of 'faith'
according to the need and will of God. In Him, laz
|
Subject: Thank you, laz. (nt)
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 07:57:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 11:04:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz,
Thanks for posting these two articles.
I had already read Lee Iron's article some time ago, and do appreciate
what this man has contributed in the various articles he has written.
His exegetical article on Rom 11:26: Read it Here
is related to the topic of this thread and I would commend it to
those who haven't already read it. However, the article by James
Fowler I found to be 'weak'. IMHO, he like so many today, are averse
to any systemization of theology and have rather adopted to de-emphasize
the objectivity of God's truth, and more, and embrace more of an
'open approach' which smacks of Egalitarianism. The questions he
asks which he finds errant in Covenant Theology are contrived and
most 'strawmen'. Others are in fact anti-Calvinistic which seems
to indicate that he too, as most Evan-jelly-cals, cannot submit
to a Sovereign LORD Who 'works all things according to His own will'
but is rather 'dynamic' in the sense that He, as Fowler puts it,
'can change His modus operandi'! Such language should automatically
launch a 'Red Flag' and a little inner voice should whisper in your
ear, 'Openness of God Heresy'. J
I would like to hear from some of our Dispensational brothers/sisters
as to how they evaluate his summary of Dispensational Theology and
his perceived problems with it.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Egalitarianisnism
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 21:56:03 (PST)
Email
Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim I looked up the word 'egalitarian'
in the dictionary and it said ' holding the principle of equal rights
for all persons.' I don't have a problem with egalitarianism as
it says here. I believe that all are equal in the site of God(Christians)
but they have different roles etc.. For example the man has one
role and woman has another role. But that doesn't make the person
any less equal. Am I wrong in thinking that? Perhaps my dictionary
doesn't give the full meaning of egalitarian. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Egalitarianism
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 07:23:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
Unfortunately, your dictionary
is not going to give you the definition/use of the word Egalitarianism
as it is currently being used in the theological spectrum. Although
the root meaning has not changed, i.e., 'equality' it doesn't refer
to people as in Galatians 3:38 but rather to theological views.
The Egalitarian holds contradictory views to be equally valid. If
I may try to illustrate by analogy; it is like mixing oil and water,
or good and evil. Of course the Egalitarian is of necessity an Agnostic
of sorts, for if he/she held to 'Propositional Truth/True Truth'
(ala Francis Schaeffer) as The Lord Christ did (Jh 17:17) and as
Paul did (Gal 1:7-9; 2Tim 3:16) and as Peter did (1Pet 1:22; 2Pet
1:20, 21), the he/she would KNOW that opposing views cannot be held
together to form a 'broader, kinder theological position'. So, in
other words, the Egalitarian sees most theological 'systems' or
parts thereof as being EQUALLY true/valid and adopts them into a
mishmash system of his/her own. In application, there are many parachurch
organizations that practice Egalitarianism in one form or another.
Promise Keepers is probably the most notable and Campus Crusade
for Christ International would be another. The are generally easy
to spot for their statement of faith reads like a 'Dick and Jane
Story'. They have reduced everything down to a position of the 'lowest
common denominator' whereby everyone can be included regardless
of their personal beliefs. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Absolutes
'Without
absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless
in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and
wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.' -
John Owen (1616-1683) |
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date
Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000
at 14:19:18 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz,
Thanks for posting
these two articles. I had already read Lee Iron's article some time
ago, and do appreciate what this man has contributed in the various
articles he has written. His exegetical article on Rom 11:26: Read it Here is related to the topic of this thread and
I would commend it to those who haven't already read it. However,
the article by James Fowler I found to be 'weak'. IMHO, he like
so many today, are averse to any systemization of theology and have
rather adopted to de-emphasize the objectivity of God's truth, and
more, and embrace more of an 'open approach' which smacks of Egalitarianism.
The questions he asks which he finds errant in Covenant Theology
are contrived and most 'strawmen'. Others are in fact anti-Calvinistic
which seems to indicate that he too, as most Evan-jelly-cals, cannot
submit to a Sovereign LORD Who 'works all things according to His
own will' but is rather 'dynamic' in the sense that He, as Fowler
puts it, 'can change His modus operandi'! Such language should automatically
launch a 'Red Flag' and a little inner voice should whisper in your
ear, 'Openness of God Heresy'. J I would like to hear from some
of our Dispensational brothers/sisters as to how they evaluate his
summary of Dispensational Theology and his perceived problems with
it.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
I agree with your assessment of Fowler's piece. It was not
supposed to be linked...the one attached was the one I wanted to
link on Historical Redemptive preaching. I was somewhat intrigued
by this 'Christocentric Theology' Fowler spoke about....my point
was that HR preaching, as you well know, is covenantal and decidely
Christocentric as it's bibliocentric. blessings, laz p.s. Speaking
of Openness...stumbled upon this last night. By Dennis Bratcher Ever heard of this guy? Historical Redemptive www.micronet.net/users/~baldwin/biblical_theology/
|
Subject: Re: Covenant Theology
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 17:06:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Laz, No, haven't heard of this guy until
now. I read through his article and found it is the same old song
that hates the very idea of a Sovereign LORD and Creator, Who is
Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent; the Biblical God! Thanks
too for the other link. There are some interesting links to great
articles there as well. I've read a couple of Meredith Kline's earlier
works and was impressed by his insights and conclusions. In His
Precious Blood, Pilgrim
|
Subject: prophesy
From: Kenneth
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 15:58:53 (PST)
Email Address: vandahl@post10.tele.dk
Message:
This is hardly a new topic to this discussion group, still I would
ask you to consider the following. Holding that prophesy has ceased
with the other sign gifts, we cannot be blamed for despising t r
u e prophesying because we believe prophetic words should be objectively
recognizable as such. Yet it seems strange if 1.Thess. 5:20 ('Despise
not prophesyings') is to be understood as a warning to the Thessalonians
or to first century Christians only. The admonitions surrounding
this warning are all universal and to be heeded by all to all times
so how do we know for sure that this verse (v. 20) is not the condemnation
of cessationism? Might it be true that we should conceive of the
term 'prophesyings' as meaning something slightly different from
what is meant by it elsewhere in Paul? Kenneth
|
Subject: Re: prophesy
From: mebaser
To: Kenneth
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:50:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
This is hardly a new topic to this discussion group, still I would
ask you to consider the following. Holding that prophesy has ceased
with the other sign gifts, we cannot be blamed for despising t r
u e prophesying because we believe prophetic words should be objectively
recognizable as such. Yet it seems strange if 1.Thess. 5:20 ('Despise
not prophesyings') is to be understood as a warning to the Thessalonians
or to first century Christians only. The admonitions surrounding
this warning are all universal and to be heeded by all to all times
so how do we know for sure that this verse (v. 20) is not the condemnation
of cessationism? Might it be true that we should conceive of the
term 'prophesyings' as meaning something slightly different from
what is meant by it elsewhere in Paul? Kenneth
---
Dear
Kenneth, In holding to cessation, the simple answer to the 'prophecying'
part of your question is that that specific warning was given to
the Christians of the 1st century. But that in no way means that
we cannnot apply that passage/principle today. It can be very applied
in at least 2 ways. 1. As the Thessalonians may have done, we are
always in danger of despising the prophetic word of God. We have,
in the Bible, the recorded special revelation of God, which God
communicates to us via the human communicator of His word. We should
not despise the principles and teachings of the Bible. 2. The context
of the passage you refer to includes the phrase 'Do not quench the
Spirit' (v. 19). Verse 20 is a specific example of how the Thessalonians
were quenching the Spirit, by despising prophetic utterances, which
is someone working out their spiritual gift. We today can very easily
quench the Spirit when we quench someone's spiritual gift. Not that
we actually quench the Spirit of God, or the person's ability to
exercise their gift, (remember, a literal interpretation includes
the proper interpretation of obvious figurative language) but we
can quench its effect by holding a believer back from exercising
their God given ability, like preaching the gospel, serving the
needy, exorting the unruly, administrating, etc... In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: prophesy
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 03:12:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
>>'Holding that prophesy has ceased with the other sign gifts'...
It was the gift of tongues that would cease, and did. Knowledge
and Prophecy will be done away, or vanish away at some time future
(future of tongues ceasing anyway). It would seem likely, that since
the same Greek word ties Knowledge and Prophecy, they will be 'done
away' together at the same time. I believe tongues was done away
because it could only be expressed by direct divine intervention,
it came from God. Knowledge and Prophecy were also from God, but
they carry the extra dimension of having a source from God via His
Written Word. Here then, prophecy is no longer declaring God's words
as given directly by God, but declaring God's words given indirectly
through God's Word, the Bible. If every believer is to be a prophet,
priest, and king, then this gift, declaring God's word, is given
to every believer. Then, if this be true, the primary way to quench
God's Spirit would be to remain in your sins. By this I do not mean
we can resist God's will, but rather we resist what we know is true,
and do not come humbly before God. It is by despising the word of
God wherein we despise the teaching that God will forgive. So if
we do not despise prophetic utterances, that is, the word of God
as brought by His witnesses, then we are walking in the Spirit,
a sign we are born from above. In short, these verses are a plea
to turn to God for salvation. john
|
Subject: Re: prophesy
From: Diaconeo
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 10:20:20 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow_ml@yahoo.com
Message:
John, I was going to submit a post in regards to the two meanings
of Prophecy. YOu touched a bit on the one, without discounting the
other. I'm not going to disavow anything that you said, but would
rather expound on the two meanings of prophecy. As I just said,
prophecy has two aspects to it. Most people immediately think of
the more obvious one, foretelling, that of speaking on things yet
to come, much as the Old Testament Prophets did, and even as Christ,
John the Baptizer and the Apostles and early Church leaders did.
The most prophetic of the NT cannon would be that of the Revelation
of Christ as given to John. But there is also a second meaning to
prophecy, and that is forthtelling. Why the majority of Christians
do not see this as prophecy is beyond my understanding. I myself
did not come to this understanding until just a few years ago. I
had always thought of prophecy in the more usual way, that of future
events. But preaching the word is nothing more than prophecy. I
would have to agree with you in that. In regard to Pauls instruction
of 'Despise not prophecy,' I would have to say that he is not just
saying not to despise foretelling, but also not to despise forthtelling,
the preaching of the word. This would be right in line with your
thoughts on the gifts of Knowlege and Prophecy being done away with
in a still future time, specifically, 'when the perfect comes.'
When 'the perfect comes' there will no longer be a need for either
Knowlege or Prophecy, for we will have the full knowlege of God.
I believe that this will happen at the time of the start of the
Millenial Kingdom, but will be fully realized in the eternal state.
I will have to say here that I do not believe that there is a valid
gift for foretelling. If foretelling were still a valid Gift today,
then what we have is an incomplete Revelation, not only of things
to come, but aslo of what God would have us know of Him. Prophecy,
that of foretelling, is additional Revelation, and I believe that
all Revelation has been sealed with the ending of the book of Revelation.
Since all additional revelation has been sealed, then prophecy,
with the idea of telling future events, is also sealed. Many godly
men of this day, and of days gone by, have given much prophecy in
the aspect of expounding the Word that we have been given by God.
Evey time a pastor, or teacher stands in front of a gathered body
teaches from the word, he is in fact giving prophecy. In Christ,
Matthew
|
Subject: Re: prophesy
From: David McKay
To: Diaconeo
Date Posted: Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 03:17:08 (PST)
Email Address: musicke@ozemail.com.au
Message:
I know American spelling differs from English, but isn't the noun
'prophecy' in American as well as in British English? David McKay
|
Subject: Re: prophesy
From: Diaconeo
To: David McKay
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:35:07 (PST)
Email Address: bigelow_ml@yahoo.com
Message:
David, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1989 printing) the noun
may be spelled either 'prophecy' or 'prophesy.' Had to look that
up when you mentioned it. In Christ, Matthew
|
Subject: Third use of 'The Law'
From: AMOG
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:53:55 (PST)
Email Address: skramer879@aol.com
Message:
In 'Preaching Law & Gospel,' Stuemfle refers to and counsels
in regard to 'third use of the Law' without clouding the Gospel.
In other words, HOW do we 'call to obedience' in our preaching/proclamation
without making it the hammer of judgement -- the Law? FYI: Law 1)
shows sin, and 2)order to human society; and '3rd use' would be
to tell us how to live now that we're saved / direct our sanctification.
To restate the question: How and/or can we preach this '3rd use'
without it coming back or being heard as Law / judgement?
|
Subject: Re: Third use of 'The Law'
From: Pilgrim
To: AMOG
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:30:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
AMOG,
Laz speaks with true wisdom in
his reply. And I would add that the Law is an integral part of the
Gospel. Doubtless the keeping of the Law cannot save, for salvation
is by grace through faith ALONE, but not a faith that is ALONE.
The Law is that which the Spirit uses to bring about conviction
and sorrow. This conviction of sin and genuine Spirit-wrought sorrow
drives one both to repentance and the cross. Without a heart-felt
conviction of sin, one will have no need of a bloody atonement nor
of a Saviour. Secondly, as Laz has stated, the Law also acts as
the believers 'guidebook' from which all his thoughts, words and
deeds are regulated. For indeed that is exactly what the Lord Christ
saves us TO [righteousness] having saved us FROM [sin]. Good works
flow from the mandates of the Law which God set forth for our well-being
and His glory. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
'The law by which
God rules us is as dear to Him as the gospel by which He saves us.'
— William Secker 'Those who will not have the Law to rule them;
shall not have the Gospel to save them.' — Thomas Watson 'Here indeed
is pure and real religion: faith so joined with an earnest fear
of God that this fear also embraces willing reverence, and carries
with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed in the law (also
known as the regulative principle of worship--RB). And we ought
to note this fact even more diligently: all men have a vague general
veneration for God, but very few really reverence Him; and wherever
there is great ostentation in ceremonies, sincerity of heart is
rare indeed.' — John Calvin [Institutes, I:II:ii p.43] |
Subject: Re: Third use of 'The Law'
From: laz
To: AMOG
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 13:14:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
AMOG - if I understand your question, a legalist or an antinomiam
will always bring a pretext with which to club us with this 'third
use of the law'. In short, we can't keep from being judged by either...their
minds are made up. They will each reject it based on their erroneous
presupposition relative to the grace of God in justification and
sanctification. The legalist will insist on law-keeping for salvation
(and make up a few more 'rules' along the way)....the antinomian
will insist on no such Mosaic law-keeping (just 'believe' and observe
the post-incarnation 'house rules' of Jesus Christ as best you can...
but even that is optional) ... both missing the point that while
works (of obedience) never save, they do demonstrate a genuine saving
faith AT WORK. laz
|
Subject: Interracial Dating/Marriage
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 09:17:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
According to Bob Jones Univ....God created the races and had intended
them to remain distinct. This is their reason for banning interracial
dating on their campus. What is the fallacy, if any, of this position?
What does the Bible say? laz
|
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating/Marriage
From: kevin
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:49:32 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
laz, Please suffer me to post quotes from John Gerstner. In case
you are unfamiliar with him he was R C Sproul's teacher at seminary.
Gerstner wrote these quotes in an article published in 'The United
Presbyterian' on January 29, 1945. The title of the article is titled
'The Relation of Whites to Blacks' Gerstner is dealing with the
issue of segregation. Even though those laws have been removed from
our legal system I feel that some of what he says is relevant and
timely. 'Among Christians there appear to be two basic types of
polity governing the relation fo whites to blacks. One is to break
down segregation by giving equality; the other is to give equality
by breaking down segregation. Those favoring the first principle
of action argue that if we give the black man jsutice and an opportunity
to develop and establish himself favorably in the community, there
will result spontaneous commingling emerging from mutual respect
and admiration. If commingling is forced before the black has 'arrived,'
the effort will be abortive and harmful to interracial friendship.
The second group maintains that only by first breaking down the
wall of partition shall we be able to vouchsafe the black man the
benefits of equality.' I feel that this is important in the issue
being as the first view was widely held by those of southern states
and the latter by those of the northern states. I believe Bob Jones
University is located in South Carolina. I know that there publishing
company is in Greenville. And having been born and raised in South
Carolina I can tell you from personal experience (elders in my family)
that the first theory is more common than the latter one. With this
in mind we must make note that if you asked one of my relatives
(all of my family has lived in SC for several generations, my parents
moved to Kentucky where I now live making them the first of both
sides of the family to leave the state in over 100 years) if they
believed that a black person could gain equality in the workplace
when they proved that they could do the job they would agree with
you. However, every time a black man was promoted over a white man
(both men qualified, but the black man more so by his performance
on the job) then their would be an uproar. Where is this leading?
I am simply trying to show that their are still people living today
who were living during segregation and have even taught their children
of this, in whatever manner it may be. It is this quote of Gerstner
that I believe answers your question best. 'As for the method itself,
I am inclined to believe that only the radical alternative is thoroughly
Christian. Since the black man is our brother now, he should be
treated as such--now. What God has joined together as brother and
brother let not man put asunder as master and slave...Langston Hughes
once attended a YMCA conference at Franklin and Marshall College
when he was a young student. Among other subjects the black and
white delegates discussed interracial relations. Various problems
were examined, various solutions considered. A wholesome attitue
prevailed and constructive suggestions were made. But Hughes felt
that something should be done about all this--that some definite
action should be taken embodying the principles that were approved.
So he suggested that the YMCA conference adopt a petition that the
college on whose campus it was meeting shoulc receive blacks into
its student body. When this plan was proposed, there was no little
embarrassment, and even the YMCA leader was constrained to say,
'There are some things in this world we must leave to Jesus, friends.
Let us pray.' What this man meant as a change of subject, let us
remember is the most pertinent suggestion of all. Let us pray that
God will have mercy on us white sinners!' I have to say that Gerstner's
advice is very applicable to interracial dating and marriage today
as it was to interracial colleges. Let us all accept our brothers
and sisters in Christ as such. Let us pray that God will forgive
our ignorance and our sinful prejudices. We, as Christians, are
told to refuse to hold relations with non-believers in religion,
in marriage, and in their immoral activities (2 Cor. 6:14) God commanded
ancient Israel to not intermarry with other peoples. Why? Because
His covenant was with Israel and not the heathen. Because they do
not worship not honor God. I believe that is how we should choose
whom we date or marry. Are they in covenant with the Lord God? In
Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: From their response
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:40:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
What's the real issue? Interracial dating, or the rest of it? 'Is
there a Bible verse or passage that teaches against interracial
marriage? No. Is there a Bible principle upon which the University's
interracial dating stance is founded? Yes. The one-world principle--every
effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world together in
unity--plays into the hand of Antichrist. This first began at the
Tower of Babel, and it will culminate at Armageddon when the Lord
returns to establish His rule of peace and harmony for a thousand
years. Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy,
one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences
as He made gender differences. Each race and each sex should be
proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other.
At the Tower of Babel, God used language to disrupt man’s plans
for a one-world government. As a result of this disruption, the
people were scattered, and the races were polarized. One thing is
clear: God wanted a divided world, not a federalized world. Based
on this biblical account (Genesis 10 and 11), the University wishes
to give God the benefit of any doubt and avoid pursuing any direction
that would give assistance to the renewed efforts of man to create
a one-world community consisting of one religion, one economy, one
government, and one race. The biblical account of Babel and God’s
response to it are historical fact. This Christian institution merely
seeks to live and function under its best understanding of what
God is teaching us from this passage about His purposes for the
world.' http://www.bju.edu/fresponse.html
|
Subject: Interracial dating/marriage and the Bible
From: mebaser
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 16:30:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Dear Christopher, As kevin did for stan, I don't
know if you are merely reporting bju's views, or advocating them,
thus I do not respond to you, but to the issue at hand. The issue
at hand is whether or not there is a biblcal principle that repudiates
interrelational dating/marriage. I'm not going to defend whether
or not the world will culminate, right before the Christ's return,
with a one world system, including a unified religion, race, etc...
But BJU believes it will, so the principle they are trying to defend
MUST oppose all areas, not just one, in which the world will be
unified. If BJU is consistent, then they will also have to oppose
inter-racial congregations, lest 'racial pride' be damaged in favor
of a unified form of interracial worship (contra - Acts 17:30; Galatians
3:28), and multi-language outreach efforts, lest language diversity
be threatened in favor reaching the world with a common message.
(contra - Acts 2:6-11;Acts 21:37). Now, don't get me wrong, I respect
Bob Jones U. and I have some very godly personal friends on mine
who graduated from there (one of them, a persian fellow, has dated
white girls since graduating from BJU). But the issue of interracial
dating/marriages is one that BJU has missed the mark on by a long
shot. If believers of different races date and marry, will that
really fuel the fire of a coming one world system? No! I have known
too many interracial couples who have done great things for the
sake of the gospel of Jesus. As many have said, the only biblical
prohibition (with respect to this issue) given is to not be equally
yoked with unbelievers. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: An old Jewish story
From: Gene
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 19:58:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi all, Relating to this subject there is a good old Jewish story
of the goat that fell in love with the fish. They make a cute couple
but where will they live?
|
Subject: Most definitely...
From: Christopher
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:24:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
not advocating, I assure you. Christopher
|
Subject: AMEN!! (nt)
From: mebaser
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 01:05:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
|
Subject: Be careful, mebaser...
From: Christoper
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 08:04:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
If you agree with me once, can you be sure of where it might lead?
:) Have a good weekend, Christopher
|
Subject: Oh Boy!!
From: mebaser
To: Christoper
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 12:19:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
If you agree with me once, can you be sure of where it might lead?
:) Have a good weekend, Christopher
---
Thanks for the
warning. May God bless you. In Christ, mebaser
|
Subject: Re: Oh Boy!!
From: Christopher
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 14:45:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Good to get a chuckle here. May God bless you as well, Christopher
|
Subject: Re: From their response
From: kevin
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:54:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Christopher, That stance would also defend segregation in the Church.
It even sounds like there is a Christ for the whites, a Christ for
the blacks, a Christ for the Hispanics, etc. How many Adams were
there? I am not saying that this is what you believe since you did
not share your views on this. But I would say that Bob Jones University
is in danger of being like the Pharisees. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: From their response
From: Tom
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 12:40:47 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
I agree Kevin The only thing we as believers should be concerned
about is not being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Not the colour
of our skin. But I would be very cautious for the sake of the children
of the interratial marriage. Do I want to put my children though
the prejudice society has towards them? That I believe must be concidered
before any interratial marriage. Tom
|
Subject: Re: From their response
From: stan
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 14:19:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
There is another aspect to bju stance that hasn't come up. They
feel a strong responsibility to parents of their students to see
to it that student lifestyle is conservative and do not want students
doing what parents might not approve of. This principle in hand
it almost requires a complete bad on some things for all students.
There is a passage often set forth in this discussion that you might
want to consider. Acts 17.26
|
Subject: Re: From their response
From: kevin
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 14:51:23 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
stan, I can admire BJU and their desire to raise godly men and women.
I visited their website and read their defenses for their stances.
I do not disagree with any school having whatever rules they wish
to impose on their students. That is their right as an institution
in the US. However, I do have a problem with an institution doing
it in the name of Jesus. Even BJU admits that there is no biblical
evidence for their stance on interracial dating. They base it on
some one world view that would bring us all back to the days of
the tower of Babel. Now I would like to consider Acts 17:26. 'And
He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the
face of the earth, and has determinied their prappointed times and
the boundaries of their dwellins,' Being as you did not give a stance
one way or the other on the issue or this verse I do not refute
you or direct anything towards you. To best understand this verse
we must consider it in its context. We have Paul addressing the
Areopagus in Athens. He is dealing with the issue of their UNKNOWN
GOD. Paul tells them he knows this God they worship in ignorance
(Acts 17:23). He then approaches them philosophically by describing
God to them. God's creative power. How He is to be worshiped. God's
sustaining power. Now to the verse you mentioned. Paul tells them
how God placed all peoples on the earth. But vs 26 is not a stand
alone verse. Verse 27 begins with 'SO' which means that it finishes
the thought of the preceeding verse. 'so that they should seek the
Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though
He is not far from each one of us.' Paul explains here why God made
all from one blood and determined their preappointed times and boundaries.
It was not so that they would not intermingle in any way, but so
that they whould seel the Lord. I hope this helps. In Him, kevin
sdg
|
Subject: Re: From their response
From: Prestor John
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:21:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You can admire BJU all you want Kevin yet when they are wrong they
are wrong. First of all the whole concept of different races purported
by the amount of melatonin in ones skin or eliptical folds to eyes
(or lack thereof) shows me that their concept of different races
arises not out of the confusion of tongues at Babel but under evolutionary-Aryanism.
And after all Kevin are you going to tell me that God not only confused
tongues on that day but also altered skin and eyes? Do you mean
to say that you believe the Adam was white as a fish's belly? Or
that our Lord did not look like the inhabitants of Palestine that
we see today? Where do you suppose those traits came from (eyes,
skin, hair etc..) if not from Adam and Eve? GOD did make all nations
of man from one blood. All of us are descended from Adam there are
no seperate races there is but one race the human race and we are
all part of it!!!!! Now I have friends of mine from BJU but I told
them to their face that the university's policy of non-racial dating
was wrong and that there was no biblical warrant for it. In fact
their supposed reason (one world government, religion, etc...) is
so much posturing that traces its roots schizmatism promoted by
Darby against the corporate church! All members of the historic
protestant faith should speak out against this there is no justification
for it at all. Prestor John Servabo Fidem
|
Subject: such false accusations should not be allowed
From: kevin
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04,
2000 at 04:48:53 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
Prestor John, Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I admire BJU for their desire to raise godly men and women. I do
not and did not say I admire their methods. I also admire the Mormon
church's zeal for getting people into their cults. I totally disagree
with them. They are a tool of Satan. Yet if we as the Christian
church shared our faith as zealously maybe the church wouldn't be
where it is today. With that said I do not understand your harping
at me. Did you not read my post to laz above? Do not lay at my doorstep
views that i neither hold nor believe. Reread both posts. I do believe
that BJU has the legal right to restrict their students how they
may, but I do not believe they have the right to restrict them in
their manner in the name of Jesus. A person can by law be biggoted,
but I will not tolerate a person being biggoted in the name of Jesus.
That is my stance. Do not twist my stance. I sent an email to the
president of BJU stating what I posted to laz. A copy of it actually.
Now again I say reread both posts and then you may accuse me of
what you accuse me of. If you still see the need. In Him, kevin
sdg
|
Subject: Re: such false accusations should not be allowed
From: Prestor
John
To:
kevin
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 09:28:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
[He] thinks men honest that but seem
to be so; And will be tenderly be led by the nose As asses are Othello
(I,iii) I have not come to praise
BJU but to bury them. I can not admire a group that says they desire
to raise godly men and women, by means of bigotry. I for one do
not understand someone who says in one post that bigotry is wrong
and in the other post that he admires them. Faith,
I have heard too much; for your words and your performances are
no kin together. Othello (IV, ii) Prestor
John Servabo Fidem
|
Subject: Re: such false accusations should not be allowed
From: kevin
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 14:56:11 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Prestor John,
Let me rephrase once more since you are so insistant on perfection.
I admire their desire to educate godly men and women. Is that better?
In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: such false accusations should not be allowed
From: Prestor
John
To:
kevin
Date Posted: Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 23:06:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
No its not, as you pointed our Mormons desire to educate godly men
and women, but their desire is based upon lies that they have been
taught. And what do they teach? The same lies that they have learned
and call it godly living. You see here is the core of the problem
we see Mormons or BJU or anyone that isn't following after God's
Word getting what we think are results because we see people willingly
following them and doing what they teach. Then we look at the CHURCH,
God's elect and think why can't we get organized like that? We can,
we just need to follow man's teaching not God's. Following after
God is hard work, its not easy its the narrow and difficult road.
The other way is the easy road, and when you look to that direction
your taking your eyes off the target. I do not insist on perfection
God does, remember, be ye perfect. Prestor John Servabo Fidem
|
Subject: you need to get over some things
From: kevin
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Mar 07, 2000 at 05:55:32 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
You do take things so very incorrectly do youy not? I ask you, do
you not ever make mistakes? I agree that the error of the Mormon
church and other cults is damnable, however, do you think that of
all errors that people make? We are to judge one another in the
Lord. But we are also to use mercy and grace towards individuals
in the Lord at the same time. Maybe you are too critical of others.
Judging by your reply to me you seem to be. You spout of little
Latin phrases, quote Shakespeare, with the locations of the quotes
added. Why is that? Your attitude, granted it is only in writing
since I can hear no vocal tone, comes across very self-righteous
and egotistic. I have observed that in other posts as well. It leads
me to ask the question that the wife of CS Lewis asked one of his
contemporaries when he made an unusual remark. 'Are you trying to
be funny or are you just that stupid?' Secondly you misquote me
again sir. 'as you pointed our Mormons desire to educate godly men
and women,' I believe the actuall statement was in regards to their
zeal for converting people to their cult. My view of that is if
only the Church of Jesus Christ loved their God half as much to
seek and save that which is lost. You also speak as if that were
an impossibility. 'We can, we just need to follow man's teaching
not God's. Following after God is hard work, its not easy its the
narrow and difficult road. The other way is the easy road, and when
you look to that direction your taking your eyes off the target.'
Your statement quoted above comes across as if the Lord's words
to go and make disciples of the nations is not possible. Isn't Jesus'
burden light? (Matt. 11:30) Yes the road is narrow and difficult,
but the Holy Spirit is capable of empowering each of us for the
tasks of God. Men follow false religions because they are blind
and dead in their trespasses. They could do no otherwise. They do
not desire to do otherwise. But the light of life and of God can
open their eyes. I see no difficulty in the Church having great,
Godly zeal for evangelism. The church has experienced revivals before.
And she will again. I would suggest that instead of harping on every
typo of those who post here you look at to what they are writing.
Accept man's imperfections. Accept your own. Even if you cannot
accept my imperfections I know that I have a Savior who loves me
just the same and will give me the power to overcome them. 'Be ye
holy as I am holy.' I know this verse all to well. In Him, kevin
sdg
|
Subject: Re: FYI
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 17:35:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Just received this from a friend Dear Alumnus: Below is a letter
to the nation setting the record straight on behalf of Bob Jones
University. This letter will run as a full-page advertisement in
USA Today and South Carolina newspapers today, Friday, March 3.
In addition, Dr. Bob III has granted an exclusive interview to Larry
King tonight at 9:00 EST on CNN. It is the University's goal to
proclaim the truth and inform America on the issues at hand. Thank
you for your continued support and prayers. A LETTER TO THE NATION
FROM BOB JONES UNIVERSITY March 3, 2000 Dear Fellow Americans, For
the past few weeks, reports in print and broadcast media in connection
with the Republican presidential primary have characterized Bob
Jones University as a bigoted institution. This characterization
has been false and injurious to the school. Please allow me to give
you additional information so that you can form your own image of
our students, faculty, staff and graduates. WE'VE BEEN THRUST INTO
THE CURRENT POLITICAL DEBATE QUITE IRRATIONALLY. In the interest
of helping to educate the University's 5,000 students and to assist
them in practicing good citizenship, we allow political candidates
to come to our campus to speak on a regular basis. We have welcomed
officeholders and conservative candidates from the Republican party
virtually since the school was founded more than 73 years ago. Gov.
George W. Bush and Dr. Alan Keyes were two recent speakers in this
continuing program. This practice is followed in most of the nation's
institutions of higher learning. Bob Jones University is, first
and foremost, a traditional Bible-believing Christian place. We
believe in the absolute authority of the Bible, which clearly reveals
that our God is the creator of heaven and earth and of all therein.
Since its founding in 1927, the University, with 34,000 graduates
who are spread throughout the world, has not moved away from its
historic biblical roots. Bob Jones University's academic credentials
are heralded and respected. Our graduates are in demand throughout
the business, educational and professional worlds. They occupy high
positions in state and federal government, both elected and appointed.
BJU students want discipline because they know it is essential to
success in all areas of life. They want to be challenged academically.
They also want to graduate as people of better character, as better
Christians, and as more productive citizens. Millions of Americans
were unfamiliar with the University until a national media spotlight
was turned on it. Through this media coverage, most of it incorrect,
you have been given the opportunity to find out more about Bob Jones
University. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD BE PRECIOUS TO ALL AMERICANS.
Bob Jones University's beliefs are not the issue at hand, however.
Our right to be Bible-believing is the issue. This is religious
freedom in a nutshell. Religious freedom was the quest that brought
the Pilgrims to these shores in the first place. Religious freedom
is, indeed, the bedrock reason for our nation's existence. The framers
of our Constitution believed this. The First Amendment to the Constitution
states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . Recently,
U.S. Senator Torricelli from New Jersey attacked this freedom when
he announced sponsorship of a U.S. Senate resolution to censure
Bob Jones University for its religious beliefs. This attack ought
to offend and frighten every freedom-loving person. What other religious
belief will find itself in the gunsight of the U.S. Senate next?
Will it be: Islam's doctrines with regard to women? The Qur'an states:
'Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior
to the other' (Sura 4:34). Roman Catholicism's doctrine that the
Pope is infallible? 'The First Vatican Council has defined as 'a
divinely revealed dogma' that 'the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks
ex cathedra . . . is possessed of infallibility . . . that such
definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable . . .'' (Kevin
Knight, On-line Catholic Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm).
The belief in Judaism restricting the marriage choices of their
adherents? 'According to post-Sinaitic Jewish law, a marriage can
be contracted only between two Jews, so an intermarriage is not
recognized' (www.faqs/org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/05-Worship/). Would you
desire to see them persecuted by the Senate, by presidential candidates,
or by the media because their beliefs are not yours and may even
offend you? We wouldn't! RACIALLY BIGOTED? YOU DECIDE. We are not
racists in any shape, form or fashion. We do not hold one race over
another. Our admissions policy is open, and students of differing
races come from 50 states and 40 foreign countries. Our 1998 recipient
of the coveted Alumni appreciation award happened to be African-American.
We didn't give the award based on filling a quota. We gave him the
award because he exemplifies an outstanding Christian life. He represents
Christian living we want current and future graduates, regardless
of race, to emulate. We invite minorities to speak at our daily
chapels and annual Bible Conference, participate as guest artists
in our fine arts performances and lecture students in classes. We
work hard at promoting racial harmony in our local community. Approximately
40 percent of the individuals in our student body are volunteering
time weekly in a wide variety of activities, including working with
children from broken or abusive homes, teaching literacy, cleaning
up litter, repairing homes of the downtrodden, ministering to prisoners,
serving in churches, helping those with special mental or physical
disabilities and visiting the elderly in area nursing homes. The
volunteer efforts cross all racial lines and go into all segments
of the community. WE DO NOT HATE CATHOLICS, AS CHARGED. Our faculty,
staff and students do not hate Roman Catholics?we love them in Christ.
There is a wide gulf between Catholic and Baptist/Protestant beliefs.
Nevertheless, we respect the freedom of all Roman Catholics to have
their beliefs, just as we do individuals in other faiths. THE CORE
ISSUE IS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. We do not expect everyone to agree with
us or like us. The cross of Jesus Christ is a dividing line for
some. We don't quake or blush with embarrassment over the term 'religious
conservatives.' More importantly, we are not ashamed of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just
shall live by faith' (Romans, Chapter 1, Verses 16 and 17). Thoughtful
American citizens, Christian or otherwise, should see that religious
freedom is the core issue in this entire matter. To speak in defense
of Bob Jones University does not align anyone with our beliefs,
but with the cherished principle of religious freedom guaranteed
by our Constitution. Sincerely, Bob Jones III President Bob Jones
University Greenville, South Carolina P.S. Visit our website at
www.bju.edu for more information..
|
Subject: Re: FYI
From: kevin
To: stan
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 04:54:22 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
stan, The core issue is not religious freedom. I am a voting Christian
and my religious freedom is very important. Yet is not promised
in scripture in any place. BJU openly admits that their veiw is
not based on the scriptures. They claim to be a Christian college.
Why should they put up an unneccessary stumbling block for unbelievers?
Even if the government was to outlaw Christianity would that mean
that Christians would stop meeting together? No. I am pointing out
an error in their views that are not scriptural. They may make rules
to prevent interracial dating, but not in the name of Jesus Christ
my Lord and my God. That is the issue at hand. In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Re: Just sharing info -- NT
From: stan
To: kevin
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 14:54:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
.
|
Subject: BJU Buckles
From: scott
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 21:00:37 (PST)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net
Message:
I was listening to Moody tonight and it was reported that BJU has
done away with the rules concerning interracial relantionships/dating.
They have decided for what ever reason to change there policy. I
wonder how long before they will have to call Catholics true Bible
beliving Christians and bowing and kissing the Popes ring. scott
lewis
|
Subject: Re: BJU Buckles
From: john hampshire
To: any one interested
Date
Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 03:34:47
(PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
They claim the policy was a minor one, of no great
importance, and easily ridden. I suppose it is easily removed when
$ are at stake. Cannot understand how intra-racial dating leads
to a one-world government run by anti-christ. By the way, if we
are not allowed to intra-racially marry, how closely must we seek
our own race? If I am French-English-Irish, must I find those exact
bloodlines in my spouse? Would dating a Saxon-Welsh-Irish woman
be considered improper, a marriage outside my race? Of course I'm
being ridiculous, but so was BJU. john
|
Subject: Re: BJU Buckles
From: Gene
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 17:36:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I did not agree with BJU but at least they had some integrity to
admit there was no biblical basis for the policy and end it. Unlike
our President who still insists he did not do anything wrong when
he lied to the courts and the USA about 'that woman!'
|
Subject: Ya got that right...
From: Christopher
To: scott
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 22:44:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
The elimination of racism leads directly to the doctrine of papal
supremacy.
|
Subject: AntiChrist identified.
From: stan
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 18:47:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
IS BARNEY THE EVIL ONE ? Everyone knows Barney,... that cute purple
dinosaur. But here's something that you may not know: 1. Start with
the given: CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR 2. Change all U's to V's (which
is proper Latin anyway) CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR 3. Extract all Roman
Numerals: CV V L DI V 4. Convert these into Arabic values: 100 5
5 50 500 1 5 5. Add these numbers up: 100 5 5 50 500 1 + 5
---
- 666 There you have it..... A valid mathematical proof
that Barney is the Antichrist!
|
Subject: Re: AntiChrist identified.
From: Prestor John
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 20:16:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
IS BARNEY THE EVIL ONE ? Everyone knows Barney,... that cute purple
dinosaur. But here's something that you may not know: 1. Start with
the given: CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR 2. Change all U's to V's (which
is proper Latin anyway) CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR 3. Extract all Roman
Numerals: CV V L DI V 4. Convert these into Arabic values: 100 5
5 50 500 1 5 5. Add these numbers up: 100 5 5 50 500 1 + 5
---
- 666 There you have it..... A valid mathematical proof
that Barney is the Antichrist!
---
I have but one thing
to say to you and its in latin: Vescere bracis meis homo
|
Subject: Re:
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 21:05:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels .... I am become
[as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. Verium funium comedium
;-)
|
Subject: you two have too much time on your hands n/t
From: kevin
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 11:00:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
|
Subject: Re: you two have too much time on your hands n/t
From: Prestor
John
To:
kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 16:25:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
On the contrary I have exactly the amount of time that I have been
allotted to me. No more no less. Just because Stan can't recognize
Latin humor when he sees it doesn't mean that I am being frivolous
with my time. :^{P .Prestor John Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant
Which means (just for you Stan) May conspirators assassinate you
in the mall
|
Subject: Re: AAAAGGGGGGGHHH!!!!!!!
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 15:00:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
You ruined me vacation - can't go to the mall all next week - how
will I ever make it though the trials ahead of me?????????
|
Subject: Re: That's the pure joy of .........
From: stan
To: kevin
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 14:08:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
being armenian - you don't have to fight all the
battles ;-) and have lots of time! NOT! stan
|
Subject: Re: That's the pure joy of .........
From: kevin
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 14:52:53 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
I thought being an Arminian was a hobby until the
light of Calvinistic truth shined forth. ;) In Him, kevin sdg
|
Subject: Federal Headship and Animals
From: Lurker Jr.
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:15:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
I noticed that God condemned not only sinful man after the sin of Adam (and their
continuous sin) in Gen 6, but the animals/birds/etc as well. In
otherwords, the animals were not drowned as a consequence of a flood
meant for man...they were mentioned by name. Gen
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth,
and it grieved him at his heart. 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. Has anyone ever
considered the possibility (albeit remote since I don't think there
is any other scripture attesting to this theory) that in some way
animals were also condemned in Adam since they were under the care
of Adam...perhaps under his federal headship in some lower capacity
as man was to be the ruler and steward over the animal kingdom...naming
each beast/fowl...? I mean, God could have killed all human life
and spared the animal kingdom with say some disease. I am NOT suggesting
that animals are like people -created in the image and likeness
of God. LJ
|
Subject: Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT
From: stan
To: Lurker Jr.
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:22:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Ro 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth
in pain together until now.
|
Subject: Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT
From: lj
To:
stan
Date Posted:
Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:58:46 (PST)
Email
Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hmmmm, thanks
Stan...but can we infer that some sort of 'guilt' was also imputed
(not in the same sense as with man, of course) to the universe?
Afterall, did not the animals begin to eat each other only after
the Fall? Again, this is probably a stretch....speculation even.
The rest of ya'll, don't start laughing - Hey, it's conversation!
This place is like a ghost town as of late...where is everybody??
lj
|
Subject: Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT
From: Prestor John
To: lj
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 10:24:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hmmmm, thanks Stan...but can we infer that some sort of 'guilt'
was also imputed (not in the same sense as with man, of course)
to the universe? Afterall, did not the animals begin to eat each
other only after the Fall? Again, this is probably a stretch....speculation
even. The rest of ya'll, don't start laughing - Hey, it's conversation!
This place is like a ghost town as of late...where is everybody??
lj
---
Some of us are off licking our wounds and some of
us are off repairing our weapons and girding our loins. Prestor
John Stultus est sicut stultus facit
|
Subject: Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 00:10:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
With the imperfection of Adam God cursed the ground and it bore
thistles. God not only curse Satan but the serpent among all animals
and all wild creatures. Gen 3:14-15. So, it would appear that animals,
plants, and the ground itself shared in the transgession of Adam.
That is, Adam's was seperated from many blessings of God, and likewise
the rest of creation that Adam initially was given to rule over.
I suppose it makes sense if we think of Adam as an evil ruler who
is punished by having all his kingdom destroyed for his wickedness.
So in this manner all the animals were destroyed to show the futility
that the creation was now subject to by Adam's disobedience. So
now we know what killed most all the Dinosaurs (minus those on the
ark)....God did! john
|
Subject: Re: Rom. 8.22 maybe relate NT
From: lj
To:
john hampshire
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 10:33:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Thanks, John - so is this further biblical support for some kind
of a 'change' having taken place in Adam, animals, creation, as
a direct result of Adam's sin? In otherwords, Adam DID 'die' THAT
DAY...and did bring upon all men a 'sin nature' whereby wickedness
was the status quo? lj
|
Subject: Re: Well now .........
From: stan
To: lj
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 14:24:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
To go so far and say that there was guilt - co transgression and
all them thar thoughts seems a tad fer to go. Nature was cursed
as part of the curse on Adam, but don't think you sould go further
than that unless there is a I Bear or II Horse that we could refer
to. The curse on nature was part of those neat benefits of sin for
Adam - LABOR even though many of the younger generation won't admit
that stuff exists ;-) stan
|
Subject: Adam cursed?
From: Gene
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 14:30:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Stan You wrote: Nature was cursed as part of the curse on Adam,
Adam and Eve were never cursed, only the serpent and the land. Of
course, nothing said of the other animals.
|
Subject: Re: SO SOLLY ......
From: stan
To: Gene
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 14:34:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
used the wrong term - Adam was blessed with work and toil etc. and
Eve with what ever. ;-)
|
Subject: Re: SO SOLLY ......
From: Gene
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 15:07:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Stan, Sorry to hear you don't really care about this. Don't know
what 'solly' means exactly. Can you explain? Thanks
|
Subject: Re: So sorry you are sorry ..........
From: stan
To: Gene
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 17:24:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
but I don't know what you are sorry about me not
being interested in ;-) So Solly - A politically incorrect use of
an ethnic groups difficulty with r's and their substitution at times
with l sounds. Not an insult, but a normal light hearted phrase
that has been around longer than I. stan
|
Subject: Re: So sorry you are sorry ..........
From: Gene
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Mar 03,
2000 at 19:55:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Sure glad you cleared that up! :)
|
Subject: Ministry to First Nations People
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 13:31:27 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Hi Some of you may know that I have a laymans ministry to the First
Nations (Native) of my community. If any of you are not familiar
with first nations people, many have a history of alcohol abuse
and fetal alcohol syndrome as well many other things abound in that
culture. Although the ministry is somewhat successful, I have found
that even those whom have made a profession of faith, continue to
struggle with their pasts, as well as their culture heritages. Lately,
I have been feeling a need for the ministry to go a little deeper,
in order to try to help those people I minister to. What comes to
mind is creating some sort of a booklet that contains issues such
as: 'How to stay away from sin', 'Child rearing', 'Understanding
what makes us the way we are(the fall) and how we can live the abundant
life that Christian should be living' etc... One thing I have found
with most of the native people that I have come in contact with,
is that they can not understand deep writing. So any booklet I write
must be written with that in mind. I would like to get as much help
as I can before endevering to write this booklet. So if you know
of any articles, or anything else that might be appropriate, it
would be helpful. Also, as I don't want to reinvent the wheel, if
you know of a good booklet that is already written, please let me
know. If you feel that I am barking up the wrong tree, I am interested
in what you think would be a better way of approaching this matter.
Thankyou in advance Tom
|
Subject: Re: Ministry to First Nations People
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 01,
2000 at 22:16:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Tom, You had better hurry before the BC government
gives the First Nations your house and the land it sits on and you
are forced to move to the States.. :-). It has happened here already
to an entire community so be prepared. In His Grace, Pilgrim
|
Subject: Re: Ministry to First Nations People
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02,
2000 at 00:35:30 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim Could you please explain what you are talking
about? You said: 'It has happened here already to an entire community
so be prepared.' I haven't heard that this is the case. The government
said that nobody will have to give up any property in the land claims.
Can you emagine the reprocussions if that was the case. I would
be serprised if people started taking up arms in order to protect
their property. Tom
|
Subject: Re: Ministry to First Nations People
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02,
2000 at 07:19:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not
Provided
Message:
Tom,
I am very surprised that what
has happened in this area hasn't been on the news waaaaaay up there.
Perhaps it's too cold for the television and radio signals to work?
hahaha What has happened here, like in so many other places, is
that the First Nations people claimed that a certain portion of
land was 'sacred ground' and laid claim to it. As is the Politically
Correct thing to do, the government gladly allowed the First Nations
to take over the disputed property with full rights. Unfortunately,
there was a community living there of people who had built their
retirement homes; many quite expensive. So, the natives told the
residents that they could remain on the property but they would
be subject to a substantial lease arrangement which amounted to
$20,000 to $30,000 per year per household. Well, it doesn't take
a rocket scientist to figure out what the natives' game plan is;
to drive out all the people and move into these beautiful homes
for free. Currently, there have been injunctions served on the residents
and also eviction notices but the have all refused to leave and
now it's in the courts and probably will be for who knows how long?
This entire fiasco, which again isn't some remote case but common,
shows the hypocrisy and greed of these people on the whole. If this
land is allegedly 'sacred', then even the First Nations people themselves
wouldn't establish dwellings on that parcel of land. But they instead
wanted to either extort exorbitant lease payments from the long-time
residents or take over their homes. And regardless of which way
it went, they would be living on that land just the same. I am of
the opinion that injustices committed by people generations removed
upon others also generations removed cannot and should not be placed
upon the shoulders of contemporary people who are totally unrelated.
If the current practice were made a standard, then how far back
should the people of the world go in implementing it? Shall we not
hypothetically then grant the entire world back to the descendants
of the Babylonians? or further back yet? hahaha But obviously, this
is far from a theological topic unless we would bring up the topic
of the First Nations' animistic religion and how it has been incorporated
into the Canadian health care system, art (so-called), and other
facets of our culture. :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim |
Subject: Re: Ministry to First Nations People
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02,
2000 at 14:35:52 (PST)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim I think I heard about the case you are talking
about, it was in the UBC area wasn't it? From what I hear about
that case, the land in question already belonged to the native communinity.
But was leased out to others, I think it is horable that they were
allowed to get away with what they did. But I think that it is more
a case of peoples greediness in action. Give some people an inch
and they will take a mile. I understand what you are talking about,
indeed injustices committed by people generations removed upon others
also generations removed cannot and should not be placed upon the
shoulders of contemporary people who are totally unrelated. However
this matter isn't as old as you may think. For instance it was only
in the 70's that the last of the residential schools was closed.
These people have deep scars that go deep and it is going to take
a lot to make up for that. The native people are a very close nit
group, when one hurts in their community, all hurt in one way or
another. Of course there is absolutely nothing a government can
do, to aliviate this, land claims will not do it. The best thing
they can do right now is to make sure injustice doesn't happen in
the future. This is not a native verses white issue. I don't believe
that if it had been the other way around (the whites the injured
party) that it would be any different. The first nations anamistic
religion is no different that any false religion. That is the way
I am approaching this topic, when God reveals truth whether that
person is black, yellow green or purple, lol. It is the same, that
person will be a changed individual. There are some very Godly native
people in the native commmunity. Have you ever done any work with
the native community? It takes a while to gain their trust, but
other than some cultural differences, they are no different than
anybody else. Tom
|
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: Re: Everett Harrison
From: laz
To: Linda
Date Posted: Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 18:52:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Wow, I had a hard time finding much on Everett Harrison other than
the fact that he's referenced in many books and articles and has
written much. Oh, he was on the NIV development team. Otherwise,
not much exists on the www ON him and his views. No one has apparently
taken his views to task in recent years...must have been a prominent
vanilla evangelical...not much dirt or controversy. ;-) Lordship Article mentioning his position I would be willing to bet that he was not 'reformed'
in his soteriology. laz
|
Subject: Re: Everett Harrison
From: Linda
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Mar 02, 2000 at 15:50:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided
Message:
Hi Laz, I appreciate you taking the time to find this. I am very
surprised that Everett Harrison has not had more written about him.
He was mentioned by A.Wetherell Johnson (founder of Bible Study
Fellowship)in Created for Commitment as someone whose advice she
sought. I've seen his Romans commentary, briefly. I'm very surprised
to see that in the article you found he does not appear to be reformed.
I just assumed that all older Presbyterians were! I know his daughter.
She says he was a wonderful, loving man and father....a very humble
man with a good sense of humor. He had a passion for teaching and
his students had great respect for him, according to the preface
of a book given to him by students when he retired. Nice of you
to find this for me. Blessings, 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: 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 |
Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements
All Rights Reserved
